Statistical nonsense at SCOTUS

The Texas AG's outlandish claims about the statistical unlikelihood of Biden's victory

[THIS POST WAS UPDATED ON 12/9 HERE]

As co-Blogger Jonathan Adler has noted, the Texas AG is suing the states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin over supposed election irregularities, and calling on the Supreme Court to exercise its original jurisdiction to hear the case on an expedited basis.

The filed motion and supporting documentation is posted here.  This little tidbit caught my eye:

9. Expert analysis using a commonly accepted statistical test further raises serious
questions as to the integrity of this election.

10.  The probability of former Vice President Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—independently given President Trump's early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000. For former Vice President Biden to win these four States collectively, the odds of that event happening decrease to less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power (i.e., 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000^4). See Decl. of Charles J. Cicchetti, Ph.D. ("Cicchetti Decl.") at ¶¶ 14-21, 30-31. See App. 4a-7a, 9a. 11.

11. The same less than one in a quadrillion statistical improbability of Mr. Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin— independently exists when Mr. Biden's performance in each of those Defendant States is compared to former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's performance in the 2016 general election and President Trump's performance in the 2016 and 2020 general elections. Again, the statistical improbability of Mr. Biden winning the popular vote in these four States collectively Again, the statistical improbability is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000.

Wow! What a bombshell this is!  Odds of Biden having won GA, PA, WI, and MI are 1,000,000,000,000,000 to the fourth power to 1!

For the mathematically disinclined, 1 quadrillion to the 4th power is 1 with 60 zeros after it. Long odds indeed!  It's about equivalent to being dealt several trillion or so royal flushes in a row.  There's proof of fraud for you!

Spoiler Alert.  It's total nonsense - I know it's early in the 2020-21 Term, but I'm putting the odds at getting anything more ridiculous in a SCOTUS filing at about 3 quadrillion to 1.

I have not read the cited declaration by Dr. Cicchetti; it is not yet publicly available anywhere, as far as I can determine.  The Complaint says it will be included as an Appendix in the (forthcoming) motion to expedite, and that will give more detail, I assume, as to how he arrived at this preposterous calculation.

But I do know a little about statistics, having taught it for many years, and I assure you:  there is no "commonly accepted statistical test" that will, or can, demonstrate that the odds of Biden winning these four states, given Trump's early lead, are so incredibly long.  It is a fantasy. As many, many people have pointed out, Trump's disappearing leads in all four states can rather easily be explained by an increased tendency of people using mail-in ballots to cast votes for Biden - something that was widely anticipated prior to the election, and which indeed seems to have come to pass.

This is flim-flammery of the highest order.  I look forward to parsing Dr. Cicchetti's analysis and filling you all in on the mistakes that he made.  Stay tuned.

Comments

[jb]

Here's the Motion to Expedite with the affidavit attached:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163048/20201208132827887_TX-v-State-ExpedMot%202020-12-07%20FINAL.pdf

[bernard11]

I read part of Cichetti's declaration. (It begins on page 20). I couldn't stomach going through the whole thing.

Basically, the figure he gives, that the suit cites, is based on the assumption that the absentee ballots came from the same population as the in-person votes. They didn't, which everyone knew beforehand, so all his learned talk of Z-scores and whatnot is gibberish.

[Glaucomatose]

"For both comparisons I determined the likelihood that the samples of the outcomes for the two Democrat candidates and two tabulation periods were similar..."

Ooh, Brett will love it!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sorry folks, if you're going to use statistics for discrimination suits, be prepared to have them thrown back at you.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The problem isn't using statistics in a lawsuit. The problem is that the statistics are very obviously wrong.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Yet the cited odds of Biden winning are still better than the odds of any given comment of yours being accurate.

Funny how that works.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Got some kind of hardon for Dr Ed. DEDS we should call it. Your message would be more widely read and accepted if you didn't attach it willy nilly regardless of accuracy.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

1) It's entirely accurate.
2) It's related to his comment about statistics.
3) Why are you here? Would you like my autograph? You seem to have a fetish for me. Congrats on your unintentional irony.

[Hank Ferrous]

Commenters point out that your posting is often non-factual and biased. This does not imply a fetish.

[Brett Bellmore]

You should probably read further, it's not as unreasonable as you're making it out to be, it's just that the qualifications come after the simple calculation of probability.

And he did go on to say that there were possible explanations for how the discrepancy could legitimately happen, and all he was suggesting was that they be checked to see if they were true.

The latter parts of the affidavit are actually more interesting, especially the analysis of the incredible drop in rejection rates for absentee ballots in Georgia.

[Brett Bellmore]

To be specific about that last, in 2016, Georgia had 213,033 absentee ballots, which had a rejection rate of 6.42%

In 2020, Georgia had 1,316,943 absentee ballots, with a rejection rate of 0.36%. That is an amazingly low rejection rate! (Note: Almost all news accounts focus only on the rejection rate for signatures, and say the rejection rates were about the same. Ignoring that most ballots are rejected for other reasons.)

If the 2020 rejection rate had been comparable to the 2016 rejection rate, and assuming the rejected ballots were representative of absentee ballots as a whole, Trump would have won Georgia.

So you really have to ask in Georgia how the rejection rate this year was a tiny fraction of the rate in 2016, despite a massive, last minute increase in use of absentee ballots. Was it a result of some legal difference in how the ballots were treated, or was it a consequence of failing to follow state election laws?

You really have to investigate, not assume one or the other.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett....Time has nearly run out. The EC votes in five days. There is not enough time to do the forensic audit you appear to be talking about. And BTW, it should happen (forensic audit). It will take time, perhaps years, to get the final, definite story of what happened in the 2020 election. And that assumes the ballot envelopes and ballots are preserved for examination. Was there massive fraud? Roughly 33% of the electorate believes so. That has to be addressed because I don't think we want 1/3rd of the electorate acting on their belief that there was massive, unaddressed election fraud, and therefore the government is completely illegitimate. It will not be definitively addressed by 12/14.

There are many highly peculiar occurrences that have occurred in the 2020 election. Rejection rate is just one of many peculiarities. I deal with stats for a living, and some of the quantitative anomalies are mind-blowing, but statistically possible in the extreme circumstance like we have here.

Getting back to my broader point. The process is to have the popular vote election, and about five weeks later, the EC elects the POTUS. That is it.

You get roughly 5 weeks to address anomalies. If you cannot make the case, then you lose the election. It would not be the first time we had a contested election. It will not be the last.

[Brett Bellmore]

I agree, it's basically too late now. The die was cast when the Supreme court refused the PA challenge on the basis of that state's representation that they'd segregate the ballots. Which representation turned out to be false, by the way.

The reason I support this court challenge isn't because I expect the election to be overturned. It's because the question of whether courts or the executive branch can order election laws violated in federal elections really needs to be settled one way or the other before the next federal election.

Because as things stand, they seem to just be election suggestions. And if that's really the case, everybody should know it.

[Commenter_XY]

I am fine with POTUS Trump's team exhausting all legal challenges. It was agonizingly close in the battleground states. The Constitution allows for those legal challenges.

However: Once the EC votes, and that vote is accepted by Congress, the legal challenges are over.

[David Nieporent]

I agree, it’s basically too late now. The die was cast when the Supreme court refused the PA challenge on the basis of that state’s representation that they’d segregate the ballots. Which representation turned out to be false, by the way.

You just can't help lying, can you? No such representation was false, the Supreme Court does not conditionally refuse challenges, and it's irrelevant because that only applied to a small number of votes, significantly smaller than Biden's margin of victory.

[bernard11]

But since Kemp and Raffensperger were in the bag for Biden they let it go.

Is that your claim?

[I Callahan]

Why does that matter, bernard11? Why won't ANY of the liberals on the Volokh comment boards EVER respond to the meat of the argument? I've seen Brett try to point out the anomalies in a number of comments yet the only responses he gets are snark and ad-homs.

Here is the question at hand:

So you really have to ask in Georgia how the rejection rate this year was a tiny fraction of the rate in 2016, despite a massive, last minute increase in use of absentee ballots. Was it a result of some legal difference in how the ballots were treated, or was it a consequence of failing to follow state election laws?

Feel free to address it.

[Glaucomatose]

I have another comment immediately below this one that's awaiting moderation, because I made the mistake of including links to support my argument, but here's the rest of the comment:

“In 2020, Georgia had 1,316,943 absentee ballots, with a rejection rate of 0.36%. That is an amazingly low rejection rate! (Note: Almost all news accounts focus only on the rejection rate for signatures, and say the rejection rates were about the same. Ignoring that most ballots are rejected for other reasons.)”

