ASA Connect

------------------------------
James Knaub (Jim)
Retired Lead Mathematical Statistician
------------------------------

Hi Jim,

Thanks for replying. What sort of debunking did you have in mind? I was hoping you could explain in detail why the probability calculation was incorrect, if so. Actually, the advertiser-supported press floated the ideas that Republicans voted in person yet Democrats were told to vote by mail and did so by mail. Typically, absentee votes and military votes come in late, so that would make the late votes skew Republican. In any event, President Trump had an early lead in the swing states, so the question using probability theory, is how likely would it be for Former Vice President Joe Biden to come back and win the state given some reasonable assumptions of odds. Even with a 90 to 10 split for Biden, the probability of Biden flipping the 10 states is only 34%. Of course, it is possible that Biden won, but is it probable? No.

Thanks,

David A. Wagner, Ph.D.

------------------------------
David Wagner
Trident University International
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 16:40
From: James Knaub
Subject: Election results

<span;>Why has "Is it probable that Biden won the
<span;>2020 election" been posted without giving anyone a chance to debunk this?

<span;>David Wagner's calculations are not valid because most Democrats voted by mail, and many more Republicans voted on election day, as they were encouraged to unsafely do.  Many States count the election day votes first.  Therefore it was expected that Trump would have more votes counted first no matter how badly he lost.  (Also, the "...<span;>hundreds of affidavits of fraudulent activities..." were repeatedly debunked in court.  Let's not keep repeating falsehoods.)

------------------------------
James Knaub (Jim)
Retired Lead Mathematical Statistician
------------------------------

------------------------------
James Knaub (Jim)
Retired Lead Mathematical Statistician
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 17:28
From: David Wagner
Subject: Election results

Hi Jim,

Thanks for replying. What sort of debunking did you have in mind? I was hoping you could explain in detail why the probability calculation was incorrect, if so. Actually, the advertiser-supported press floated the ideas that Republicans voted in person yet Democrats were told to vote by mail and did so by mail. Typically, absentee votes and military votes come in late, so that would make the late votes skew Republican. In any event, President Trump had an early lead in the swing states, so the question using probability theory, is how likely would it be for Former Vice President Joe Biden to come back and win the state given some reasonable assumptions of odds. Even with a 90 to 10 split for Biden, the probability of Biden flipping the 10 states is only 34%. Of course, it is possible that Biden won, but is it probable? No.

Thanks,

David A. Wagner, Ph.D.

------------------------------
David Wagner
Trident University International

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 16:40
From: James Knaub
Subject: Election results

<span;>Why has "Is it probable that Biden won the
<span;>2020 election" been posted without giving anyone a chance to debunk this?

<span;>David Wagner's calculations are not valid because most Democrats voted by mail, and many more Republicans voted on election day, as they were encouraged to unsafely do.  Many States count the election day votes first.  Therefore it was expected that Trump would have more votes counted first no matter how badly he lost.  (Also, the "...<span;>hundreds of affidavits of fraudulent activities..." were repeatedly debunked in court.  Let's not keep repeating falsehoods.)

------------------------------
James Knaub (Jim)
Retired Lead Mathematical Statistician
------------------------------

The argument is that it was unlikely for Biden to flip each state so therefore the election was a fraud. Is that what you are saying? In that case, you have a problem. The problem is: in 2016, the probability that Trump would defeat all 16 of the Republicans running in the primaries was very low. And then once he was the nominee, the probability that he would defeat Hillary in PA, WI, MI, FL, NC, etc. were all quite low. At the time, I did the calculation you are suggesting, multiplying all the individual state probabilities, and came up with an overall p of around .001 (.25^5).  So according to your logic, the election in 2016 was a fraud as well. Also whoever won the mega millions lottery should be investigated, since the chance of winning was <.00001, so that was also a fraud.  I think the problem is that low probability events do happen.

------------------------------
Richard Amdur
Clinical Professor and Lead Biostatistician
Medical Faculty Associates
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 18:13
From: James Knaub
Subject: Election results

<span;Most Democrats voted by mail, and many more Republicans voted on election day, as they were encouraged to unsafely do.  Many States count the election day votes first. (That makes the "90%" closer to 100%.)

Therefore it was expected that Trump would have more votes counted first no matter how badly he lost.  Even if Trump had lost all 50 States and DC, he would still be expected to have done well in the same day voting. (Also, the "...<span;>hundreds of affidavits of fraudulent activities..." were repeatedly debunked in court.  Also State Secretary's of State were convinced, and others needed for certification.  Let's not keep repeating falsehoods.) 

------------------------------
James Knaub (Jim)
Retired Lead Mathematical Statistician

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 17:28
From: David Wagner
Subject: Election results

Hi Jim,

Thanks for replying. What sort of debunking did you have in mind? I was hoping you could explain in detail why the probability calculation was incorrect, if so. Actually, the advertiser-supported press floated the ideas that Republicans voted in person yet Democrats were told to vote by mail and did so by mail. Typically, absentee votes and military votes come in late, so that would make the late votes skew Republican. In any event, President Trump had an early lead in the swing states, so the question using probability theory, is how likely would it be for Former Vice President Joe Biden to come back and win the state given some reasonable assumptions of odds. Even with a 90 to 10 split for Biden, the probability of Biden flipping the 10 states is only 34%. Of course, it is possible that Biden won, but is it probable? No.

Thanks,

David A. Wagner, Ph.D.

------------------------------
David Wagner
Trident University International

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 16:40
From: James Knaub
Subject: Election results

<span;>Why has "Is it probable that Biden won the
<span;>2020 election" been posted without giving anyone a chance to debunk this?

<span;>David Wagner's calculations are not valid because most Democrats voted by mail, and many more Republicans voted on election day, as they were encouraged to unsafely do.  Many States count the election day votes first.  Therefore it was expected that Trump would have more votes counted first no matter how badly he lost.  (Also, the "...<span;>hundreds of affidavits of fraudulent activities..." were repeatedly debunked in court.  Let's not keep repeating falsehoods.)

------------------------------
James Knaub (Jim)
Retired Lead Mathematical Statistician
------------------------------

Thank you Richard,

    This is another excellent way of thinking to add to my list of class discussions in my elementary course.  Pointing out what on their face might be slippery inconsistencies like these is a great way to get students to stop and think about the actual implications of the methods they learn in that course. 

    Such discussions also helps my students strengthen their defenses against the quite sophisticated and powerful propaganda that is out there right now (the posts by "David Wagner" are starting to smell that way to me).

Best,

------------------------------
J. S. (Steve) Marron
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill NC
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-26-2021 07:58
From: Richard Amdur
Subject: Election results

The argument is that it was unlikely for Biden to flip each state so therefore the election was a fraud. Is that what you are saying? In that case, you have a problem. The problem is: in 2016, the probability that Trump would defeat all 16 of the Republicans running in the primaries was very low. And then once he was the nominee, the probability that he would defeat Hillary in PA, WI, MI, FL, NC, etc. were all quite low. At the time, I did the calculation you are suggesting, multiplying all the individual state probabilities, and came up with an overall p of around .001 (.25^5).  So according to your logic, the election in 2016 was a fraud as well. Also whoever won the mega millions lottery should be investigated, since the chance of winning was <.00001, so that was also a fraud.  I think the problem is that low probability events do happen.

