3 ms·

edit: OP expanded their post and my comment below is now inconsequential and even misleading. While I do not find the analysis particularly strong, it does not

• tptacek 6y ago
  I could be misreading it, but I don't think I am; for instance, the bit in the middle, about how the batches should be getting more Republican as time goes on and returns come in from rural counties (also: not how it works).
  • krastanov 6y ago
    Yeah, that one particular tweet becomes contradictory with the larger point they are making, but at face value [1] the larger point is that "each new batch of mail-in votes being reported as counted should have the same D/R ratio because they were shuffled before the counting started". It does not make a claim about what that ratio should be. [1]: Given the flimsiness of the arguments, taking it at face value might be giving it too much credit. My opinion is that this is nonsense. edit: your sibling comment about mail-in counts in PA also being explicitly not shuffled, but by county throws another wrench in their argument.
  • birken 6y ago
    You are right. The author is assuming the premise that all mail in ballots go to some central location, get shuffled together and thus should have a uniform count. The mail in ballots actually go to local precincts which count them and report them at different times. In fact there were times where mail-in ballots and in-person provisional ballots were being dumped at the same time because different precincts were at different stages of processing ballots at a given time. This analysis makes no sense and shows nothing unusual.