That would indeed be an amazingly low rejection rate, but I can’t find a source to support a claim that it is in fact the rejection rate. As you yourself note, the 2016 overall rejection rate was 6.42%, while the signature-related rejection rate was only about 0.15%. Georgia SOS has announced the signature-related rejection rate for this year – again, about 0.15% – but I haven’t seen an announcement on the _overall_ rejection rate this year; in fact, I’ve seen no actual numbers since GSOS’s announcement of the signature-related rejection rate, which stated specifically that the overall rejection numbers weren’t yet available.

If you have any idea where Cicchetti came up with his 0.36% figure, I’d be very curious to see it.

[Brett Bellmore]

The source I had was the affidavit from the lawsuit.

There's this, but it says 0.24, not 0.34. OTOH, it claims to have gotten the numbers from the Georgia SOS.

[Glaucomatose]

I'm aware that's what the affidavit claims. As I said, I'm looking for a source to support it, which the affidavit doesn't provide. Your PeachTree Times link actually comes from a week _before_ Georgia SOS said itself that the overall number of rejections wasn't yet available, and so, with apologies, I'm not going to put a lot of faith in it.

[bernard11]

Ok, I'll address it.

Per the GA Secretary of State's> Facebook page:

**Signature match rejection rate**

2016: 580 ballots rejected for “missing or inaccurate oath information” out of 246,621 total absentee by mail ballots. Rejection rate of 0.24%

2018: 454 rejections for that reason out of 284,393 total absentee by mail ballots. Rejection rate of 0.15%
2020 Primary: 3266 rejections for missing or invalid signatures out of 1,151,371 absentee by mail ballots cast. Rejection rate of 0.28%

2020 General: 2011 rejections for missing or invalid signatures out of 1,322,529 absentee by mail ballots cast. Rejection rate of 0.15%. The number of rejections probably went down from the primary because both parties had teams of people finding people who needed to cure their absentee ballots in the general but not the primary.

So, the number of absentee ballot rejections for signature issues increased about 350% from 2018, which is basically the exact same amount that the total number of absentee ballots increased from 2018.

The rejection numbers for signatures from 2016 and 2018 are from the attached lawsuit filed by Democrats earlier this year. This is not total number of all rejections. Largest number is usually ballots that arrive late. Takeaway is that rejection rate from 2018 to 2020 is exact same even after ballots with signature issued were cured. So, the idea that some settlement agreement that we entered into changed how counties were doing this is basically nonsense.

Emphasis added.

On his official state web site he says:

Numbers for total number of rejected absentee ballots for the 2020 election, including ballots received after the 7:00 p.m. Election Day deadline, are still being input by county election officials and are not yet available.

So what we have is this.

Rejections for signature mismatches are pretty stable.

We don't yet know the total number of mismatches.

So the numbers Brett cites compare apples to oranges.

And there is an additional point here, and a damning one for the "just asking questions" pose.

It took me just a minute or two to find this. You can also find a similar statement on Raffensperger's official web page. So if Brett were really interested in learning about this rather than just parroting Trump talking points he would have found this information quite easily.

He's not, any more than he's interested in understanding the legal issues in PA. His mind is absolutely made up, no matter how much he pretends otherwise.

So tell me, since you're discussing good faith arguments and the like. Does Brett have any obligation to check his facts and the like before posting comments, or does he just get to quote OAN or Sidney Powell or whoever, and expect others to do his work?

[bernard11]

OK, I Callahan.

Since you've declared yourself the arbiter of arguments made here, what is your conclusion?

I'd say that it makes no sense to respond to any of Brett's points unless he can demonstrate that his facts are accurate and he has made some reasonable attempt to find an explanation.

He doesn't deserve a presumption of good faith.

[bernard11]

Well?

[David Nieporent]

It makes no sense to respond to Brett's points because, like any good conspiracy theory, it tries to shift the burden of proof to the other side. "Random factoid! Random factoid 2! I therefore assert there is wrongdoing! Prove me wrong!"

As with the best conspiracy theories, it doesn't even bother to fully explain what the theory is. Ballot rejection rates were (allegedly) very low. And? What's the claim, exactly? That invalid ballots were treated as valid? That hundreds of thousands of facially valid but fake ballots were added to the total to bring down the percentage? That alien mind control was involved?

[Glaucomatose]

"In 2020, Georgia had 1,316,943 absentee ballots, with a rejection rate of 0.36%. That is an amazingly low rejection rate! (Note: Almost all news accounts focus only on the rejection rate for signatures, and say the rejection rates were about the same. Ignoring that most ballots are rejected for other reasons.)"

That would indeed be an amazingly low rejection rate, but I can't find a source to support a claim that it is in fact the rejection rate. As you yourself note, the 2016 overall rejection rate was 6.42%, while the signature-related rejection rate was only about 0.15%. Georgia SOS has announced the signature-related rejection rate for this year - again, about 0.15% - but I haven't seen an announcement on the _overall_ rejection rate this year; in fact, I've seen no actual numbers since GSOS's announcement of the signature-related rejection rate, which stated specifically that the overall rejection numbers weren't yet available. See:

https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3561858110596406&id=2102174426564789 and
https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/number_of_absentee_ballots_rejected_for_signature_issues_in_the_2020_election_increased_350_from_2018

If you have any idea where Cicchetti came up with his 0.36% figure, I'd be very curious to see it.

[DStraws]

Or it was the result of the effort made by interested parties to train the electorate how to fill out the absentee ballots. Focusing on the commonly know issues that lead to the 6% rejection rate. Its not that complicated!

[qetzal]

If anyone can back up the claim that the total 2020 absentee ballot rejection rate in GA was 0.36%, great. The affadavit conveniently doesn't provide a source. According to the GA SOS, that number isn't even available yet (see here: https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/number_of_absentee_ballots_rejected_for_signature_issues_in_the_2020_election_increased_350_from_2018)

See also here: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-georgia-rejected-ballots-fo/fact-check-georgia-rejected-ballots-did-not-go-from-4-to-almost-zero-in-2020-idUSKBN2832CM, and links therein.

In any case, so what? Even if there was a big change in rejection rates, that only shows there was a big change in rejection rates. Hasn't GA performed TWO recounts, both of which affirmed Biden's victory?

At this point, I think the onus is on you to explain why a change in absentee rejection rates (IF there really was one), or any other apparent statistical anomaly, is strong evidence of potential fraud despite three separate tallies that all favor Biden.

[bernard11]

You really have to investigate, not assume one or the other.

See my comment below.

Why didn't you investigate - which is to say, spend five minutes on Google - before posting this crap?

You're spewing nonsense.

[bernard11]

Sorry. Comment above. Dec. 9 at 11:01 AM.

[Burkhard]

and you should also not assume that if the discrepancy was due to a failure to follow the law, it's the 2020 election that got it wrong. Maybe in 2016 lots of legitimate votes were wrongfully rejected.

[Jerry B.]

Interesting.

[DaivdBehar]

Having taught statistics, Post should know that argument by authority and ipse dixits are not persuasive. David, can you rewrite your post and make statistical arguments? I would like to hear them, and to learn from this statistics professor.

[AtR]

Here's one ... the states are obviously not independent: there is no reason to think that the probability of Biden winning in all four states is the product of the probabilities in each individual state.

If you want more arguments, how about the fact that there is no prior model on which to base the analysis - for goodness sakes, the pollsters have been all over the map with their projections for years.

So, yes, it makes no sense to ascribe a concrete probability to an event that happens once.

[Sidney r finkel]

It is pretty easy to refute the statistical garbage. One need only estimate the distribution of the mail in vote, the distribution of the in person votes and the percentage of counting of each type at any point in the counting cycle. One can then compute the probability of the final outcome.

This is what real statisticians do, and why networks who employ them are able to accurately call (or not call) an election.

[Brett Bellmore]

You can see some odd statistical patterns in the absentee ballots, which appeared only in some states. They're suspicious, but I'd say they're on a level requiring investigation, not conclusions.

But we'd have to see the analysis to refute it. Maybe tomorrow we'll have seen it, rather than the non-statistician summary.

[jb]

"You can see some odd statistical patterns in the absentee ballots, which appeared only in some states. They’re suspicious, but I’d say they’re on a level requiring investigation, not conclusions."

Dude, we've already had this discussion. They appeared in states that counted absentee ballots after in-person ballots, and not in states that counted them first. If you can find any exceptions to this pattern, please identify one. Otherwise, stop with this nonsense.

[David Post]

See my updated post today https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/09/more-on-statistical-stupidity-at-scotus/

[Orbital Mechanic]

Whether the claim is nonsense or not does not matter to this plaintiff. Given the track record it is more likely to be nonsense than not.