------------------------------
Richard Amdur
Clinical Professor and Lead Biostatistician
Medical Faculty Associates

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 18:13
From: James Knaub
Subject: Election results

<span;Most Democrats voted by mail, and many more Republicans voted on election day, as they were encouraged to unsafely do.  Many States count the election day votes first. (That makes the "90%" closer to 100%.)

Therefore it was expected that Trump would have more votes counted first no matter how badly he lost.  Even if Trump had lost all 50 States and DC, he would still be expected to have done well in the same day voting. (Also, the "...<span;>hundreds of affidavits of fraudulent activities..." were repeatedly debunked in court.  Also State Secretary's of State were convinced, and others needed for certification.  Let's not keep repeating falsehoods.) 

------------------------------
James Knaub (Jim)
Retired Lead Mathematical Statistician

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 17:28
From: David Wagner
Subject: Election results

Hi Jim,

Thanks for replying. What sort of debunking did you have in mind? I was hoping you could explain in detail why the probability calculation was incorrect, if so. Actually, the advertiser-supported press floated the ideas that Republicans voted in person yet Democrats were told to vote by mail and did so by mail. Typically, absentee votes and military votes come in late, so that would make the late votes skew Republican. In any event, President Trump had an early lead in the swing states, so the question using probability theory, is how likely would it be for Former Vice President Joe Biden to come back and win the state given some reasonable assumptions of odds. Even with a 90 to 10 split for Biden, the probability of Biden flipping the 10 states is only 34%. Of course, it is possible that Biden won, but is it probable? No.

Thanks,

David A. Wagner, Ph.D.

------------------------------
David Wagner
Trident University International

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 16:40
From: James Knaub
Subject: Election results

<span;>Why has "Is it probable that Biden won the
<span;>2020 election" been posted without giving anyone a chance to debunk this?

<span;>David Wagner's calculations are not valid because most Democrats voted by mail, and many more Republicans voted on election day, as they were encouraged to unsafely do.  Many States count the election day votes first.  Therefore it was expected that Trump would have more votes counted first no matter how badly he lost.  (Also, the "...<span;>hundreds of affidavits of fraudulent activities..." were repeatedly debunked in court.  Let's not keep repeating falsehoods.)

------------------------------
James Knaub (Jim)
Retired Lead Mathematical Statistician
------------------------------

I think the issue is that when a model or argument is applied to a new set of facts, and leads to conclusions that are either impossible, absurd or ridiculous, that is sufficient evidence to say that the model or argument is wrong. 

Here, the model or argument is that you can multiply the expected probability of a series of future events to get an overall probability of a final situation that includes each of those events occurring. And if the overall probability is low (say <.00001), but the event does occur, then you can conclude that there is something suspicious about it, or that it could have violated some rule, or that perhaps it didn't really occur. 

The disproof of the argument would be to show a few events that were low probability did occur and where we know there was no cheating or anything suspicious going on. 

One obvious disconfirmatory piece of information is that cities like New York, Paris, London, Singapore, Tokyo, Abuja, and Los Angeles exist. If you go back to the time when life was first forming on earth, what was the probability that land dwelling creatures would evolve? Probably <10%.  And if land-dwelling creatures did evolve, what was the probability that they would figure out how to use fire (~10%) and figure out how to build agricultural systems that would support billions of them (~5%)?  And if they did that, how likely were they to create sewer systems that allowed for high concentrations of them to live together (~5%)?   And if they did figure out how to build sewer systems and create iron, what was the probability that they would create a city like New York (<1%)? And the probability of creating Paris (<1%)? As you can see, if you multiply all these it becomes just about impossible for this combination of events to occur. This probability is way way lower than the probability that Biden would win the presidency. So the conclusion of this argument would be: the presence of all these cities is highly highly suspicious. It is very very clear that some major problems must have occurred, and it is almost certain that fraud was involved. Or perhaps all these cities don't really exist. 

This conclusion is obviously ridiculous, absurd, and false. Therefore, something is wrong with the theory or argument that was used to lead to this conclusion. It may be difficult to find out or explain where the flaw is, but there is a major flaw in the argument somewhere. 


------------------------------
Richard Amdur
Clinical Professor and Lead Biostatistician
Medical Faculty Associates
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-27-2021 07:55
From: James Marron
Subject: Election results

Thank you Richard,

    This is another excellent way of thinking to add to my list of class discussions in my elementary course.  Pointing out what on their face might be slippery inconsistencies like these is a great way to get students to stop and think about the actual implications of the methods they learn in that course.

    Such discussions also helps my students strengthen their defenses against the quite sophisticated and powerful propaganda that is out there right now (the posts by "David Wagner" are starting to smell that way to me).

Best,

------------------------------
J. S. (Steve) Marron
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill NC

Original Message:
Sent: 01-26-2021 07:58
From: Richard Amdur
Subject: Election results

The argument is that it was unlikely for Biden to flip each state so therefore the election was a fraud. Is that what you are saying? In that case, you have a problem. The problem is: in 2016, the probability that Trump would defeat all 16 of the Republicans running in the primaries was very low. And then once he was the nominee, the probability that he would defeat Hillary in PA, WI, MI, FL, NC, etc. were all quite low. At the time, I did the calculation you are suggesting, multiplying all the individual state probabilities, and came up with an overall p of around .001 (.25^5).  So according to your logic, the election in 2016 was a fraud as well. Also whoever won the mega millions lottery should be investigated, since the chance of winning was <.00001, so that was also a fraud.  I think the problem is that low probability events do happen.

------------------------------
Richard Amdur
Clinical Professor and Lead Biostatistician
Medical Faculty Associates

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 18:13
From: James Knaub
Subject: Election results

<span;Most Democrats voted by mail, and many more Republicans voted on election day, as they were encouraged to unsafely do.  Many States count the election day votes first. (That makes the "90%" closer to 100%.)

Therefore it was expected that Trump would have more votes counted first no matter how badly he lost.  Even if Trump had lost all 50 States and DC, he would still be expected to have done well in the same day voting. (Also, the "...<span;>hundreds of affidavits of fraudulent activities..." were repeatedly debunked in court.  Also State Secretary's of State were convinced, and others needed for certification.  Let's not keep repeating falsehoods.) 

------------------------------
James Knaub (Jim)
Retired Lead Mathematical Statistician

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 17:28
From: David Wagner
Subject: Election results

Hi Jim,

Thanks for replying. What sort of debunking did you have in mind? I was hoping you could explain in detail why the probability calculation was incorrect, if so. Actually, the advertiser-supported press floated the ideas that Republicans voted in person yet Democrats were told to vote by mail and did so by mail. Typically, absentee votes and military votes come in late, so that would make the late votes skew Republican. In any event, President Trump had an early lead in the swing states, so the question using probability theory, is how likely would it be for Former Vice President Joe Biden to come back and win the state given some reasonable assumptions of odds. Even with a 90 to 10 split for Biden, the probability of Biden flipping the 10 states is only 34%. Of course, it is possible that Biden won, but is it probable? No.

Thanks,

David A. Wagner, Ph.D.

------------------------------
David Wagner
Trident University International

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 16:40
From: James Knaub
Subject: Election results

<span;>Why has "Is it probable that Biden won the
<span;>2020 election" been posted without giving anyone a chance to debunk this?

