Sei sulla pagina 1di 2

Hillary Clinton Won

Brett Afloweroutofstone

Prestigious University that can be namedropped by people who like the results of my study and want it to appear legitimate

Abstract: Give up already.

I, random internet person, officially declare Axel Geijsel and Rodolfo Cortes Barragan’s paper “Are We Witnessing a Dishonest Election?: A Between State Comparison Based on the Used Voting Procedures of the 2016 Democratic Party Primary for the Presidency of the United Statesto be wrong, and also poorly named.

This conclusion is based upon the evidence contained in their summary that 1.) the authors somehow thought that delegate distribution is a suitable proxy for vote count, 2.) they refused to define what a primary states paper trailmeans in this context, 3.) their failure to explain how a paper trailwould be harder to falsify than electronic voting records, not to mention by what degree it would be easier, 4.) the completely false claim that [b]y the very nature of caucusing procedures, caucus results are generally thought to be more trustworthy,5.) a refusal to identify the source of their exit poll data, 6.) the fact that exit polls are themselves notorious for being wildly inaccurate and, thus, invalid measurements for research 7.) their comparison to a whole one other Democratic primary as an apparently conclusive confirmation of their findings, 8.) the mind-blowingly overconfident conclusion of these data suggest that election fraud is occurring in the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Primary electiondespite the fact that their problem-ridden, non-peer reviewed paper would even at its best only suggest the possibility of voter fraud.

After mentioning that paper and then failing to link to the Berkeley studysuggested in the headline, Higgins News Networks article Odds Hillary Won Without Widespread Fraud: 1 in 77 Billion says Berkeley, Sanford Studiesseems to base the next part of its analysis 1 on the fact that certain polls (many of which werent even asking who will you vote for,but were simply favorability and approval polls,) didnt match up with actual electoral outcomes, implying that widespread, covert vote manipulation is a more likely outcome than occasional incorrect polling.

The next part is then based on the New York Timeslive vote counter, which they dont seem to realize is not an accurate visualization of votes as they are cast, but instead of visualization of votes as they are reported. I think their point here is that a number of states showed Sanders likely to win but eventually tilted towards Clinton as time went on, in

1 It seems like Higgins News Network is literally just reposting stuff from other websites, so it isnt actually their analysis, just analysis theyre sharing. Check the article itself for proper attribution.

some cases becoming hers only at the last minute. This is clearly not a result of, say, dense urban areas with large Clinton voter bases reporting their results last, but is instead clear proof of manipulation done to weight certain observations in order to ensure a certain outcome. Amirite?

Oh, great, then for the next part theyre back to the exit polls thing again. The copy- and-pasted text acknowledges that [p]oorly informed ‘experts’ frequently argue that the statistical analysis of exit polls can be misleading because it assumes that real life data is randomly distributed (as in the Gaussian curve) when that’s not always the case.Those experts are right. Their answer to this charge is that [a]fter 59 years of fine-tuning this process in countless elections around the world statisticians have reached a point where exit polls have become extremely reliable.So, wait. The statisticians and political scientists who all say that exit polls are unreliable are idiots, because they fail to understand that the statisticians and political scientists who craft exit polls are geniuses? What ?

Look, the logistical voting system (or lack thereof, since federal coordination and monitoring of elections is sparse) in the United States is broken as fuck, and there are in fact big holes in the system that could be used to manipulate outcomes on the margins. Id be willing to believe there was some dirty play during the 2016 Democratic primary (see:

Brooklyn voter purge). But the analysis presented here is full of shit. I can tell you that without even checking the numbers. More importantly, there is nothing at all to suggest that there was systematic voter fraud designed to ensure the victory of Hillary Clinton. She won the Democratic nomination, and she would have won it even if it was spotlessly clean.