The purpose of these lawsuits is to keep the headlines coming, the media cycle moving, and from that the continuous flow of MAGA dollars into Trump's slush fund PAC. The money keeps coming because the rubes are well trained to believe pretty much anything at this point.

For them it is a cult. For Trump it is cash flow. It won't stop until the cash stops.

It is obvious that the Trump-aligned litigants should be barred from filing any more lawsuits until and unless given permission by a court assigned to be a supervisor in advance. This is a pretty routine procedure applied to crank lawyers and those with a history of frivolous lawsuits.

Time to apply it here. And I can believe there is more than one judge who is pissed off enough over having his court being turned into a clown show.

[DaivdBehar]

None of you statistics people is addressing the statistical argument. Is Benford's Law valid or not? It is a numerical analysis indicative of fraud.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law

[Brett Bellmore]

Benford's law is valid under certain circumstances which don't apply here. The underlying numbers have to be random.

Precinct sizes aren't random, they're generally sized to be about the same population for efficiency's sake. The result is that Benford's law isn't followed.

Say you've got a city with precincts that average about 6,000 voters. It's an urban area, so Biden is getting about 75% of the vote, give or take.

Most of Biden's precinct totals will start with 4 or 5. Most of Trump's will start with 1 or 2. Neither of them will follow Benford's law, though Trump's numbers would be closer.

[DaivdBehar]

Because Republicans did better in Congress, despite the loss of Trump, Benford law should be applied to the Congressional votes. Are they fraudulent?

One argument Trump is making is the late arrival of ballots with only Biden votes, and blank other office votes, like they were in a rush due to the lateness of the hour. Those should be tossed out, ballots with only a Presidential vote for Biden. If you are lazy, PA has a box to vote for all candidates of the same party. Why not check that box, and not just the Biden box?

[Brett Bellmore]

Straight-party voting is gone in Pennsylvania. Who will miss it most?

No, PA does NOT have a box to vote for all candidates of the same party. Not since last year.

[DaivdBehar]

I checked that box, this year, in a mail in ballot, in Pennsylvania.

[loki13]

Well, this is why we don't depend on the words of random people on the internet.

Most of us, at least.

[David Nieporent]

Well, we can just figure out who's right by assessing which of the two of them is more honest and which is more sane. Wait, no, that won't work.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, that's peculiar, in as much as every source I've found said it was gone. I have literally found no sources suggesting it's still available, and have seen images of 2020 general election ballots which clearly lacked the option.

[bernard11]

One argument Trump is making is the late arrival of ballots with only Biden votes,

Which is a lie.

Like pretty much anything Trump or his cultists say.

Bad faith arguments don't deserve a response.

[Max!]

> One argument Trump is making is the late arrival of ballots with only Biden votes, and blank other office votes...[means] should be tossed out

So Trump thinks that people only voting against him is an indication that those votes should be tossed out and not that people hate him and literally only voted to keep him out of office. Do you realize how ridiculous that argument is? What if Biden made that argument?

[Krayt]

I can agree about the causes, but everyone should be able to go to court. Political opponents should not use maneuvering such as you suggest to shut them down (much less attempts to socially ostracize the law firms involved.)

These complaints remind me of complaints the Starr investigation should be shut down because it was costing tens of millions of dollars.

Crocodile tears.

[David Nieporent]

No, everyone should not be able to go to court. Only people with legitimate claims. If the claims are not supported by facts or law, they should be sanctioned, not welcomed.

[MollyGodiva]

It is pretty clear that they started with the assumption that the vote distribution between Trump and Biden is a constant (i.e. no difference between in-person and mail-in, and locked after the in-person ballots were counted), and then calculated the probability of random variations would give Biden the lead. But this is of course wrong, since we know, and was expected that the mail-in votes would heavily lead Biden.

[jb]

If you look at the actual affidavit, he also assumed that the set of people voting for Clinton and Biden were identical. Which, yeah, if that was true, then it's pretty unlikely that Biden would have won, but it turns out that people can and do vote differently in different elections so that's not a very good assumption to build into your model.

[bernard11]

^^This, too.

[MatthewSlyfield]

my ideal outcome would have been a victory by a write-in candidate, alas, that's not actually possible in the real world.

Barring that outcome I somewhat favored Trump over Biden, but sill, the argument being made in this suit isn't just stupid, it's cubic stupid.

[santamonica811]

I've never heard/read the term "cubic stupid" before, but I'm totally stealing it.

[MatthewSlyfield]

You can't steal it, because I'm giving it away for free.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Post may be skeptical, but Kayleigh McEnany says it’s so and most of the fans of a White, male, right-wing blog will swallow it whole.

[Sidney r finkel]

As a former professor of Quantitative Methods I agree with all of the above, and do not expect to see any details on the derivation of the probabilities cited. To do so would expose the author of such nonsense to such ridicule and derision that his or her mortification could well be fatal.

But on a serious note, as a conservative with respect to the law I am appalled by the display of legal garbage in this filing. How it is not sanctionable is beyond me. How any person with any serious appreciation of the rule of law and the legal system cannot condemn the Texas AG in the strongest possible terms is also beyond me.

But everyone knows what this is really about. It is about sucking up to Trump, hoping to gain political advantage by defecating on the legal system. It is truly abhorent.

[Purple Martin]

The good Texas Attorney General is currently under indictment for securities fraud, and under investigation by the FBI for some other fraud involving misuse of the powers of his office.

So, as has been noted elsewhere, this seems primarily intended to get Trump's attention, from someone who is in deep need of a presidential pardon.

[santamonica811]

That was my assumptions. I've also been assuming that "will you give me a pardon?" conversations have already been going on between Trump's people and the Texas AG's people (with enough people in between so that both Trump and the AG can truthfully say, "I have not discussed it with ___."

My guess is that it's a 75+% chance that he gets a pardon. Likely given by Trump as part of a one-day massive issuance of pardons, where there's a hope that all of them (by shear volume) will deflect most of the attention away from each individual pardon.

[David Nieporent]

shear volume

It's only Trump's supporters, not his corrupt friends, who are sheep.

Also, I think you're mistaken; Trump isn't Bill Clinton, trying to hide his questionable pardons from scrutiny. Trump is a troll; he wants the worst pardons to get lots of attention so he can pwn the libs.

[Krayt]

But everyone knows what this is really about. It is about sucking up to Trump, hoping to gain political advantage by defecating on the legal system. It is truly abhorent.

So it's business as usual in Washington, just changing out the highlighted word to any one of a dozen top pols.

[billsv 2]

I thought the basis of the lawsuit had to do with constitutional issues.
1. No one other than the legislature of the respective states can set election rules like a court or governor or other non legislative action is unconstitutional.
2. Equal rules in each county for the elections. They were not and thus unconstitutional.
I suggest everyone read the complaint Arai et the four states.

[Glaucomatose]

Hi billsv2,

Are you familiar with the concept of standing?

Thanks!

[Krayt]

How would the people, or state governments, experience no effect by who wins the election, if it involves corruption?

This always seemed like a weak argument to me.

"You have to live under the outcome, and the wildly different effects* of it, but have no right to question the possibly fraudulent way it came about."

* Well, very mildly different effects.

[I Callahan]

Does the concept of standing change the point he was trying to make? An unarguable "no". Because people don't have standing doesn't mean the above didn't happen.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

It affects the likelihood the lawsuit will succeed in court, which is ostensibly the topic we are all discussing.

[Slalom5]

But it so convenient to dismiss the complaint by using one point taken out of context and proclaimed as the basis for the entire thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

The basic problem is, they have a strong argument for a major constitutional violation, and THEY think that ought to be enough.

But they don't think the COURT will regard a major constitutional violation as meaning squat, unless they can demonstrate a cognizable harm that they've suffered. And the Supreme court, (Damnably, IMO.) does not regard being denied constitutional government a cognizable harm. Government can violate the Constitution any time it wants, and if the Court doesn't think somebody was "harmed", they don't care.

So they have to come up with an argument why the harm exists, and the only harm that the Court would accept is, "The election obviously would have come out differently without the violations."

But it's not obviously true that the outcome would have been different, so they're stuck with BS.

But only on the part they shouldn't HAVE to prove. The part that should matter is pretty solid.

[davidmtaylor]

They do make a claim of harm. "By the shared enterprise of the entire
nation electing the President and Vice President,
equal protection violations in one State can and do
adversely affect and diminish the weight of votes cast
in States that lawfully abide by the election structure
set forth in the Constitution. Plaintiff State is
therefore harmed by this unconstitutional conduct in
violation of the Equal Protection or Due Process
Clauses."