<span;>David Wagner's calculations are not valid because most Democrats voted by mail, and many more Republicans voted on election day, as they were encouraged to unsafely do.  Many States count the election day votes first.  Therefore it was expected that Trump would have more votes counted first no matter how badly he lost.  (Also, the "...<span;>hundreds of affidavits of fraudulent activities..." were repeatedly debunked in court.  Let's not keep repeating falsehoods.)

------------------------------
James Knaub (Jim)
Retired Lead Mathematical Statistician
------------------------------

David Wagner:  Your "analysis" has so many logic flaws that it's hard to know where to start.

The main flaw is that you are making the erroneous assumption that a non-random order (or even a random order) of counting votes calls into question the total number of votes for a candidate.  There is simply no such connection.  It is well known that party affiliations differ between in-person voting and vote-by-mail and that vote counting is done in batches and certainly not in random order.  That doesn't change whoever got the most votes.

As for multiple affidavits of fraud, I suspect that there are probably many similar affidavits of alien abductions (maybe written by some of the same folks).

If you paid for any logic or statistics classes, you might want to get your money back.

------------------------------
Jim Baldwin
Retired
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 17:28
From: David Wagner
Subject: Election results

Hi Jim,

Thanks for replying. What sort of debunking did you have in mind? I was hoping you could explain in detail why the probability calculation was incorrect, if so. Actually, the advertiser-supported press floated the ideas that Republicans voted in person yet Democrats were told to vote by mail and did so by mail. Typically, absentee votes and military votes come in late, so that would make the late votes skew Republican. In any event, President Trump had an early lead in the swing states, so the question using probability theory, is how likely would it be for Former Vice President Joe Biden to come back and win the state given some reasonable assumptions of odds. Even with a 90 to 10 split for Biden, the probability of Biden flipping the 10 states is only 34%. Of course, it is possible that Biden won, but is it probable? No.

Thanks,

David A. Wagner, Ph.D.

------------------------------
David Wagner
Trident University International

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 16:40
From: James Knaub
Subject: Election results

<span;>Why has "Is it probable that Biden won the
<span;>2020 election" been posted without giving anyone a chance to debunk this?

<span;>David Wagner's calculations are not valid because most Democrats voted by mail, and many more Republicans voted on election day, as they were encouraged to unsafely do.  Many States count the election day votes first.  Therefore it was expected that Trump would have more votes counted first no matter how badly he lost.  (Also, the "...<span;>hundreds of affidavits of fraudulent activities..." were repeatedly debunked in court.  Let's not keep repeating falsehoods.)

------------------------------
James Knaub (Jim)
Retired Lead Mathematical Statistician
------------------------------

hi all,
I would like to say something at this moment in our community, not because of our discussing the statistical approaches of the probability to getting the election results, but because of the way we were discussing it. I feel very grateful ASA provides this platform for us to let/help everyone here has equal opportunities, rights, and freedom to show and exchange our thoughts and ideas towards truth / facts with open-mindedness in this mutual learning process. You have one apple and I have one apple, by exchange each of us still have only one apple in our hand; You have one thought and I have one thought, by a swap each of us now has two in our mind.

No one was perfect, we human being learned from the letter ABC123 and our mistakes, so everyone should be confident for self; No one is perfect, there is always someone/some people who is (are) smarter than us, so keep ourselves humble in front of nature and other people; and no one would be perfect, there is no unlimited time in our lifetime to let us know everything, so keep learning from other people.

Let's pick up our courage and trust to talk freely with love. Love yourself and other people, respect yourself and other people.

best,

------------------------------
Bin Xing
Biostatistician
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 19:34
From: Jim Baldwin
Subject: Election results

David Wagner:  Your "analysis" has so many logic flaws that it's hard to know where to start.

The main flaw is that you are making the erroneous assumption that a non-random order (or even a random order) of counting votes calls into question the total number of votes for a candidate.  There is simply no such connection.  It is well known that party affiliations differ between in-person voting and vote-by-mail and that vote counting is done in batches and certainly not in random order.  That doesn't change whoever got the most votes.

As for multiple affidavits of fraud, I suspect that there are probably many similar affidavits of alien abductions (maybe written by some of the same folks).

If you paid for any logic or statistics classes, you might want to get your money back.

------------------------------
Jim Baldwin
Retired

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 17:28
From: David Wagner
Subject: Election results

Hi Jim,

Thanks for replying. What sort of debunking did you have in mind? I was hoping you could explain in detail why the probability calculation was incorrect, if so. Actually, the advertiser-supported press floated the ideas that Republicans voted in person yet Democrats were told to vote by mail and did so by mail. Typically, absentee votes and military votes come in late, so that would make the late votes skew Republican. In any event, President Trump had an early lead in the swing states, so the question using probability theory, is how likely would it be for Former Vice President Joe Biden to come back and win the state given some reasonable assumptions of odds. Even with a 90 to 10 split for Biden, the probability of Biden flipping the 10 states is only 34%. Of course, it is possible that Biden won, but is it probable? No.

Thanks,

David A. Wagner, Ph.D.

------------------------------
David Wagner
Trident University International

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 16:40
From: James Knaub
Subject: Election results

<span;>Why has "Is it probable that Biden won the
<span;>2020 election" been posted without giving anyone a chance to debunk this?

<span;>David Wagner's calculations are not valid because most Democrats voted by mail, and many more Republicans voted on election day, as they were encouraged to unsafely do.  Many States count the election day votes first.  Therefore it was expected that Trump would have more votes counted first no matter how badly he lost.  (Also, the "...<span;>hundreds of affidavits of fraudulent activities..." were repeatedly debunked in court.  Let's not keep repeating falsehoods.)

------------------------------
James Knaub (Jim)
Retired Lead Mathematical Statistician
------------------------------

Bin - 

Cheers.

------------------------------
James Knaub (Jim)
Retired Lead Mathematical Statistician
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 21:17
From: Bin Xing
Subject: Election results

hi all,
I would like to say something at this moment in our community, not because of our discussing the statistical approaches of the probability to getting the election results, but because of the way we were discussing it. I feel very grateful ASA provides this platform for us to let/help everyone here has equal opportunities, rights, and freedom to show and exchange our thoughts and ideas towards truth / facts with open-mindedness in this mutual learning process. You have one apple and I have one apple, by exchange each of us still have only one apple in our hand; You have one thought and I have one thought, by a swap each of us now has two in our mind.

No one was perfect, we human being learned from the letter ABC123 and our mistakes, so everyone should be confident for self; No one is perfect, there is always someone/some people who is (are) smarter than us, so keep ourselves humble in front of nature and other people; and no one would be perfect, there is no unlimited time in our lifetime to let us know everything, so keep learning from other people.

Let's pick up our courage and trust to talk freely with love. Love yourself and other people, respect yourself and other people.

best,

------------------------------
Bin Xing
Biostatistician

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 19:34
From: Jim Baldwin
Subject: Election results

David Wagner:  Your "analysis" has so many logic flaws that it's hard to know where to start.

The main flaw is that you are making the erroneous assumption that a non-random order (or even a random order) of counting votes calls into question the total number of votes for a candidate.  There is simply no such connection.  It is well known that party affiliations differ between in-person voting and vote-by-mail and that vote counting is done in batches and certainly not in random order.  That doesn't change whoever got the most votes.

As for multiple affidavits of fraud, I suspect that there are probably many similar affidavits of alien abductions (maybe written by some of the same folks).

If you paid for any logic or statistics classes, you might want to get your money back.

