Suspicious data pattern in recent Venezuelan election
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu
Suspicious data pattern in recent Venezuelan election
1–10 of 536 posts
Re: Suspicious data pattern in recent Venezuelan election
#2God, I love mathematicians!
Re: Suspicious data pattern in recent Venezuelan election
#3[deleted]
Re: Suspicious data pattern in recent Venezuelan election
#4Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but isn't every vote total extremely unlikely if you make it precise to the exact number of votes? Like the chances of getting n+1, n+2... votes is roughly the same probability.
For example the probability of getting [1,2,3,4,5,6] as the winning numbers in the lottery is the same as any random set of numbers.
Re: Suspicious data pattern in recent Venezuelan election
#5If the post looks odd and makes no sense, it's because CF is blocking image loads.
I think there are two screenshots which are missing in the initial text.
Re: Suspicious data pattern in recent Venezuelan election
#6[flagged]
Re: Suspicious data pattern in recent Venezuelan election
#7[flagged]
Re: Suspicious data pattern in recent Venezuelan election
#8Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but isn't every vote total extremely unlikely if you make it precise to the exact number of votes? Like the chances of getting n+1, n+2... votes is roughly the same probability. For example the probability of getting [1,2,3,4,5,6] as the winning numbers in the lottery is the same as any random set of numbers.
Yes. For one set. But if your next lottery is 4,5,6,7,8,9 and then 11,12,13,14,15,16 it becomes improbable.
The issue here is that a bunch of the percentages imply super round numbers.
The signal isn’t that there’s a round number. It’s that they’re all round numbers.
Re: Suspicious data pattern in recent Venezuelan election
#9Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but isn't every vote total extremely unlikely if you make it precise to the exact number of votes? Like the chances of getting n+1, n+2... votes is roughly the same probability. For example the probability of getting [1,2,3,4,5,6] as the winning numbers in the lottery is the same as any random set of numbers.
That’s not what this article is about. Read the article.
Re: Suspicious data pattern in recent Venezuelan election
#10Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but isn't every vote total extremely unlikely if you make it precise to the exact number of votes? Like the chances of getting n+1, n+2... votes is roughly the same probability. For example the probability of getting [1,2,3,4,5,6] as the winning numbers in the lottery is the same as any random set of numbers.
The question was "How likely is it that the votes worked out so well that they were basically even 1/10 percentages and not ugly numbers?"
So for a given number of votes, which determines a split, how many times does the split come out so nice? Answer: Effectively none - there are always ugly numbers with lots of decimal places.
Now that analysis comes after they conjecture that the percentages were fixed apriori. The first comment "That seems fishy" basically says this. "How can it be that we're so close to even 1/10 percentages. How can it be that we're exactly one vote off from nice 1/10 percentages"? Fishy indeed - must be rounding.
And they tell you: it's very unlikely to be 1 vote off from nice 0.1% percentage splits.