[Kazinski]

Statistical arguments are generally ridiculous in court cases. I roll my eyes when they are used in death penalty cases, when it has nothing to do with whether a particular defendent is guilty, and whether his particular crime warrants the death penalty.

An election should almost never be overturned on a statistical evidence, an exception may be something like 110% of the registered voters cast ballots, but that certainly is not the case here.

There are legislative investigations taking place in several states. That is the proper way to develop the evidence, even if it can't overturn the results. Going to court based on statistical speculation would at best provide a basis for more discovery, which could take years, not a ruling on the merits.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How about 130% in a few wards?

[Kazinski]

Well it does kind of depend on some other factors, such as does the jurisdiction allow same day registration, does it allow provisional voting at precincts other than where the voter is registered?

It certainly would be something that needs further investigation and documentation, but I wouldn't think it by itself would be enough to overturn an election, unless the only possible explanation would be fraudulent ballots, and they are beyond the margin of victory.

[santamonica811]

Ed
That would certainly be a problem. Do you have the cites? The only ones I saw were people claiming that the number of mail in votes (I think it was in Michigan, but maybe it was a different Rust Belt state.) exceeded the number of ballots that had been mailed out. But, as it turned out, the cited number of ballots mailed out was wrong...it was the number for the primaries, and not the general election.

If you are referring to something different, can you clarify?

[JoeNCA]

It was Minnesota, but the people who cited it thought they were referencing Michigan. Minnesota has same day registration and the highest voter turnout in the nation, so the number of votes (regular and provisional) could be higher than the number already registered (they aren't considered registered until their registration is complete, and only then is their provisional ballot accepted). Also nearly all of the towns cited were towns that overwhelmingly went for Trump.

[NonLawyerDan]

Examples, Dr. Ed? Sure would be a problem, so can you share?

[Michael Masinter]

In my south Florida yard, I harvested fruit from two trees, one in May and one in June. All of the hundred plus May fruit I picked were moderately large ovoids, with a smooth textured rose to green skin and orange flesh. The hundreds of June fruit were small spheres, with pebbled strawberry red skin and pearl colored flesh. The odds that the two fruits were so consistently different also must have been several quadrillion to one as well, except that they were not randomly distributed between the two trees, one of which was a mango tree and one of which was a lychee tree.

When my children were elementary school kids, I noticed that in their schools, there was an amazing correlation between the shoe size of students and their respective reading abilities. Who knew that you could improve a child's reading ability by buying the child bigger shoes?

[Noscitur a sociis]

It seems fairly obvious that the odds of Biden winning any of these states is not an independent event. So even accepting the dubious premise that the odds of Biden winning each of the states individually was in fact one in a quadrillion, the odds of winning all four wouldn't be a quadrillion to the fourth.

[Krayt]

Quad quad assumes all other factors are independent between the states, which is obviously not the case, thanks to advertising, and the fact they are voting on the same two candidates.

[Michael P]

1. Criminal conspirators are very worried they don't know how many votes they will need to manufacture to steal the election.
2. One or more realize this can be addressed by having a large pool of votes that will be counted late, at centralized locations, in densely populated areas where the conspirators control the political machines.
3. They communicate this plan to fellow travelers in the media.
4. The media widely publish the conspiracy under the guise of describing beliefs about why the votes will be skewed to defeat the Republican candidate.
5. Additional groups adapt the conspiracy to their local situations.
6. The complicit media squash stories about irregularities and illegal procedures, faithfully parroting the conspirators' claims of a perfect election.
7. The election is successfully stolen.

[Glaucomatose]

That's almost as dastardly a conspiracy as that time I conspired to steal the election by having more people vote for my candidate than vote for the other guy. I disseminated the plan to my fellow travelers in the media, and nobody was the wiser!

[Michael P]

The historically most accurate polls predicted a Trump victory in these states. Bellwether counties went for Trump, 18 to 1. Biden got a smaller vote share in every major metro area in the country, except for four cities in four of the battleground states.

The evidence that Biden actually got more legitimate votes in these states is mostly polls from the same people who insisted Trump colluded with Russia, that the emails on Hunter Biden's laptop were foreign meddling (but not the kind of foreign meddling those emails actually unveiled), and that Democrats never told Republican observers to leave before counting continued.

[Glaucomatose]

Please tell us what "The historically most accurate polls" are.

[santamonica811]

But the most brilliant part of the scheme to steal the presidential election was to have the great plan, and to deliberately not use it in the Senate races, even though those races were critical to Biden being able to enact any truly liberal policies.
The second most brilliant part of the plans was to collude with all of the conservative internal pollsters for Trump and other Republican candidates, since they also were showing a Biden win. Brilliant indeed. [insert sound of diabolical laughter]

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, you need to engage, and take the reasoning seriously, if you're going to level effective criticism. Or else, as here, you'll criticize the argument in some way that's obviously stupid.

These states recently eliminated the straight party ticket from the ballot. It now takes twice as much work to manufacture ballots with two offices voted, as ballots with one office voted. So only rigging the top of the ticket is perfectly understandable.

What you should be questioning is whether the ballots with only the President voted on were distributed in a suspicious way.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You truly are batshit insane Brett. You will justify ANYTHING.

What makes you think that anyone should take your, or any other cultists' "reasoning" seriously? None of you operate in reality anymore, and you're no longer even trying to pretend otherwise.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you want to persuade people they're wrong, you need to engage with the arguments they're actually making. If you criticize arguments they aren't making, you may come away with a warm glow, but you won't have persuaded anybody who didn't already agree with you.

You may think, "These people are nuts, why should I bother?". Well, they think you're nuts, too. This isn't a good way to achieve a meeting of minds, starting out thinking the other guy is insane and there's no point in addressing what they actually have to say.

[Sarcastr0]

People have engaged with your arguments. Many times. And not just liberal partisans, either.
But you don't really respond except to repeat your original argument that you know better than the courts what their law says.

So what's the point of engaging with you? Some are venting, some are playing to people other than you, some have just stopped replying to you.

Maybe you'll be embarrassed once you come out of this story you've told yourself in a year or so, but I suspect you'll just think anyone here who brings it up is exaggerating how deep you were.

[loki13]

"Maybe you’ll be embarrassed once you come out of this story you’ve told yourself in a year or so, but I suspect you’ll just think anyone here who brings it up is exaggerating how deep you were."

Ahem.

"I wasn't in deep denial about my birtherism. I was just asking questions. If only people had rationally engaged me over the many years that was just asking!"

Compare -

"I wasn't in deep denial about the election. I was just asking questions."

We've been through this before. Same song, different lyrics.

[Brett Bellmore]

I didn't have any birtherism to be in denial about. I clearly stated, many times, that I thought the birthers were entitled to a hearing, in court, on the merits, which I fully expected them to lose. And that the only Presidential candidate in that race who actually did have a natural born citizen problem was McCain, not Obama.

That's not birtherism, it's a belief even cranks are entitled to have their claims decided in a court of law. I'm not fond of parts of the Constitution being rendered hollow by standing arguments.

[loki13]

Brett- as anyone who was here remembers, that wasn't your stance.

Which is why we all know exactly how you are going to retcon this in your mind.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're remembering things wrong, but the internet is forever, so feel free to prove I was a birther.

[Brett Bellmore]

Let's see: Nine years ago. Nope, not a birther.

[loki13]

Oh, Brett, you're pointing to a thread AFTER you began retconning.

You literally linked to someone making fun of you ALREADY FOR YOUR WELL-KNOWN BIRTHERISM.

This would be similar to pointing to a thread, two years from now, when someone is mocking you for all of the claims you have made, and your response is, "Yeah, well, I totally knew that Biden had won, and that Trump was just milking the rubes for money, but I really was just trying to make a point about how it's really important to regurgitate lies for the Courts to shoot down, because reasons, even though I was always arguing that Trump lost, and lost badly."

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I tried to find something earlier, but that was as far back as I could find.

Go ahead, though, and provide this hypothetical earlier birtherism on my part. If you remember it so clearly, you should be able to locate evidence of its existence.

After all, you're the accuser, you should present some kind of evidence, right?

[Brett Bellmore]

Here's something earlier, but not at the Conspiracy.

"The birthers are over-reacting to the fact that Obama won't release that last bit of information, just second-hand statements regarding it. But that behavior on Obama's part IS rationally cause for suspicion. They're just putting too much weight on it, given the amount of other evidence on the other side."

I thought the Birthers were making a mistake, that the weight of the evidence was in favor of Obama being a natural born citizen. I just thought they were entitled to their day in court.

[loki13]

"After all, you’re the accuser, you should present some kind of evidence, right?"

C'mon, Brett? The accuser?