------------------------------
Jim Baldwin
Retired

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 17:28
From: David Wagner
Subject: Election results

Hi Jim,

Thanks for replying. What sort of debunking did you have in mind? I was hoping you could explain in detail why the probability calculation was incorrect, if so. Actually, the advertiser-supported press floated the ideas that Republicans voted in person yet Democrats were told to vote by mail and did so by mail. Typically, absentee votes and military votes come in late, so that would make the late votes skew Republican. In any event, President Trump had an early lead in the swing states, so the question using probability theory, is how likely would it be for Former Vice President Joe Biden to come back and win the state given some reasonable assumptions of odds. Even with a 90 to 10 split for Biden, the probability of Biden flipping the 10 states is only 34%. Of course, it is possible that Biden won, but is it probable? No.

Thanks,

David A. Wagner, Ph.D.

------------------------------
David Wagner
Trident University International

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 16:40
From: James Knaub
Subject: Election results

<span;>Why has "Is it probable that Biden won the
<span;>2020 election" been posted without giving anyone a chance to debunk this?

<span;>David Wagner's calculations are not valid because most Democrats voted by mail, and many more Republicans voted on election day, as they were encouraged to unsafely do.  Many States count the election day votes first.  Therefore it was expected that Trump would have more votes counted first no matter how badly he lost.  (Also, the "...<span;>hundreds of affidavits of fraudulent activities..." were repeatedly debunked in court.  Let's not keep repeating falsehoods.)

------------------------------
James Knaub (Jim)
Retired Lead Mathematical Statistician
------------------------------

David:

I wanted to reply to your original message, but the system won't let me. Says it is being moderated.

So I'm replying to a reply!

I think that the you are reversing conditional probabilities, thus making the same kind of error that people make when they misinterpret a p value.

It's identical to saying that if a coin comes up heads 10 times in a row that there is a 0.001 probability that it is fair. That won't fly.

Even if we agree that there was, at some point, a 50% chance that Biden actually won each of the 10 states he was initially behind in, the 0.001 probability you calculated is NOT the probability that he won those 10 states. It's only the conditional probability that he would have won all 10 given the 50-50 initial probability.

It's easier to understand with a single state. Let's assume that Biden has a 50% chance of truly winning Pennsylvania based on early results. He might truly have a majority or he might not.

He then wins the state by a substantial majority, as he did, and as was predicted. Does that mean that there is only a 50% probability that he truly won? No!

There are two possible states of reality: (1) PA really does support him, with a majority of voters voting for him or (2) PA does not.

So, Bayes theorum requires the a priori probability of winning truly (which we have set at 50%), the probability he would win if the voters really want him (for simplicity call that 100%) and the probability he would win by massive fraud if the voters did NOT truly choose him.

It's that last probability that is the kicker. If you think voter fraud large enough as to overturn a Trump victory in PA is likely, then Biden has only a modest chance of having truly won. I think that is very unlikely, and would assign it a conservative 1% probability.

So, by Bayes theorem p (Biden truly won PA) = 1 x 0.5 / (1 x 0.5 + 0.01 x 0.5) = 99%.

If we say that since his victory was predicted, there was a 90% chance he truly won (a priori) the state (PA) then the calculation becomes 1 x 0.9 / (1 x 0.9 + .01 x 0.1) = 0.9989

The same kind of reasoning applies to the 10 state example. In arguing that Biden didn't win all 10 truly, you are replacing a 50% flip in some of the 10 with a 1% (or less!) vote fraud explanation which is far less plausible than a flip.

Our elections are done carefully, with many doublechecks. The actual result is the gold standard in the absence of solid evidence to the contrary.

Ed

------------------------------
Edward Gracely
Drexel University
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 17:28
From: David Wagner
Subject: Election results

Hi Jim,

Thanks for replying. What sort of debunking did you have in mind? I was hoping you could explain in detail why the probability calculation was incorrect, if so. Actually, the advertiser-supported press floated the ideas that Republicans voted in person yet Democrats were told to vote by mail and did so by mail. Typically, absentee votes and military votes come in late, so that would make the late votes skew Republican. In any event, President Trump had an early lead in the swing states, so the question using probability theory, is how likely would it be for Former Vice President Joe Biden to come back and win the state given some reasonable assumptions of odds. Even with a 90 to 10 split for Biden, the probability of Biden flipping the 10 states is only 34%. Of course, it is possible that Biden won, but is it probable? No.

Thanks,

David A. Wagner, Ph.D.

------------------------------
David Wagner
Trident University International

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 16:40
From: James Knaub
Subject: Election results

<span;>Why has "Is it probable that Biden won the
<span;>2020 election" been posted without giving anyone a chance to debunk this?

<span;>David Wagner's calculations are not valid because most Democrats voted by mail, and many more Republicans voted on election day, as they were encouraged to unsafely do.  Many States count the election day votes first.  Therefore it was expected that Trump would have more votes counted first no matter how badly he lost.  (Also, the "...<span;>hundreds of affidavits of fraudulent activities..." were repeatedly debunked in court.  Let's not keep repeating falsehoods.)

------------------------------
James Knaub (Jim)
Retired Lead Mathematical Statistician
------------------------------

It was not just the 'advertiser supported press' that 'floated the ideas' that voters registered as Democrats were using mail in voting and voters registered as Republican were waiting until election day.  It was the election offices of the states that were tracking the mailed in ballots as they came in.  Your calculation that the ratios have changed is correct, but the explanation is NOT fraud- it is a vigorous public campaign by ex-President Trump telling voters not to trust mail in ballots (which had a stronger effect on voters who would vote for Trump), accompanied by a vigorous campaign by Democrats to promote early voting by Democrats.

Trump lost. Get over it and stop spreading propaganda disguised as statistical analysis.  Legitimate statistical analysis requires ensuring that your null Hypothesis is correctly stated.  In this case your null Hypothesis is not "there was no fraud", it was actually 'the rate of early voting was equal in Democrats and Republicans- which had already been disproved by observation of the rates of ballot return and doesn't equal fraud.

------------------------------
Jean O'Malley
Biostatistician
OCHIN, Inc
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 17:28
From: David Wagner
Subject: Election results

Hi Jim,

Thanks for replying. What sort of debunking did you have in mind? I was hoping you could explain in detail why the probability calculation was incorrect, if so. Actually, the advertiser-supported press floated the ideas that Republicans voted in person yet Democrats were told to vote by mail and did so by mail. Typically, absentee votes and military votes come in late, so that would make the late votes skew Republican. In any event, President Trump had an early lead in the swing states, so the question using probability theory, is how likely would it be for Former Vice President Joe Biden to come back and win the state given some reasonable assumptions of odds. Even with a 90 to 10 split for Biden, the probability of Biden flipping the 10 states is only 34%. Of course, it is possible that Biden won, but is it probable? No.

Thanks,

David A. Wagner, Ph.D.

------------------------------
David Wagner
Trident University International

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 16:40
From: James Knaub
Subject: Election results

<span;>Why has "Is it probable that Biden won the
<span;>2020 election" been posted without giving anyone a chance to debunk this?

<span;>David Wagner's calculations are not valid because most Democrats voted by mail, and many more Republicans voted on election day, as they were encouraged to unsafely do.  Many States count the election day votes first.  Therefore it was expected that Trump would have more votes counted first no matter how badly he lost.  (Also, the "...<span;>hundreds of affidavits of fraudulent activities..." were repeatedly debunked in court.  Let's not keep repeating falsehoods.)

