You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] WORF_MOTORBOATS_TROI ago  (edited ago)

Their whole theory is based on the faulty premise that the percentage of individual votes for a candidate should naturally track with the percentage of of people in that precinct who are voting a straight ticket for that candidate's party. Why look at the trend lines based on the county borders instead of the borders of the congressional districts? Vote-splitting behavior is far more likely to closely track with the borders of the down ballot races than it is for a county. They looked at Oakland county, which is split between 4 congressional districts 2 of which were very close and 2 of which the winner had a 19+ point margin of victory, all of them went for democrats who were incumbents. Wayne county has 4 congressional districtsin its borders and Kent county as 2 congressional races in their border. Those races will have a huge impact on vote splitting behavior in those areas, way more than the fact that they're in the same county. Were there even any county races on the ballot there? In this instance, analyzing numbers on a county-by-county basis is completely arbitrary. They might as well have looked at the results based on north/south/east/west part of the state it would have been just as meaningless.

There might have been vote flipping and there probably was fraud, but the way they tried to analyze in this video didn't prove jack, and I'm angry that I wasted my time on their dumbass theory. I mean I'm not mad at you it's not your fault, I would have watched it no matter who had posted it and I saw that a few others had posted it too.