It's funny, because I don't need to "accuse." This isn't about me. I don't care! It's funny. Sad, and funny, because I don't know if your performance is for me (never going to work), for some mythical audience that you think cares, or for yourself?

Look, maybe you're right, and EVERY OTHER PERSON who remembers your performances over a multi-year period, culminating in the whole epistemological meltdown (who can forget Brett's "I wasn't in the delivery room" performance") is wrong. Maybe you're right, and every single other person who periodically brings it up, is wrong.

Maybe!

Or maybe you just retconned things in your head, like you're going to do with this too. *shrug* Whatever works for ya.

[loki13]

And I will point out that you literally linked to people making fun of you in 2012 for this.

2012.

You're the birther meme for a reason, Brett. You're the epistemological MICK!!!111!!!!!!

[Brett Bellmore]

"And I will point out that you literally linked to people making fun of you in 2012 for this."

Yes, I'm aware of that. People on the left have long been prone to describing as a "birther" anybody who didn't dismiss the idea totally out of hand, and commit to the issue never seeing the light of day in a court.

[loki13]

Yes, Brett, you are a birther.

A well-known birther.

It's not the "left" that makes fun of you.

It's everyone with a brain that remembers what you are famous for. And it's funny, now that your dander is up, that you're beginning to cop to it again.

What is more powerful for Brett- his need to retcon his own humiliating mistakes, or his need to lash out against the left?

This is a battle I will pay to see, but I don't need to, given how often it repeats itself.

Brett v. Brett- come and see!

[De Oppresso Liber]

https://www.samefacts.com/where-is-the-obamas-marriage-certificate/
Brett Bellmore says:
April 23, 2011 at 3:38 pm

Who cares? Being married isn’t a constitutional requirement to be President, so nobody has any basis to demand proof of their marriage. The matter is quite different with respect to his natural born citizen status. And, “I bet you that the Obamas will refuse to produce a proper certificate, They will try and palm off on us a mere copy,”

A mere copy of Obama’s birth certificate would be fine, if properly authenticated. Too bad we can’t even get that…

Frankly, I’m pretty sure he IS a natural born citizen, unlike McCain. But I think he ought to have to freaking prove it, if anybody expresses doubt. Just like I think proof that a President was born more than 35 year prior to assuming office ought to be provided on demand.

No unenforceable constitutional clauses, thank you.

Brett Bellmore says:
April 23, 2011 at 4:15 pm

Yes, only “pretty sure”. I wasn’t in the operating room when his mother delivered, you know. I try to maintain a sane amount of doubt about anything I can’t personally verify. Yeah, I have the courage of my convictions. I just don’t have the convictions you want to attribute to me. “Obama ought to have to prove he’s a native born citizen, and he can!“, might not be a stance you can wrap your head around, but it doesn’t prevent me from holding it.

From Obsidian Wings blogspot...

"Documentary evidence that the birthers are factually wrong exists. You can show it to them, and they STILL persist in their nutty belief."

Strictly speaking, we have testimony to the effect that documentary evidence proving the birthers are factually wrong exists. It's rather as though the previous administration had responded to the 9-11 truthers by bringing a structural engineer out to tell everybody that, "I've seen a lab report confirming that structural steel softens at those temperatures, and, no, we are not going to let you see the lab report."

The birthers are over-reacting to the fact that Obama won't release that last bit of information, just second-hand statements regarding it. But that behavior on Obama's part IS rationally cause for suspicion. They're just putting too much weight on it, given the amount of other evidence on the other side.

Posted by: Brett Bellmore | September 04, 2009 at 07:16 AM

You are or were quite prolific around the inter-webs.

[bernard11]

Once again, the argument I'm supposed to "engage with" is full of shit.

Don't believe me? Here's National Review on the matter of Biden-only ballots.

You may have seen a number bouncing around Twitter saying that there were 95,801 “Biden-Only Ballots” in Georgia compared to just 818 “Trump-Only Ballots.” That appears to originate with Steve Cortes from the Trump campaign....

If you actually watch Cortes explain this, however, he is computing something completely different: the difference between the Joe Biden and Donald Trump votes and the votes for Georgia Senate campaigns. But he completely ignores the possibility that some voters submitted split-ticket ballots, i.e., they voted for Biden but also cast ballots for David Perdue or Kelly Loeffler for the Senate. If you compare the total number of votes cast in the Georgia Senate race between Perdue and Jon Ossoff, you see that the 95,000 number is mathematically impossible. As of the current count, there were 4,991,753 votes cast in Georgia in the presidential election, and 4,945,454 votes cast in the Perdue-Ossoff race. That’s a difference of 46,299 votes, meaning that it is not possible that there were 95,000 ballots with only a presidential vote marked...

If you applied the same math to Maine, you would find that 56,287 fewer people voted for Trump than for Susan Collins. That does not mean that Trump was robbed of 56,287 votes in Maine, it means that some voters went for Biden and Collins, as voters have been doing as long as there have been elections.

So how much more crap am I obligated to "engage with" before I can just say the pro-Trump arguments are horseshit, and refuse to listen?

Your position is that you can make up or repeat whatever BS you want and demand that others "engage with it." That's plain dishonest. As long as you're allowed to make shit up the demands never end.

So take the whole, "You have to take this seriously" crap and shove it.

[JoeNCA]

Trump got more votes in Philadelphia than he did in 2016. He underperformed his 2016 performance in 24 other counties though. That's what lost him the state and thus the election, not fraud.

[Brett Bellmore]

In 2020, Trump got 18% of the votes in Philly. In 2016, he got 15.5%. But the turnout in Philly was higher this year, so Philly actually hurt him more state-wide this year than in 2016, because Biden was still getting most of the votes.

[Glaucomatose]

BTW, "Biden got a smaller vote share in every major metro area in the country, except for four cities in four of the battleground states" is simply, demonstrably, laughably, catastrophically wrong.

[David Nieporent]

Biden got a smaller vote share in every major metro area in the country, except for four cities in four of the battleground states.

False. You've been lied to. This is completely untrue. (In fact, it's basically backwards.)

[bernard11]

7a. Delusional imbeciles believe this crap.
8. Said imbeciles send Trump money.

[Krayt]

It's less about money than laying groundwork for a 4-year assault on the legitimacy of Biden, as was done against Trump.

You guys made this bed. Lie in it.

[DStraws]

Good luck with that strategy. It worked so well during the Obama administration.

[bernard11]

There was no "4-year assault on the legitimacy of Trump."

The fact that he was legally elected was not seriously challenged by anyone. And if you're going to tell me there was no basis for the impeachment, or that the Russian collusion business was a "hoax," don't bother. That's nonsense.

Oh. And while it may be what you say for some Republicans, for Trump it's about the money.

Do you really think he gives a shit about Biden's legitimacy? I mean, sure, he's pissed that he lost, but if you asked him whether he would prefer to collect the $200M or convince the country Biden is illegitimate, which do you think he take?

[Tilted]

Oh please, please, please... however the Court disposes of this case, can one of the justices write something saying that the odds of Texas getting one justice to vote to grant it some form of relief were less than 1 in a quadrillion and thus the odds of Texas getting five justices to vote for such relief were less than 1 in a quadrillion to the fifth power?

Pretty please?

[santamonica811]

One of my secret wishes is that, in my lifetime, there will be a Supreme Court written decision that uses the word "kajillion." I think this case is my best chance I'm gonna get. [Hopefully, some of the SCOTUS Justices read this post...hint hint.]

[davidmtaylor]

This case doesn't rely on that point, and it isn't even necessary to the arguments so it is unlikely that they will address it.

[MatthewSlyfield]

Here is the kind of response I think this suit deserves:

If 2020 was a math word-problem: If you’re going down a river at 2 MPH and your canoe loses a wheel, how much pancake mix would you need to re-shingle your roof?

[santamonica811]

Okay, I did laugh out loud.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Yellow.

[MatthewSlyfield]

I'm sorry, the correct answer was pumpernickel.

[De Oppresso Liber]

Fuck, I guessed rye.

[bernard11]

Very good, Matthew.

[Ghost of Patrick Henry]

Opine and read the evidence later. Auditioning for a CNN gig.
The statistical evidence is part of a larger case. The evidence of illegal changes to legislative voting requirements is very clear. If the states have responsive evidence, let them produce it.
We are supposed to count voters, not votes. If ballot boxes are stuffed, then the vote must be thrown out.
Ballot boxes were stuffed.
Sorry you are ok with that.
It won't end well.

[Sarcastr0]

Very clear!

[Max!]

Are you one of those dead voters we keep hearing about, Mr. Henry?

[dunce]

Statistic expert tell us what the realm odds are by your calculation please and show your work.