------------------------------
James Knaub (Jim)
Retired Lead Mathematical Statistician
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 1/26/2021 11:09:00 AM
From: Jean O'Malley
Subject: RE: Election results

It was not just the 'advertiser supported press' that 'floated the ideas' that voters registered as Democrats were using mail in voting and voters registered as Republican were waiting until election day.  It was the election offices of the states that were tracking the mailed in ballots as they came in.  Your calculation that the ratios have changed is correct, but the explanation is NOT fraud- it is a vigorous public campaign by ex-President Trump telling voters not to trust mail in ballots (which had a stronger effect on voters who would vote for Trump), accompanied by a vigorous campaign by Democrats to promote early voting by Democrats.

Trump lost. Get over it and stop spreading propaganda disguised as statistical analysis.  Legitimate statistical analysis requires ensuring that your null Hypothesis is correctly stated.  In this case your null Hypothesis is not "there was no fraud", it was actually 'the rate of early voting was equal in Democrats and Republicans- which had already been disproved by observation of the rates of ballot return and doesn't equal fraud.

------------------------------
Jean O'Malley
Biostatistician
OCHIN, Inc
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 17:28
From: David Wagner
Subject: Election results

Hi Jim,

Thanks for replying. What sort of debunking did you have in mind? I was hoping you could explain in detail why the probability calculation was incorrect, if so. Actually, the advertiser-supported press floated the ideas that Republicans voted in person yet Democrats were told to vote by mail and did so by mail. Typically, absentee votes and military votes come in late, so that would make the late votes skew Republican. In any event, President Trump had an early lead in the swing states, so the question using probability theory, is how likely would it be for Former Vice President Joe Biden to come back and win the state given some reasonable assumptions of odds. Even with a 90 to 10 split for Biden, the probability of Biden flipping the 10 states is only 34%. Of course, it is possible that Biden won, but is it probable? No.

Thanks,

David A. Wagner, Ph.D.

------------------------------
David Wagner
Trident University International

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 16:40
From: James Knaub
Subject: Election results

<span;>Why has "Is it probable that Biden won the
<span;>2020 election" been posted without giving anyone a chance to debunk this?

<span;>David Wagner's calculations are not valid because most Democrats voted by mail, and many more Republicans voted on election day, as they were encouraged to unsafely do.  Many States count the election day votes first.  Therefore it was expected that Trump would have more votes counted first no matter how badly he lost.  (Also, the "...<span;>hundreds of affidavits of fraudulent activities..." were repeatedly debunked in court.  Let's not keep repeating falsehoods.)

------------------------------
James Knaub (Jim)
Retired Lead Mathematical Statistician
------------------------------

By this logic, Trump, Obama, W, Cliniton, Bush I, Reagan, and others should also not have become president, and should be investigated.  Think about it. Obama grew up with few benefits, and the likelihood of his doing great in school and getting into Yale Law school was probably less than 10%. The likelihood of his winning an election to IL state legislature was < 10%. The likelihood of his winning the primary and being the presidential candidiate in 2008 was < 10%. And the likelihood of his winning the election against McCain was <10% if you gave odds at the time of his birth.  So the chance of his winning the presidential election in 2008 was less then .10^6 at the time of his birth, or .000001. So obviously, his become president is highly suspicious, don't you think?  Same goes for each of the other presidents.  And then there's the mega millions lottery. The chance of winning that is also <.0001. Highly suspicious!  Right?  Should be investigated, don't you think?  Must be fraud, since the chance of it happening just by chance is just about zero, right?  This is silly. Your argument is silly. 


------------------------------
Richard Amdur
Clinical Professor and Lead Biostatistician
Medical Faculty Associates
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-26-2021 12:43
From: David Wagner
Subject: Election results

Hi Jean,

You said: "

Trump lost. Get over it and stop spreading propaganda disguised as statistical analysis."

Since when is the multiplication rule of probability a form of "propaganda disguised as statistical analysis?"

For your reference, here is a demonstration of the multiplication rule of probability applied to calculating the probability of flipping a fair, independent coin and receiving tails in a series (aka in succession): 

1T - 0.50

2T - 0.25

3T - 0.125

4T - 0.0625

5T - 0.03125

6T - 0.015625

7T - 0.0078125 (below 1%)

8T - 0.00390625

9T - 0.001953125

10T - 0.0009765625

As I imagine you can see, it becomes increasingly improbable for trend lines in 10 states to flip with the gap going from four positive to 96 negative. It's just highly improbable that a highly-flawed politician who is way past his prime, such as former VP Joe Biden, and his prime wasn't very good even in the day, could generate the type of support to generate a 92 point percentage gap. Remember, only half the voters you meet at random are below the median IQ, so where is this completely uninformed and cognitively disadvantaged group of voters going to appear from in up to 10 swing states?

Given probability theory, a Biden win seems more like propaganda.

Best wishes,

Dave

Dr. David A. Wagner, MBA, CADC-II, NCAC-I, ICADC, S.A.P., D.B.A., Ph.D.

Faculty, Trident University International

Faculty, World English Institute

Faculty & Mission Team, Vietnam Bible Institute

Bible Translation Ambassador, Wycliffe Associates

Fellow, Academy of Marketing Science

Member, National Association of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapists

Member, American Statistics Association

Principal Data Scientist & Investigator,

http://www.SEMStatistics.com

Dissertation: https://pqdtopen.proquest.com/doc/1906281562.html?FMT=ABS

Original Message:
Sent: 1/26/2021 11:09:00 AM
From: Jean O'Malley
Subject: RE: Election results

It was not just the 'advertiser supported press' that 'floated the ideas' that voters registered as Democrats were using mail in voting and voters registered as Republican were waiting until election day.  It was the election offices of the states that were tracking the mailed in ballots as they came in.  Your calculation that the ratios have changed is correct, but the explanation is NOT fraud- it is a vigorous public campaign by ex-President Trump telling voters not to trust mail in ballots (which had a stronger effect on voters who would vote for Trump), accompanied by a vigorous campaign by Democrats to promote early voting by Democrats.

Trump lost. Get over it and stop spreading propaganda disguised as statistical analysis.  Legitimate statistical analysis requires ensuring that your null Hypothesis is correctly stated.  In this case your null Hypothesis is not "there was no fraud", it was actually 'the rate of early voting was equal in Democrats and Republicans- which had already been disproved by observation of the rates of ballot return and doesn't equal fraud.

------------------------------
Jean O'Malley
Biostatistician
OCHIN, Inc

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 17:28
From: David Wagner
Subject: Election results

Hi Jim,

Thanks for replying. What sort of debunking did you have in mind? I was hoping you could explain in detail why the probability calculation was incorrect, if so. Actually, the advertiser-supported press floated the ideas that Republicans voted in person yet Democrats were told to vote by mail and did so by mail. Typically, absentee votes and military votes come in late, so that would make the late votes skew Republican. In any event, President Trump had an early lead in the swing states, so the question using probability theory, is how likely would it be for Former Vice President Joe Biden to come back and win the state given some reasonable assumptions of odds. Even with a 90 to 10 split for Biden, the probability of Biden flipping the 10 states is only 34%. Of course, it is possible that Biden won, but is it probable? No.

Thanks,

David A. Wagner, Ph.D.

