4 ms·
Various people are trying to explain the Wisconsin result, in which Trump-voting counties were three times more likely to have electronic voting than Clinton-vo
by flashman 10y ago
Various people are trying to explain the Wisconsin result, in which Trump-voting counties were three times more likely to have electronic voting than Clinton-voting counties. I made this image to illustrate: http://i.imgur.com/AZNr2Hd.png http://i.imgur.com/AZNr2Hd.png
It's probably entirely explicable by demographic factors, but the difference is stark and certainly prompts curiosity.
- entee 10y agoWas that the case in previous elections? I.e. in 2012?
- themgt 10y agoThat's really not a good way to graph the data. If you're rigging an election (within a state) you win by total votes, not how many counties are won. Showing which counties tipped one way or the other by voting machine type is far more likely to reflect demographic factors.
- flashman 10y agoIt's a graph which explains why people are curious, not why the data looks that way, so it's fine. If you're rigging an election, you're going to rig electronic machines because it's easier than changing thousands of paper ballots. Therefore in a rigged election with a mix of paper and electronic voting, you would expect the electronic voting to favour the rigged candidate. Of course, on summary numbers this is indistinguishable from perfectly normal activity.
- rubyfan 10y agoThe insinuation is that the disparity in voting methods could reflect tampering (for Trump or Clinton, depending on your party affiliation). I think there is actually robust statistical approaches to detecting irregularities and to normalize for demographic differences, etc. If anyone has a credible source for such a study, I'd suggest replacing the original link, which offers no evidence, statistical or otherwise.