I've been looking at the 2016 primary results and I noticed a pattern. If the corporation counting the votes used an algorithm to skew totals, would it be obvious when looking at sets of data primary data?
When I divide Sanders votes by Hillary's I almost get ratios of 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, and this is on nearly all the results they did not tie. Whats strange is this doesn't work as well with the 2008 Hillary vs Obama primaries where the ratios are more random.
Trump typically leads with 1.5x as many votes as the guy in second place. His victories also produce very close proportional numbers.
Their numbers almost always come close to a set ratio when they don't tie. It's a weird pattern I've noticed
>>7936550
Sanders is loosing because he has political bagage, not because of conspiracies.
I just assume that all elections are at least a little rigged. Sanders is obviously too leftist for the masses but Hillary isn't very popular either so idk what that leaves us with.
>>7936560
Elaborate on what you meant by:
>Whats strange is this doesn't work as well with the 2008 Hillary vs Obama primaries
> where the ratios are more random.
Are you just eyeballing it or do you have math to back up your claim
rounded Bernie delegate ratios except for wins and ties:
0.8
0.4
0.2<
0.5<
0.4
0.5<
0.5<
0.5<
0.3<
0.1
0.5<
Not sure this has any meaning though.
0.8
0.8
South Carolina in 2016 was 73% Hillary and 26% Bernie, which comes awful close to 1/4 split. I notice the polls come in a couple variations, 1/4, 1/3,1/2 and ties. The numbers aren't exact ratios but they are pretty damn close. VT was 89% to 9%.
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/NY.html
Thats 2008 in NY, chosen because Edwards is irrelevant and its Hillary vs Obama. The math here doesn't come as close to a ratio
>>7936579
Not delegates, voter numbers in comparison to clinton
>>7936550
Kind of like how Hillary totally won six out of six coin tosses in Iowa, an event that had a probability of 1.6% :^)
Here video of her totally winning one of those coin tosses:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ONP9oKpyjQ4
>>7936550
This is awesomely interesting! Keep up your investigations man
You might, aswell wanna create a statistical model of the elections to see what kind of skewness is expected, this is however quite a hard model to construct
>>7936586
http://www.npr.org/2016/02/02/465268206/coin-toss-fact-check-no-coin-flips-did-not-win-iowa-for-hillary-clinton
>>7936553
>loosing
Seriously?
>>7936553
>Sanders is loosing because he has political bagage, not because of conspiracies.
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean someone is out to get me.
Sanders probably can't win the actual election, but that doesn't mean the shit's not rigged.
That said, OP's ratio's aren't as compelling as the timing issue from the 2012 primaries.
Often times, Romney would be trailing in the early stages of vote-counting, only to surge ahead as more precincts came in.
oops:
>>7937703
>Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean someone *ISN'T* out to get me.
>>7936550
protip: the people that would be rigging them are a HELLUVA lot smarter than you