------------------------------
David Wagner
Trident University International

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 16:40
From: James Knaub
Subject: Election results

<span;>Why has "Is it probable that Biden won the
<span;>2020 election" been posted without giving anyone a chance to debunk this?

<span;>David Wagner's calculations are not valid because most Democrats voted by mail, and many more Republicans voted on election day, as they were encouraged to unsafely do.  Many States count the election day votes first.  Therefore it was expected that Trump would have more votes counted first no matter how badly he lost.  (Also, the "...<span;>hundreds of affidavits of fraudulent activities..." were repeatedly debunked in court.  Let's not keep repeating falsehoods.)

------------------------------
James Knaub (Jim)
Retired Lead Mathematical Statistician
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 1/26/2021 6:53:00 PM
From: Richard Amdur
Subject: RE: Election results

By this logic, Trump, Obama, W, Cliniton, Bush I, Reagan, and others should also not have become president, and should be investigated.  Think about it. Obama grew up with few benefits, and the likelihood of his doing great in school and getting into Yale Law school was probably less than 10%. The likelihood of his winning an election to IL state legislature was < 10%. The likelihood of his winning the primary and being the presidential candidiate in 2008 was < 10%. And the likelihood of his winning the election against McCain was <10% if you gave odds at the time of his birth.  So the chance of his winning the presidential election in 2008 was less then .10^6 at the time of his birth, or .000001. So obviously, his become president is highly suspicious, don't you think?  Same goes for each of the other presidents.  And then there's the mega millions lottery. The chance of winning that is also <.0001. Highly suspicious!  Right?  Should be investigated, don't you think?  Must be fraud, since the chance of it happening just by chance is just about zero, right?  This is silly. Your argument is silly. 


------------------------------
Richard Amdur
Clinical Professor and Lead Biostatistician
Medical Faculty Associates
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-26-2021 12:43
From: David Wagner
Subject: Election results

Hi Jean,

You said: "

Trump lost. Get over it and stop spreading propaganda disguised as statistical analysis."

Since when is the multiplication rule of probability a form of "propaganda disguised as statistical analysis?"

For your reference, here is a demonstration of the multiplication rule of probability applied to calculating the probability of flipping a fair, independent coin and receiving tails in a series (aka in succession): 

1T - 0.50

2T - 0.25

3T - 0.125

4T - 0.0625

5T - 0.03125

6T - 0.015625

7T - 0.0078125 (below 1%)

8T - 0.00390625

9T - 0.001953125

10T - 0.0009765625

As I imagine you can see, it becomes increasingly improbable for trend lines in 10 states to flip with the gap going from four positive to 96 negative. It's just highly improbable that a highly-flawed politician who is way past his prime, such as former VP Joe Biden, and his prime wasn't very good even in the day, could generate the type of support to generate a 92 point percentage gap. Remember, only half the voters you meet at random are below the median IQ, so where is this completely uninformed and cognitively disadvantaged group of voters going to appear from in up to 10 swing states?

Given probability theory, a Biden win seems more like propaganda.

Best wishes,

Dave

Dr. David A. Wagner, MBA, CADC-II, NCAC-I, ICADC, S.A.P., D.B.A., Ph.D.

Faculty, Trident University International

Faculty, World English Institute

Faculty & Mission Team, Vietnam Bible Institute

Bible Translation Ambassador, Wycliffe Associates

Fellow, Academy of Marketing Science

Member, National Association of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapists

Member, American Statistics Association

Principal Data Scientist & Investigator,

http://www.SEMStatistics.com

Dissertation: https://pqdtopen.proquest.com/doc/1906281562.html?FMT=ABS

Original Message:
Sent: 1/26/2021 11:09:00 AM
From: Jean O'Malley
Subject: RE: Election results

It was not just the 'advertiser supported press' that 'floated the ideas' that voters registered as Democrats were using mail in voting and voters registered as Republican were waiting until election day.  It was the election offices of the states that were tracking the mailed in ballots as they came in.  Your calculation that the ratios have changed is correct, but the explanation is NOT fraud- it is a vigorous public campaign by ex-President Trump telling voters not to trust mail in ballots (which had a stronger effect on voters who would vote for Trump), accompanied by a vigorous campaign by Democrats to promote early voting by Democrats.

Trump lost. Get over it and stop spreading propaganda disguised as statistical analysis.  Legitimate statistical analysis requires ensuring that your null Hypothesis is correctly stated.  In this case your null Hypothesis is not "there was no fraud", it was actually 'the rate of early voting was equal in Democrats and Republicans- which had already been disproved by observation of the rates of ballot return and doesn't equal fraud.

------------------------------
Jean O'Malley
Biostatistician
OCHIN, Inc

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 17:28
From: David Wagner
Subject: Election results

Hi Jim,

Thanks for replying. What sort of debunking did you have in mind? I was hoping you could explain in detail why the probability calculation was incorrect, if so. Actually, the advertiser-supported press floated the ideas that Republicans voted in person yet Democrats were told to vote by mail and did so by mail. Typically, absentee votes and military votes come in late, so that would make the late votes skew Republican. In any event, President Trump had an early lead in the swing states, so the question using probability theory, is how likely would it be for Former Vice President Joe Biden to come back and win the state given some reasonable assumptions of odds. Even with a 90 to 10 split for Biden, the probability of Biden flipping the 10 states is only 34%. Of course, it is possible that Biden won, but is it probable? No.

Thanks,

David A. Wagner, Ph.D.

------------------------------
David Wagner
Trident University International

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 16:40
From: James Knaub
Subject: Election results

<span;>Why has "Is it probable that Biden won the
<span;>2020 election" been posted without giving anyone a chance to debunk this?

<span;>David Wagner's calculations are not valid because most Democrats voted by mail, and many more Republicans voted on election day, as they were encouraged to unsafely do.  Many States count the election day votes first.  Therefore it was expected that Trump would have more votes counted first no matter how badly he lost.  (Also, the "...<span;>hundreds of affidavits of fraudulent activities..." were repeatedly debunked in court.  Let's not keep repeating falsehoods.)

------------------------------
James Knaub (Jim)
Retired Lead Mathematical Statistician
------------------------------

In your original post you asked about the appropriateness of applying the multiplication rule.By this I take it to mean that you multiplied the probabilities of Biden winning each swing state to arrive at your 34% figure (.9^10). But this probability rule should be applied to only independent events. These events, winning the individual swing states and winning the overall election are clearly not independent events. These are decidedly dependent events. You win the overall election because you have won the swing states. So simply multiplying the individual probabilities together is a misapplication of basic probability rules.

Also in previous elections absentee ballots may have skewed Republican but this was not the case in the 2020 election where registered Democrats overwhelmingly voted by mail and Republicans voted in person. This is the only reason the election night voting did not necessarily reflect the final outcome. The early voting counts were  a direct result of the different states deciding to count  votes in different orders. See this link for the details:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-we-saw-red-and-blue-mirages-on-election-night/


------------------------------
Michael Sack Elmaleh
Principal
Michael Sack Elmaleh CPA, CVA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 17:28
From: David Wagner
Subject: Election results

Hi Jim,

Thanks for replying. What sort of debunking did you have in mind? I was hoping you could explain in detail why the probability calculation was incorrect, if so. Actually, the advertiser-supported press floated the ideas that Republicans voted in person yet Democrats were told to vote by mail and did so by mail. Typically, absentee votes and military votes come in late, so that would make the late votes skew Republican. In any event, President Trump had an early lead in the swing states, so the question using probability theory, is how likely would it be for Former Vice President Joe Biden to come back and win the state given some reasonable assumptions of odds. Even with a 90 to 10 split for Biden, the probability of Biden flipping the 10 states is only 34%. Of course, it is possible that Biden won, but is it probable? No.

