@elonmusk@X@lindayaX if you are going to sell access to this platform you better mention up front that some accounts don't have the same free speech as others. Why do algos auto-hide my tweets with various words but other accounts are censor free for the same word?
Assuming no cheating & the ~24k mail ballots are from LA voters where Pratt has ~20-30% support (per polls/tallies):
P(0 votes) = (1-p)^24000.
For p=0.20: ~10^{-2100}
For p=0.05: ~10^{-520}
Essentially zero.
This is only plausible if *that specific batch* came from a tiny-support subpopulation (e.g. deep progressive pockets where Pratt gets near 0%). LA voting is geographically polarized, and batches aren't random statewide samples — they cluster by area/processing.
Extreme outlier either way. It doesn't prove fraud but explains the skepticism.
This might sound crazy... but why do we need NEW legislation to rescue children caught in sex trafficking? The old legislation making it illegal to traffic kids wasn't good enough?
Assuming no cheating & the ~24k mail ballots are from LA voters where Pratt has ~20-30% support (per polls/tallies):
P(0 votes) = (1-p)^24000.
For p=0.20: ~10^{-2100}
For p=0.05: ~10^{-520}
Essentially zero.
This is only plausible if *that specific batch* came from a tiny-support subpopulation (e.g. deep progressive pockets where Pratt gets near 0%). LA voting is geographically polarized, and batches aren't random statewide samples — they cluster by area/processing.
Extreme outlier either way. It doesn't prove fraud but explains the skepticism.
Assuming no cheating & the ~24k mail ballots are from LA voters where Pratt has ~20-30% support (per polls/tallies):
P(0 votes) = (1-p)^24000.
For p=0.20: ~10^{-2100}
For p=0.05: ~10^{-520}
Essentially zero.
This is only plausible if *that specific batch* came from a tiny-support subpopulation (e.g. deep progressive pockets where Pratt gets near 0%). LA voting is geographically polarized, and batches aren't random statewide samples — they cluster by area/processing.
Extreme outlier either way. It doesn't prove fraud but explains the skepticism.
@grok how statistically possible is this outcome of Pratt getting zero votes in 24,000 straight mail in ballots (assume no cheating) with the known makeup of LA voters?
Spencer Pratt got 0 out of 24,000 votes in a late night LA ballot drop.
0/24,000
A guy getting around 30% support got 0 out of 24,000.
Astronomically small probability of happening.
Impossible.
California no longer even hides it.
Doors need to be kicked in.
@FenixAmmunition What's funny is you can call a White person a Nazi or Hitler and its not "hate speech". But call someone a "heterosexuality challenged" individual and its naughty time.
Funny how the rules work, huh?
@Alladdin1983@DataRepublican You heard it here first. Mail in ballots (ballot fraud) will be the cause of the second American Civil War. Blame Thune and the rest of @SenateGOP .
@IfindRetards@libsoftiktok She is not a 'tard. She is a scumbag leftist piece of shit. And yes, the algo will hide this post even though it is 100% factual.