[Josh R]

I tested the hypothesis that the performance of [Clinton and Biden] were statistically similar. [...] I can reject the hypothesis many times more than one in a quadrillion.

I [...] test if the votes from [before 3 AM and after 3 AM] are statistically similar. [...] There is a one in many more than quadrillions of chances that these two tabulation periods are drawn from the same population

No shit, Sherlock and SFW.

[Josh R]

The SFW according to Paxton is Biden has less than a one in a quadrillion chance of winning in each of these states. That's 100% unadulterated BS. The correct conclusion is the vote totals don't come from the same population (no shit part two, Sherlock).

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

“I could calculate your chance of survival, but you won’t like it.”-- Marvin, the Paranoid Android

[Dr. Ed 2]

Joe Sixpack understands that the election was rigged...

[santamonica811]

Yes. And Joe Sixpack "understands" that Covid is a hoax.

I think it's important to put the ironic quote marks around 'understand,' to indicate that we all know that, in fact, Joe is a moron.

[David Nieporent]

Be nice. Maybe Joe Sixpack is just drunk.

[CindyF]

Let's pick one part of the complaint filed and mock it. That will show it has no merit! Is that Reason's in-depth response to this case? Is this the total amount of commentary we will receive? I came to this site to look for an initial response to the filing, and although I knew it make take a few days for someone to read through the entire thing and research the information cited, I certainly didn't expect something so childish. Was the entire case based on this issue alone? The statistical chances of Biden winning? Or was their more to the complaint? I expected something....I don't know, more professional?

[Noscitur a sociis]

This is at least the second post on this filing.

But yes, this deserves to be mocked. And if you're willing to include something so obviously wrong in your lawsuit, it's probably a good sign there's not a lot of merit to the rest of it. (NB: there isn't.)

[davidmtaylor]

I agree that this point is ridiculous, but it is meaningless in terms of the entire case.

[loki13]

No, the inclusion of it (which is one of the factual affidavits) is indicative of the quality of the lawsuit, along with the fact that it came from the very, very problematic Texas AG.

[David Nieporent]

Just because the case has no factual merit, and no legal merit, doesn't mean we should mock it, Loki.

[MatthewSlyfield]

When you go to court you should be bringing your best arguments from the start. You leave the weak, the silly and the stupid arguments at home, unless that's all you've got.

It says something about their whole case if they think that statistical abomination is one of their best arguments.

[Bill Poser]

How does the Texas AG have standing? And is it personal or does he claim that the State of Texas has standing?

[davidmtaylor]

They state that in the filing. "By the shared enterprise of the entire
nation electing the President and Vice President,
equal protection violations in one State can and do
adversely affect and diminish the weight of votes cast
in States that lawfully abide by the election structure
set forth in the Constitution. Plaintiff State is
therefore harmed by this unconstitutional conduct in
violation of the Equal Protection or Due Process
Clauses."

[Glaucomatose]

Which is a great argument for me, as an individual in Massachusetts, to have standing to sue the State of Texas for voting restrictions that I feel diminish the rights of minority voters in violation of Equal Protection, given that I am a citizen of the same nation and part of that same enterprise electing the President and Vice President, and therefore an Equal Protection violation in Texas can and does adversely affect and diminish the weight of my vote.

I am, let's say, skeptical that a court would find my argument for standing in such a case persuasive.

[loki13]

It's like the groups in one part of the country shouting count the votes, while the other parts screaming stop the count. They can't possibly understand what they are doing, just mindlessly going through the motions.

Yes, the reasons that this legal theory is not valid is because if it was valid, it would be so insanely stupid that I don't think anyone (left or right) could stomach it. Just imagine having all the states suing each other over how they conduct elections.

That's how a federal system works, right? /facepalm

[David Nieporent]

Right. The conservatives were so eager to roll back the VRA, so excited about restricting the ability of the DOJ to sue red states over changes to voting procedures. I wonder how many of them realize that this case's theory would allow every other state in the country to sue, say, Texas because it closed a polling place or changed the rules on absentee balloting.

[De Oppresso Liber]

The court that decided Wickard v Filburn might find your case convincing, if they were being logically consistent.

[Bill Poser]

I also wonder about the assumption that the voting behavior of the citizens of the four states is independent. That seems dubious.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Well now that it is en vogue to call out flim flam bullshit, I hope people start pointing out a lot of junk science that supports climate change or whatever we call that now and stats that completely destroy the idea there is anything like systemic racism.

Or maybe you should grow to expect this kind of thing when the left has based entire arguments on purely manufactured crap. Funny things happen when the chickens come back to roost.

[Sarcastr0]

Jimmy, as always, looking anywhere but at the latest righwing clownery.

We can have a debate about climate science later, this here is for the election crap your side is trying.

[loki13]

Pretty sure he has, "Look, a (liberal) squirrel!" as a macro.

[De Oppresso Liber]

They can, and do, always fall back on "Both Sides11!11!!!" when the issue starts bringing them dangerously close to self reflection.

[Jimmy the Dane]

So you do realize in the realm of public discourse most of the left is full of shit and also find it funny that now the other side is doing the same you just don't like the tactic. OK. Got it.

[Purple Martin]

Ah yes, that crutch of the conspiracy theorist, the impossible 'Improbable Odds of x happening'. Let me look up something a true Bible-believing fundamentalist, referring to what he said were an amazing set of improable coincidences 'documented in the Bible!' resulting in proof of something or other...ah, here it is:

“...a mathematician calculated the odds against this happening by chance as 50-to-the-hundredth-power!”

This is so commonly used is that it’s become a cliché of the conspiracy theorist, whether the theory is that of the anti-vaxxer, CIA-created-AIDS, 9/11 Truther, UFOlogist, Creation Theorist, etc.

It is certain the '2020 Stolen Election' will be added to that list, and the odd theories of crank numerologists, no matter how easily debunked one-by-one, will be part of the mythos.

[J_A_Nick]

As a statistician, I agree the statement regarding a one in a quadrillion chance is
very implausible. I guess he would have called the election in Trump’s favor by midnight or earlier. I am looking forward to seeing the analysis, but there do appear to be a statistical anomalies and it is strange to go from winning by a lot to losing by a little four times (I think independence is a safe assumption here).

Anyway, Cichetti is a PhD, Does it make sense to dismiss him out of hand just because we have not seen the analysis. That’s not science.

Furthermore, the case Texas makes does not seem to rely on the statistical argument. In short, it says 1) it is unconstitutional for states to break their laws even during a pandemic, and 2) the citizens of Texas are injured by this breach of law because 3) the breaches are big enough to sway the results. I am not a lawyer, and I would be interested in where others find holes in the case ( outside of the statistics). I don’t see any.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've read the filing now, and aside from the statistics, which their legal case doesn't actually rely on, it looks pretty solid to me. Some of the individual incidents may be disputed, but the overall point is indisputable.

As Nick says, they exhaustively list deliberate violations of election laws in the relevant states, not limited to just changing deadlines, which involve many more ballots than the difference between the candidates.

I've seen multiple cases where, for lower offices, this sort of thing resulted in elections being decertified. So it's not a crazy demand, in principle. The difference being that, for lower offices, decertified elections can be rerun. We desperately need such a provision for federal elections.

I can't really evaluate the statistics, because the analysis isn't yet available. But this case shouldn't rely on the statistics, it should be decided based on the proof laws were deliberately violated on a massive scale.

Their real challenge here is just getting the Court to care about that.

[wreckinball]

We've come to a point where the courts don't care about he law? I agree. Well, rather than pack the court lets just abolish them. Seriously whatever the dictator says these days is gold right. 1A who cares wear your mask and don't you dare try and make a living if you are not one of the chosen.

Election laws are whatever the folks counting the votes want them to be . Stalin would be proud.

[David Nieporent]

I’ve read the filing now, and aside from the statistics, which their legal case doesn’t actually rely on, it looks pretty solid to me.

That's because, to use a technical legal term, you're an idiot.

As Nick says, they exhaustively list deliberate violations of election laws in the relevant states, not limited to just changing deadlines, which involve many more ballots than the difference between the candidates.

They list no violations of election laws (which "changing deadlines" is not), and if they did, it would not make the case have any more legal merit than the bags used to scoop up one's dog's effluence.

I’ve seen multiple cases where, for lower offices, this sort of thing resulted in elections being decertified.

No, you haven't. Elections are decertified, if at all, with proof of illegal votes. That means forged ballots, votes cast by people not eligible to vote or the like. There is no evidence whatsoever of any such votes in these elections.

So it’s not a crazy demand, in principle.

Oh, it's still a crazy demand, because Texas has no standing to assert these claims and most of them are brought far too late anyway.