Thanks,

David A. Wagner, Ph.D.

------------------------------
David Wagner
Trident University International

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 16:40
From: James Knaub
Subject: Election results

<span;>Why has "Is it probable that Biden won the
<span;>2020 election" been posted without giving anyone a chance to debunk this?

<span;>David Wagner's calculations are not valid because most Democrats voted by mail, and many more Republicans voted on election day, as they were encouraged to unsafely do.  Many States count the election day votes first.  Therefore it was expected that Trump would have more votes counted first no matter how badly he lost.  (Also, the "...<span;>hundreds of affidavits of fraudulent activities..." were repeatedly debunked in court.  Let's not keep repeating falsehoods.)

------------------------------
James Knaub (Jim)
Retired Lead Mathematical Statistician
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 1/26/2021 4:03:00 PM
From: Michael Sack Elmaleh
Subject: RE: Election results

In your original post you asked about the appropriateness of applying the multiplication rule.By this I take it to mean that you multiplied the probabilities of Biden winning each swing state to arrive at your 34% figure (.9^10). But this probability rule should be applied to only independent events. These events, winning the individual swing states and winning the overall election are clearly not independent events. These are decidedly dependent events. You win the overall election because you have won the swing states. So simply multiplying the individual probabilities together is a misapplication of basic probability rules.

Also in previous elections absentee ballots may have skewed Republican but this was not the case in the 2020 election where registered Democrats overwhelmingly voted by mail and Republicans voted in person. This is the only reason the election night voting did not necessarily reflect the final outcome. The early voting counts were  a direct result of the different states deciding to count  votes in different orders. See this link for the details:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-we-saw-red-and-blue-mirages-on-election-night/


------------------------------
Michael Sack Elmaleh
Principal
Michael Sack Elmaleh CPA, CVA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 17:28
From: David Wagner
Subject: Election results

Hi Jim,

Thanks for replying. What sort of debunking did you have in mind? I was hoping you could explain in detail why the probability calculation was incorrect, if so. Actually, the advertiser-supported press floated the ideas that Republicans voted in person yet Democrats were told to vote by mail and did so by mail. Typically, absentee votes and military votes come in late, so that would make the late votes skew Republican. In any event, President Trump had an early lead in the swing states, so the question using probability theory, is how likely would it be for Former Vice President Joe Biden to come back and win the state given some reasonable assumptions of odds. Even with a 90 to 10 split for Biden, the probability of Biden flipping the 10 states is only 34%. Of course, it is possible that Biden won, but is it probable? No.

Thanks,

David A. Wagner, Ph.D.

------------------------------
David Wagner
Trident University International

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 16:40
From: James Knaub
Subject: Election results

<span;>Why has "Is it probable that Biden won the
<span;>2020 election" been posted without giving anyone a chance to debunk this?

<span;>David Wagner's calculations are not valid because most Democrats voted by mail, and many more Republicans voted on election day, as they were encouraged to unsafely do.  Many States count the election day votes first.  Therefore it was expected that Trump would have more votes counted first no matter how badly he lost.  (Also, the "...<span;>hundreds of affidavits of fraudulent activities..." were repeatedly debunked in court.  Let's not keep repeating falsehoods.)

------------------------------
James Knaub (Jim)
Retired Lead Mathematical Statistician
------------------------------

Dave

Correlation is a form of statistical dependency. As long as there are non zero correlations in the voting patterns of the states, even negative correlations (say between Texas and California) you should not apply the multiplication rule to assess the probabilities of particular election results. I do not need to prove causation to prove statistical dependence. Correlation suffices.In one of your responses you cited the flipping of coins and applied the multiplication rule correctly. But state election outcomes are highly correlated with one another.unlike coin flips. So you should not apply the multiplication rule.

Mike

------------------------------
Michael Sack Elmaleh
Principal
Michael Sack Elmaleh CPA, CVA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-26-2021 16:56
From: David Wagner
Subject: Election results

Hi Michael,

Thanks for writing. I do have to disagree with you though about individual states: the voting an individual states is definitely independent. There's nothing about winning Texas that would help you win distal California or prevent you from winning distal California. Moreover there is nothing about winning Texas that would allow you to win proximal Louisiana or prevent you from winning proximal Louisiana. The voters in each state by definition are independent of voters in other states. On the other hand, trends or voting behaviors may cross state lines and cause in-state voting behaviors to be correlated, but positive correlation is not causation; There is no causal link and therefore no dependence. Still, vote tampering in multiple states by a common entity would be a very good example of a dependency and therefore prevent the flipping of the trend line in a state for being considered an independent event. It is not necessary for there to be a relationship between the voting in a state and winning an election for the state to state voting to not be independent of each other. Thank you though.

Best wishes,

Dave

Dr. David A. Wagner, MBA, CADC-II, NCAC-I, ICADC, S.A.P., D.B.A., Ph.D.

Faculty, Trident University International

Faculty, World English Institute

Faculty & Mission Team, Vietnam Bible Institute

Bible Translation Ambassador, Wycliffe Associates

Fellow, Academy of Marketing Science

Member, National Association of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapists

Member, American Statistics Association

Principal Data Scientist & Investigator,

http://www.SEMStatistics.com

Dissertation: https://pqdtopen.proquest.com/doc/1906281562.html?FMT=ABS

Original Message:
Sent: 1/26/2021 4:03:00 PM
From: Michael Sack Elmaleh
Subject: RE: Election results

In your original post you asked about the appropriateness of applying the multiplication rule.By this I take it to mean that you multiplied the probabilities of Biden winning each swing state to arrive at your 34% figure (.9^10). But this probability rule should be applied to only independent events. These events, winning the individual swing states and winning the overall election are clearly not independent events. These are decidedly dependent events. You win the overall election because you have won the swing states. So simply multiplying the individual probabilities together is a misapplication of basic probability rules.

Also in previous elections absentee ballots may have skewed Republican but this was not the case in the 2020 election where registered Democrats overwhelmingly voted by mail and Republicans voted in person. This is the only reason the election night voting did not necessarily reflect the final outcome. The early voting counts were  a direct result of the different states deciding to count  votes in different orders. See this link for the details:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-we-saw-red-and-blue-mirages-on-election-night/


------------------------------
Michael Sack Elmaleh
Principal
Michael Sack Elmaleh CPA, CVA

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 17:28
From: David Wagner
Subject: Election results

Hi Jim,

Thanks for replying. What sort of debunking did you have in mind? I was hoping you could explain in detail why the probability calculation was incorrect, if so. Actually, the advertiser-supported press floated the ideas that Republicans voted in person yet Democrats were told to vote by mail and did so by mail. Typically, absentee votes and military votes come in late, so that would make the late votes skew Republican. In any event, President Trump had an early lead in the swing states, so the question using probability theory, is how likely would it be for Former Vice President Joe Biden to come back and win the state given some reasonable assumptions of odds. Even with a 90 to 10 split for Biden, the probability of Biden flipping the 10 states is only 34%. Of course, it is possible that Biden won, but is it probable? No.

Thanks,

David A. Wagner, Ph.D.

