>>11728940

The dude seems like hes way overcomplicating it.

At some point, the numbers have to be assigned to a given precinct.

They picked red counties, and just nudged the votes enough to take a few points off Trumps lead. Or picked safe blue counties (with friendly election boards) and nudged it even more.

The goal was to get within striking range, but not trigger statistical alarm bells.

Then they could inject whatever else they needed into the big cities with corrupt boards.

I think the ratios are just artifacts of trying to goal seek a certain percentage that is within 3% of historical averages.

>>11728957

Yeah, always seemed weirdly self important.

In what way is the press protecting anyone. (Well I guess in Bidens case true).

>>11729283

They all use the same firmware and count aggregation software.

>>11729396

It's just a sales tactic.

Get the customer to think PAST the sale (ie, the vote certification, electoral college, etc)

>>11729488

Majority of votes wouldn't be touched. But they could have flipped 6% in high R precincts, less in others, to achieve an overall 3% flip (which is effectively a 6% margin). That could be attributed to errors or polling inaccuracies.

But at some point (11pm?) they figured out it wasnt enough, and activated something else to force the margin they needed. PA and GA votes after 2am shifted the lead by 0.2% in every batch, across every precinct, without fail.