[cjcoats]

What mathematical qualifications do you have to declare "flimflam" ??

My qualifications to ask include PhD in Mathematics, MIT, 1978.

[Sarcastr0]

But I do know a little about statistics, having taught it for many years

[bernard11]

For this particular flim-flam an introductory statistics class is enough.

[The Shepherd]

One thing that is resoundingly consistent with commenters who mock and dismiss Trump and his supporters is that as soon as any potentially positive information is released about Trump, they all run to their 'fact checkers', who have already gleefully spun the headline (primarily) negatively just as fast as their little fingers can type. Their readers suckle that misleading teat loudly ... as though it were coming from their own mother's breast. Such readers are 'latched' to these left-leaning media choices and give zero time to conservative sources. Consequently, their views are tainted.

There was time when news was news ... near the same regardless of where you got it. Today, it is impossible to assess the political news fairly without giving equitable time to both liberal and conservative sources. Most Trump revilers' views are defective because they are in love with any and all plaintiffs who bring charges against Trump, but they are loathe to seriously entertain even one Trump defendant.

[MoreCurious]

As one of the 81 million who voted for Biden, I'm still waiting for "potentially positive information" to be released about Trump. There are some facts about him that cannot be disputed and should not be ignored: he is an immoral, narcissistic, unethical, misogynistic, racist, barely literate, vulgar, divisive, bullying, incompetent, feckless, tax-cheating, science-denying, lying grifter. That's why 7 million more people voted for Biden than voted for him. All the statisticians in the world can't change that.

[wreckinball]

Your "facts" seem like opinions. But you voted for a guy with dementia.

Joe is also blinding us lately with science. His latest gem was "wear masks when you are on planes ".

LMFAO someone tell Joe that's been happening for the last 8 months. SCIENCE!

[MoreCurious]

Thanks, but I'll stick with my undisputed facts and the guy who reads books and believes in science. You stick with guy who watches Fox News and believes in bleach-injection and hydroxychloroquine.

[De Oppresso Liber]

Isn't it funny how they just dropped the whole hydroxychloroquine thing like it never happened?

Relevant reading:
http://cultresearch.org/help/characteristics-associated-with-cults/

[The Shepherd]

Almost everything you said "cannot be disputed" is more than disputed, it is patently untrue. Staying within his presidency, pick the worst of those traits that you believe you can prove about him and are harmful to a presidency, then provide examples. I'll wait ...

You can't because there are none.

You are a prime example of someone who has allowed left media to lead you by the nose into whatever falsehood about Trump they wanted you to believe.

The problem is that most of the left doesn't realize how much mainstream media has misled them. It is an American catastrophe.

Honestly, it's stunning how misinformed most people on the left are about President Trump's accomplishments. He is almost certainly the single most accomplished president of the last 100 years. But, because they give zero time to hearing the "defendants" (right-leaning media and Trump from his own mouth), all of the worst things that they believe so devoutly about Trump, are completely false.

[The Shepherd]

Here are some of the "positive things" that left media never told you about:
• In 2017, became the first U.S. President to be hosted by 54 different Muslim country leaders (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Summit), which eventually led to the Israeli Peace Agreements in 2020.
• He achieved peace agreements between
• Serbia/Kosovo (established economic cooperation)
• Israel/UAE (normalized relations)
• Israel/Kingdom of Bahrain (normalized relations)
• Israel/Sudan (normalized relations)
• Israel/Morocco (normalized relations)
• As a result, he nearly achieved peace in the Middle East, which for decades, was the the primary measure of a president’s foreign policy success.
• Total of 4 nominations for Nobel Peace prize
• Serbia/Kosovo (2020) peace agreement
• Israel/UAE/Bahrain (2020) peace agreement
• Trump Doctrine (2020) For approach to foreign policy
• N. Korea (2017) For meeting with N. Korea’s Kim Jong Un
• Created the 5th branch of military, “United States Space Force”
• Decimated the ISIS caliphate, virtually eliminating ISIS as a threat during his first term (notice how you haven’t heard from ISIS in three years)
• Revitalized our military after was decimated by Obama
• USMCA (an upgrade to NAFTA) - trade agreement more beneficial to America
• First President to visit N. Korea.
• Successfully calmed tensions between U.S. and N. Korea.

[The Shepherd]

• Achieved the lowest unemployment in history every race category.
• Issued Executive Order to protect people with pre-existing conditions.
• Issued Executive Order to force Big Pharma to charge America same prices other countries pay
• “VA Mission Act” - made it much easier for veterans to go to hospitals/doctors in their own area
• “Right to Try” Act - gives extremely sick people the right to try unapproved FDA drugs
• For black people: First Step Act, Funded HBCU’s, Created Opportunity Zones, and if elected in 2020, coordinate with “Ice Cube” to create the “Platinum Plan”, providing millions of dollars in investment opportunity for black Americans.
• Issued Executive Order making the KKK and Antifa terrorist groups
• Almost 300 Federal Judges
• First 3 years, record high incomes all race categories; record low poverty (Census Bureau)
• Real media household income reached a record high, and poverty reached a record low.
• Improvements in income and poverty were the largest in over 50 years.
• Minority groups—including black, hispanic, and asian, experienced the largest income gains.
• Recognized Jerusalem as a capitol of Israel (4 previous POTUS’s said they would, but didn’t)
• Moved Israel embassy to Jerusalem (4 previous POTUS’s said they would, but didn’t)
• Campaign to end the criminalization of LGBT communities in 72 countries.
• Secured prophylaxis medications for uninsured, high-risk HIV patients, up to $20,000 per patient.
• Great American Outdoors Act
• His Warp Speed Operation brought the COVID-19 vaccine to Americans in just 9 months by cutting bureaucracy without compromising safety. The normal vaccine development time is 4-8 years.
• Saved between 1.5-2.0 million people from COVID-19 death vs. Biden. Here’s how:
• Restricted China travel 64 days before Biden agreed.
• Restricted Europe travel 23 days before Biden agreed.
• Biden and his advisors had spent this time saying Trump was xenophobic, overreacting, fear-mongering.
• If Trump had listened to Biden, 1.5-2.0M more people would have died.

[Jerry B.]

Would have been nice if the author had mentioned the other affidavits attached to the filing. Focusing only on the statistical analysis, and denigrating it without seeing the underlying computations, seems sort of bias-driven.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's the only one that could be ridiculed, I assume. So, meaning to ridicule, he concentrated on it.

[davidmtaylor]

The statistical analysis isn't even in the facts asserted in the case, it is in the section that details why they considered bringing the action. The actual facts are much more robust.

[David Nieporent]

The other affidavits are just recycled from other frivolous cases that were already brought and lost.

[ReaderY]

Dr. Cicchetti’s work shows that more people voted for Biden in 2020 than for Clinton in 2016, and more later-received mail-in ballots were for Biden in 2020 than ballots received by election day. Both results showed the underlying electorates were really different.

Neither result seems especially surprising, let alone suggestive of anything questionable about the election. We can easily believe that the elwctorate, and opinions, legitimately changed between the two elections. We can also easily believe that mailed-in ballots were more liklely to be for Biden than election day ballots.

Both results have a simple alternative explanation: Trump’s behavior. The electorate saw Trump in action in 2020, they hadn’t in 2016. This changes their views. Similarly, Trump’s efforts to discredit mail-in ballots explain why election-day voters were more likely to support Trump than voters with later-arriving mail-in ballots.

Neither result supporta an inference that there was something anomalous about the election.

[Brett Bellmore]

The key thing would be to look at absentee ballots only, and compare early to late. Look at where they came from, was it a representative sample of the state in both cases, or were late arriving absentee ballots preferentially from specific areas, and if so, why?

That's the sort of thing the Doctor thinks should be looked at.

The key point here is that he doesn't say the statistics prove fraud. He says they demonstrate the need for a closer look to see if potential explanations really hold up.

[loki13]

The issue, Brett, is assuming the statistics are run in good faith, if you don't have the slightest understanding of what you are modelling, you are doomed to fail. Look at the excellent and humorous example of Michael Masinter, above, and you can see why.

Here, let's make it easy from an election standpoint. Imagine that you are an idiot and you just wanted to show that there was "smoke" in the election using statistics. Here's three things that you can do easily-

1. Run a comparison between states (such as Arizona and Florida) that have regularly used absentee ballots for prior elections, with those (such as Georgia) that have not. You will see that Biden performed MORE STRONGLY in those states where absentee ballots were introduced or pushed more recently. FRAUD??!!??

2. Look at the difference in states that allowed for pre-processing of absentee ballots (such as Florida) and states that would not permit it (such as Wisconsin). You will find a massive "late shift" toward Biden in those states that would not permit pre-processing of ballots. FRAUD???!!!!