------------------------------
David Wagner
Trident University International

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 16:40
From: James Knaub
Subject: Election results

<span;>Why has "Is it probable that Biden won the
<span;>2020 election" been posted without giving anyone a chance to debunk this?

<span;>David Wagner's calculations are not valid because most Democrats voted by mail, and many more Republicans voted on election day, as they were encouraged to unsafely do.  Many States count the election day votes first.  Therefore it was expected that Trump would have more votes counted first no matter how badly he lost.  (Also, the "...<span;>hundreds of affidavits of fraudulent activities..." were repeatedly debunked in court.  Let's not keep repeating falsehoods.)

------------------------------
James Knaub (Jim)
Retired Lead Mathematical Statistician
------------------------------

Tried posting this earlier but the system seems to have rejected it (or something like that). Trying again.

I think that the you are reversing conditional probabilities, thus making the same kind of error that people make when they misinterpret a p value.

It's identical to saying that if a coin comes up heads 10 times in a row that there is a 0.001 probability that it is fair. That won't fly.

Even if we agree that there was, at some point, a 50% chance that Biden actually won each of the 10 states he was initially behind in, the 0.001 probability you calculated is NOT the probability that he won those 10 states. It's only the conditional probability that he would have won all 10 given the 50-50 initial probability.

It's easier to understand with a single state. Let's assume that Biden has a 50% chance of truly winning Pennsylvania based on early results. He might truly have a majority or he might not.

He then wins the state by a substantial majority, as he did, and as was predicted. Does that mean that there is only a 50% probability that he truly won? No!

There are two possible states of reality: (1) PA really does support him, with a majority of voters voting for him or (2) PA does not.

So, Bayes theorem requires the a priori probability of winning truly (which we have set at 50%), the probability he would win if the voters really want him (for simplicity call that 100%) and the probability he would win by massive fraud if the voters did NOT truly choose him.

It's that last probability that is the kicker. If you think voter fraud large enough as to overturn a Trump victory in PA is likely, then Biden has only a modest chance of having truly won. I think that is very unlikely, and would assign it a conservative 1% probability.

So, by Bayes theorem p (Biden truly won PA) = 1 x 0.5 / (1 x 0.5 + 0.01 x 0.5) = 99%.

If we say that since his victory was predicted, there was a 90% chance he truly won (a priori) PA then the calculation becomes 1 x 0.9 / (1 x 0.9 + .01 x 0.1) = 0.9989

The same kind of reasoning applies to the 10 state example. In arguing that Biden didn't win all 10 truly, you are replacing a 50% flip in some of the 10 with a 1% (or less!) vote fraud explanation which is far less plausible than a flip.

Our elections are done carefully, with many doublechecks. The actual result is the gold standard in the absence of solid evidence to the contrary.

Ed

------------------------------
Edward Gracely
Drexel University
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-26-2021 19:23
From: Michael Sack Elmaleh
Subject: Election results

Dave

Correlation is a form of statistical dependency. As long as there are non zero correlations in the voting patterns of the states, even negative correlations (say between Texas and California) you should not apply the multiplication rule to assess the probabilities of particular election results. I do not need to prove causation to prove statistical dependence. Correlation suffices.In one of your responses you cited the flipping of coins and applied the multiplication rule correctly. But state election outcomes are highly correlated with one another.unlike coin flips. So you should not apply the multiplication rule.

Mike

------------------------------
Michael Sack Elmaleh
Principal
Michael Sack Elmaleh CPA, CVA

Original Message:
Sent: 01-26-2021 16:56
From: David Wagner
Subject: Election results

Hi Michael,

Thanks for writing. I do have to disagree with you though about individual states: the voting an individual states is definitely independent. There's nothing about winning Texas that would help you win distal California or prevent you from winning distal California. Moreover there is nothing about winning Texas that would allow you to win proximal Louisiana or prevent you from winning proximal Louisiana. The voters in each state by definition are independent of voters in other states. On the other hand, trends or voting behaviors may cross state lines and cause in-state voting behaviors to be correlated, but positive correlation is not causation; There is no causal link and therefore no dependence. Still, vote tampering in multiple states by a common entity would be a very good example of a dependency and therefore prevent the flipping of the trend line in a state for being considered an independent event. It is not necessary for there to be a relationship between the voting in a state and winning an election for the state to state voting to not be independent of each other. Thank you though.

Best wishes,

Dave

Dr. David A. Wagner, MBA, CADC-II, NCAC-I, ICADC, S.A.P., D.B.A., Ph.D.

Faculty, Trident University International

Faculty, World English Institute

Faculty & Mission Team, Vietnam Bible Institute

Bible Translation Ambassador, Wycliffe Associates

Fellow, Academy of Marketing Science

Member, National Association of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapists

Member, American Statistics Association

Principal Data Scientist & Investigator,

http://www.SEMStatistics.com

Dissertation: https://pqdtopen.proquest.com/doc/1906281562.html?FMT=ABS

Original Message:
Sent: 1/26/2021 4:03:00 PM
From: Michael Sack Elmaleh
Subject: RE: Election results

In your original post you asked about the appropriateness of applying the multiplication rule.By this I take it to mean that you multiplied the probabilities of Biden winning each swing state to arrive at your 34% figure (.9^10). But this probability rule should be applied to only independent events. These events, winning the individual swing states and winning the overall election are clearly not independent events. These are decidedly dependent events. You win the overall election because you have won the swing states. So simply multiplying the individual probabilities together is a misapplication of basic probability rules.

Also in previous elections absentee ballots may have skewed Republican but this was not the case in the 2020 election where registered Democrats overwhelmingly voted by mail and Republicans voted in person. This is the only reason the election night voting did not necessarily reflect the final outcome. The early voting counts were  a direct result of the different states deciding to count  votes in different orders. See this link for the details:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-we-saw-red-and-blue-mirages-on-election-night/


------------------------------
Michael Sack Elmaleh
Principal
Michael Sack Elmaleh CPA, CVA

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 17:28
From: David Wagner
Subject: Election results

Hi Jim,

Thanks for replying. What sort of debunking did you have in mind? I was hoping you could explain in detail why the probability calculation was incorrect, if so. Actually, the advertiser-supported press floated the ideas that Republicans voted in person yet Democrats were told to vote by mail and did so by mail. Typically, absentee votes and military votes come in late, so that would make the late votes skew Republican. In any event, President Trump had an early lead in the swing states, so the question using probability theory, is how likely would it be for Former Vice President Joe Biden to come back and win the state given some reasonable assumptions of odds. Even with a 90 to 10 split for Biden, the probability of Biden flipping the 10 states is only 34%. Of course, it is possible that Biden won, but is it probable? No.

Thanks,

David A. Wagner, Ph.D.

------------------------------
David Wagner
Trident University International

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2021 16:40
From: James Knaub
Subject: Election results

<span;>Why has "Is it probable that Biden won the
<span;>2020 election" been posted without giving anyone a chance to debunk this?

<span;>David Wagner's calculations are not valid because most Democrats voted by mail, and many more Republicans voted on election day, as they were encouraged to unsafely do.  Many States count the election day votes first.  Therefore it was expected that Trump would have more votes counted first no matter how badly he lost.  (Also, the "...<span;>hundreds of affidavits of fraudulent activities..." were repeatedly debunked in court.  Let's not keep repeating falsehoods.)

------------------------------
James Knaub (Jim)
Retired Lead Mathematical Statistician
------------------------------