-
@Master0fNull @iMarxiavelli @JohnCuriel14 @MITelectionlab @ceprdc Oh, okay, , I see what you're doing. But OAS is not contending that the late voting shift swung the election alone. Rather that the anomaly points to one of several places where fraud or bias entered into the results.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood -6 🙁
-
@Master0fNull @iMarxiavelli @JohnCuriel14 @MITelectionlab @ceprdc For the OAS analysis, the question is whether the total magnitude of tainted results (for all the reasons) exceeds the margin over 10%. If it does, they don't certify the election. Again, their role is to audit not to indict for fraud.On twitter.com
-
@Master0fNull @iMarxiavelli @JohnCuriel14 @MITelectionlab @ceprdc For the CEPR, MIT analysis, the question is whether post-TREP interference swung the election. So instead of throwing out the results for disputed precincts, they are statistically modeling likely outcomes.Permalink On twitter.com
-
@Master0fNull @iMarxiavelli @JohnCuriel14 @MITelectionlab @ceprdc One major problem, one major difference of perspective: The OAS and EU found independent sources of bias and error, which were included in the pre-pause TREP counts. So extrapolating doesn't give us cheating-free results.Permalink On twitter.com
-
@Master0fNull @iMarxiavelli @JohnCuriel14 @MITelectionlab @ceprdc The difference of perspective is election integrity vs election fraud. Under the former paradigm, an unclear outcome (under partisan electoral authorities no less) should be re-run. That was the EU and audit conclusion. The EU sought a new electoral tribunal.Permalink On twitter.com