[flagged]
Citation needed
Suspicious data pattern in recent Venezuelan election
261–270 of 536 posts
Re: Suspicious data pattern in recent Venezuelan election
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I understand this battle-of-experts thing happening here. The Venezuelan authorities released the vote totals. They work out to exactly 51.2% vs 44.2%. That did not happen in the real world. Could not have. We don't need the Carter Foundation to tell us these results are false. They are manifestly false.
If you read the addendum to the article they provide a perfectly plausible explanation: namely that (only) rounded percentages were provided to an intermediary and from there they back-calculated the counts. Given that the US has claimed vote rigging in the past in Venezuela without evidence contrary to the determination of international observers (and has and is trying to overthrow the government to install a US-bac…
They reported vote counts for both candidates that were fictitious. I don't understand how anybody can rationalize that.
I'm no fan of Maduro but I care about the politics of the region a lot less than I do about the mathematics of the situation. It's alarming to see people try to back-rationalize how these numbers could have been legitimate because, for instance (elsewhere on this thread), "it would have been easy for them just make realistic numbers".
Whatever else happened, these numbers are fictitious. If you want to come up with scenarios where the numbers don't matter, that's fine, you do you, I won't get in your way. But you can't rescue the numbers themselves.
Re: Suspicious data pattern in recent Venezuelan election
#263Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
We're still clinging to this in 2024? Wow.
If you consider the US election to clearly not have been rigged, then you should question the legitimacy of the signs listed in the top level comment.
If the signs don't convince you that the US election was rigged, they shouldn't convince you of other elections being rigged, either.
(I'm not from the US and don't care much about the US election. But I do think that the comment which sadly was flagged made a valid point about the signs not being useful indicators if they also apply to elections which are not rigged.)
Re: Suspicious data pattern in recent Venezuelan election
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I'm not sure I understand this battle-of-experts thing happening here. The Venezuelan authorities released the vote totals. They work out to exactly 51.2% vs 44.2%. That did not happen in the real world. Could not have. We don't need the Carter Foundation to tell us these results are false. They are manifestly false.
These aren't the vote totals. This is "80%" of the votes. No one has posted a link to the official statement. Votes are still being counted and we won't have the vote totals for a while
Re: Suspicious data pattern in recent Venezuelan election
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not necessarily. If the person announcing was given the number of votes and rounded percentages, then this could explain it. For example, in my country, they always report only turnout as a percentage with a single decimal and the share of each candidate/party with up to 2 decimals, never the number of votes - who cares about the absolute numbers anyway?
The thing is, that the absolute number of votes work out to give the announced percentage with 6 decimal digits, just as if they put "51.2%" on a calculator and worked backwards. The point is that they didn't actually round the percentage, it was actually 51.199999 for the President and 44.199999 for the opposition, the only credible explanation is that they picked the percentages and then cooked the absolute numbers…
As they say in the article one explanation is the guy publishing the numbers was not given the actual counts only the percentages and imputed the counts on his own.
Re: Suspicious data pattern in recent Venezuelan election
#266[flagged]
2000 mules is utter BS from a source that specializes in such things. If there were a shred of evidence about even a single claim made by this film, the conservative super majority in the supreme court would be all over it.
Wikipedia summary: 2000 Mules is a 2022 American conspiracist[4][5][6][7] political film from right-wing political commentator Dinesh D'Souza. The film falsely[8][9][10] claims unnamed nonprofit organizations supposedly associated with the Democratic Party paid "mules" to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in the swing states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin during the 2020 presidential election. D'Souza has a history of creating and spreading false conspiracy theories.[11]
Re: Suspicious data pattern in recent Venezuelan election
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not difficult at all. Just pick the approximate numbers you want and then introduce a random error of a few percent. (Normal, uniform, doesn't really matter). This is also not hard for statistics experts to detect, but it's much harder to prove (aka you've got plausible deniability). One wonders why they didn't even bother to do fraud slightly better.
Unless done carefully this will almost certainly fail Benford’s Law. Manipulating statistics is harder than you think.
It's my understanding that legitimate vote totals aren't likely to conform to Benford's law in the first place.
Even if that's the case, though, there might very well be other applicable tests this would run afoul of.
Re: Suspicious data pattern in recent Venezuelan election
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I understand this battle-of-experts thing happening here. The Venezuelan authorities released the vote totals. They work out to exactly 51.2% vs 44.2%. That did not happen in the real world. Could not have. We don't need the Carter Foundation to tell us these results are false. They are manifestly false.
These aren't the vote totals. This is "80%" of the votes. No one has posted a link to the official statement. Votes are still being counted and we won't have the vote totals for a while
What difference does it make if they're 80% of the votes, or even 30% of the votes? 3.5MM votes is still too many for there to be any realistic possibility of seeing these round percentages in the vote counts.
Re: Suspicious data pattern in recent Venezuelan election
#269[flagged]
Not sure if related but also a book on this as well:- https://www.amazon.com/Stealing-Your-Vote-Inside-Election/dp... Whether or not there was election fraud I don't know. All I know is I cannot trust anything the mainstream media has to say on the topic (or any other topic for that matter).
Instead of reading conspiratorial books from authors with a profit motive, ask a simple question. If there was election fraud, how come the conservative super majority in the supreme court is not all over it?
Ask for evidence first, before putting your faith in conspiracy theories, from books or movies.
If you believe in things without evidence, and then vote based on that, we're all screwed. This is the path to ideocracy.
Re: Suspicious data pattern in recent Venezuelan election
#270To play the devil's advocate: It's possible that the person making the announcement was only given the rounded percentages and the total number of votes, and then "created" the number of votes per candidate to fit to the format of the announcement. That would be sloppy, but not malicious.
Unlikely, the person making the announcement was an official from the national electoral council (Consejo Nacional Electoral). There's no reason the national electoral council wouldn't have access to the exact counts and would have to work their way backwards from percentages. Source: https://x.com/yvangil/status/1817787106237743565
Yes but that guy certainly didn't tally the votes himself, someone gave him the numbers (and someone else gave him those numbers). It's plausible that in some step only the (rounded) percentages and overall total were given and then someone downstream imputed the counts.