CarwilBJ’s avatarCarwilBJ’s Twitter Archive—№ 24,081

            1. …in reply to @ViscidKonrad
              @ViscidKonrad @Master0fNull So, I see what you're saying here: 90-95%: CC: 53,213 MAS: 210,523 (4.0x) 95-100%: CC: 50,489 MAS: 166,597 (3.3x)
              Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo CarwilBJ’s avatar Mood 0
          1. …in reply to @CarwilBJ
            @ViscidKonrad @Master0fNull So we have the same numbers on the table 0-86%: CC: 2,100,493 MAS: 2,417,553 (1.15x) 86-90%: CC: 36,725 MAS: 94,686 (2.6x)
            Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo CarwilBJ’s avatar Mood 0
        1. …in reply to @CarwilBJ
          @ViscidKonrad @Master0fNull I agree with you that 95% doesn't look like the critical break point in this table's data. And the argument from the auditors that it was seems perplexing in light of these figures.
          oh my god twitter doesn’t include alt text from images in their API
          Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo CarwilBJ’s avatar Mood +3 🙂
      1. …in reply to @CarwilBJ
        @ViscidKonrad @Master0fNull The question becomes, did this happen due to intentional or unintentional sorting of districts/tally sheets, or because the last sheets were subjected to some kind of treatment.
        Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo CarwilBJ’s avatar Mood 0
    1. …in reply to @CarwilBJ
      @ViscidKonrad @Master0fNull Plausible innocent explanations: —the TSE didn't want to incite an angry public and started the official count in areas with greater CC votes —the counts delayed by arson were in the most pro-MAS districts
      Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo CarwilBJ’s avatar Mood 0
  1. …in reply to @CarwilBJ
    @ViscidKonrad @Master0fNull Plausible guilty explanations: —the greatest pro-MAS ballots were held longer bc manipulation of them was less detectable —either pro-MAS errors were introduced or anti-MAS errors were corrected during the counting process
    On twitter.com Twitter logo CarwilBJ’s avatar Mood -5 🙁