3. In 2016, the rejection rate of absentee ballots in Georgia for signatures was .24%. In 2018, the rejection rate of absentee ballots for signatures in Georgia was .15%. In 2020, the rejection rate of absentee ballots in Georgia for signatures was .15%. FRAUD??!!!??*

*I had to include this, because you keep using this one, incorrectly. This is how stats are misused, Brett. People that you listen to and are lying to you keep comparing the overall rejection rejection rate (6.24 in 2016, 3.10 in 2018) to the signature rejection rate in 2020. The overall rejection rate for 2020 is not known yet. You're welcome.

[wreckinball]

Or you could make up a story about a water line break and then kick out the election observers. Then as soon as they leave drag suitcases of votes out and start counting.

Or you could kick out observers and have the police block the door even with a court order saying they have to to be let in. The police response is how you going to enforce that.

Or you could kick poll observers out and then put paper over the windows.

Nothing at all suspicious about any of this. What's the secret word "debunked". Just keep saying it louder.

[loki13]

So to briefly engage, here is the basic issue with people like you who think it is funny to make fun of words like "debunked" or "fact."

There is an actual reality out there. Sometimes it is messy. Sometimes things don't line up nicely with what anyone wants to believe. Here, let's take an easy example.

"Or you could kick poll observers out and then put paper over the windows."

This is something that keeps getting trotted out, even though we all know what happened, and have, for well over a month! Why? Because it feels right. It feels good to say, doesn't it? But what really happened? Do you remember? Beyond chanting like a mantra, do you know what happened?

So they were counting votes in Detroit, and a whole bunch of Trump supporters (organized on-line, of course, at parler and facebook) came to prevent them from counting the votes. They were screaming at the poll workers, and banging on the windows. So, feeling intimidated, the windows were covered.

And yes, some poll challengers (the Michigan version of monitors/watchers) were ejected; but what is not included is that there were already far in excess of the number that were supposed to be there (134 for each party) and that not only GOP but Democratic poll challengers were prevented from being in there.

Yes, it was mess. In many ways. But instead of taking it for what it was (dealing with what became an emergent and hostile situation in the best way possible, with numerous GOP operatives roaming the area) it gets twisted. And it doesn't matter how many times the actual story is recounted, because people like you don't care about "facts" or the "truth" or what actually happened, and no matter how many times this has been explained (again, this is over ONE MONTH AGO) it just keeps getting repeated like the dumbest mantra ever.

[wreckinball]

So you think Saddam and Hugo won those elections 99-1%

Well those 5 and only those 5 metro areas had late night vote counts like that. The ones who did not allow opposition poll observers. The ones where we have eye witnesses of fraud occurring. We can't go ask people who voted because its anonymous. But maybe just maybe it wasn't 99-1 % Biden

What do you think David? God what an absolute idiot.

[loki13]

"Well those 5 and only those 5 metro areas had late night vote counts like that. "

Not true.

"The ones who did not allow opposition poll observers."

This is so tired. Like, seriously. Please stop lying.

"The ones where we have eye witnesses of fraud occurring."

We weren't allowed to watch, and we saw fraud. Hmmmm. Whatever, dude.

"We can’t go ask people who voted because its anonymous."

...if only there was some way to ... poll ... voters. If only.

"But maybe just maybe it wasn’t 99-1 % Biden"

Did you know that gullible isn't in the dictionary?

[wreckinball]

Boy, what a great reply. Did you know you are an idiot.

Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Detroit , True

I'm pretty tired of people that think its "tired" that we follow election law.

Did you say polls? My God you are dumber than I thought.

I just checked that dumbshit is not in the dictionary but it applies to yo.

[loki13]

"I just checked that dumbshit is not in the dictionary but it applies to yo."

Wow. Did you just look that up, or have you been saving it since second grade?

[wreckinball]

In reality whether they broke the law shold be the question.

If you get caught cheating on one question of a test does the teacher just mark that one question wrong? Or do you and whoever was assisting you get a big fat 0%.

Same with these big blue fraud machines. Well we only broke the law because of Covid. Well we only cheated a little not widespread,. Its not enough to change anything. Is it up to the cheated to figure out how much the cheater cheated?

Like anyone just cheats a little as a hobby. They cheat to effect the outcome. No one just cheat on one question on a test.

[loki13]

"Like anyone just cheats a little as a hobby. "

I mean, that's a great quote from Melania, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the election?

[wreckinball]

Except you can't answer the question because you are an idiot.

[loki13]

You are just channeling Melania today! You go, girl!

[M L]

So no explanation, just "I can assure you." Great really informative.

[Gurtrude Fussenmucker]

The Texas AG was interviewed this morning on a major news network. The spin he put on it was around the cause of action - the states being sued violated their own Constitutions or Election law. Since these violations could (would?) change the outcome of the election of national candidates, Texas was suing for relief.

Technically, I believe this to be a legitimate cause, and on that basis it should be heard. While it won't change the outcome of this election, it will force a more uniform set of codes across the States around balloting and results.

[Glaucomatose]

Sure, if you are willing to accept that California's AG can now sue Texas or Alabama over what California views as Constitutional deficiencies in Texas's or Alabama's electoral process. Is that really what conservatives want?

[rio9000]

It‘s not a question of what ‘conservatives’ want or of constitutional deficiencies. It is a question of extraconstitutional and thus unlawful action by the Defendants, and this is true of both the Constitution for the United States of America and the constitutions of the respective defendant States. If it is proved that the Defendants’ actions violated the respective constitutions, then SCOTUS has a clear choice: either they can uphold the rule of law, or they can ignore it. Do liberals really want SCOTUS to ignore the law?

[J_A_Nick]

I can not speak for all conservatives, but I think most is us love the constitution because we believe it is the basis for our county’s greatness. We know that there is opposition and we will not always get our way. By following the constitution, the country will will be optimized (do the most good for the most people). It is always necessary to work towards a more perfect union. It.... well, you know the thing... Yes! If California has cause to bring a suit toward Texas, then I support them doing so. However, if you read the suit, you will see that Texas has an “injury” that California did not. Specifically, the people of Texas voted for Trump who may not be the president because of potential unconstitutional act in the swing states. At this point, California has not been injured and I don’t believe Texas is a swing state. As a generalization, conservatives are much better at not changing the rules just to get an outcome they prefer. They respect the law and think it should be uniformly applied.

[De Oppresso Liber]

I really hope the end result of this whole charade will be that the electoral college becomes greatly diminished, and a national popular vote decides future presidential elections. The logical arguments for such a system have never been made more clear by the party that currently benefits from the EC.

Perfect poetic justice.

[rio9000]

@David Post, Trump's disappearing leads in all four states can also rather easily be explained by a sudden influx of hundreds of thousands of unlawful mail-in ballots used to cast votes for Biden. That’s the entire point of the Texas Complaint. You can waste your time and parse Dr. Cicchetti’s statistical analysis all you like, it does not diminish the central argument of the Complaint, which is that millions of votes in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were illegally cast, and the weight of these unlawful ballots tipped the scales in favor of Biden. The question to be addressed by SCOTUS is, were those mail-in ballots unlawful? That’s it. If they were, it doesn’t make a tinker’s dam what the odds of Biden winning in those states were. If they were 20 to 1 against Trump, it still doesn’t matter. If the rule of law means anything, then all that matters is whether or not the votes in question were lawfully cast. Everything else is irrelevant.

[David Nieporent]

The question to be addressed by SCOTUS is, were those mail-in ballots unlawful?

I mean, that's completely wrong as a matter of law; that's not the question to be addressed by SCOTUS.

But just for the record: no, they were not unlawful. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

[SME2020]

Since you're a statistical expert, please explain the probability of Joe Biden winning 1,995,691 mail-in votes in PA of 2,629,672 cast despite the fact that the party breakdown of mail-in ballots returned was: Democrats - 1,702,484. GOP - 623,404, Unaffiliated - 303,784. If Biden got 100% of the Democrat votes and Trump got 90% of the GOP votes, Biden would have needed 85% of the remaining ballots to achieve his recorded totals (with exit polls giving him 52% of independents). What are the odds of that?

[Haystack]

Lol@1,000,000,000,000,000 to the fourth power to 1. I guess someone wanted to give the SCOTUS something to laugh at and have stories to tell their grandchildren just how ridiculous of a president we once had. A buffoon even. Donald Buffoon Trump 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀

[wreckinball]

Nice!

[De Oppresso Liber]

Good idea. To make the situation even more analogous, I think the Texas AG's office should have to work with 250 angry and armed black panthers shouting and pounding on their windows.