41
Comments (37)
sorted by:
5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
3
Maker_Wolf 3 points ago +3 / -0

Can we get this compared to population?

-2
pkvi [S] -2 points ago +2 / -4

Ayh got you fam -->

With detailed variations of votes, and pop

https://i.postimg.cc/d0GJb1Vp/votes.jpg

2
pkvi [S] 2 points ago +7 / -5

TBF its very likely both sides cheated. One just far far more than the other.

8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
8
Cheesemaker 8 points ago +8 / -0

Both sides cheated. They just both cheated to get Trump out of office...

-2
pkvi [S] -2 points ago +2 / -4

Acknowledgement of the potential for fraud via mail in ballots certainly gave opportunity for supporters to commit some fraud to catch up.

26 MILLION more people voted.. the early results seen in Europe showed Trump around 70 not 74

6
Harambe 6 points ago +6 / -0

Both sides are the same beast.

But statistically and also technologically it doesn't seem likely that they were hard rigging it before 2004

6
pkvi [S] 6 points ago +8 / -2

2002 was when Diebold (the ones who fucked up and were caught in the 2004 election) was sold everywhere.. guess who owns Diebold since then.. yep Dominion. It just changed names a few times.

2
CnnWillBlackmailYou 2 points ago +2 / -0

Not gonna lie, I see "ayh" instead of "I" and I just downvote and move on.

2
Junionthepipeline 2 points ago +2 / -0

Most dont know it happened

0
Hullohoomans 0 points ago +2 / -2

Hate to be a kill joy, but this chart doesn't say a whole lot.

For starters, the y-axis starts at 70 million rather than 0, distorting the whole chart; '20's red line should be twice the length of '80's tan bar, not 6 times longer. Secondly, there are 3 points on this graph where an election had over 20 million more voters than the previous election - '88-'92 gained 25 mil, '00-'04 gained 20 mil, and '16-'20 gained 26 mil; 2020 isn't really an outlier in that regard, especially when you overlay a general trend line showing a steadily increasing voter turnout every year. However, it is odd that the biggest jumps happen every time a Democrat wins the white house away from a Republican.

If you want to say something with these numbers, maybe compare the total number of votes with the census population data and the total registered voters for each year. You're far more likely to find some fuckery there, and it'll be a lot more convincing.

-1
1
Hullohoomans 1 point ago +1 / -0

So then this graph is even worse because it doesn't even match the data you're pitching!

Total votes in 1988:

Graph: 80 million Table: 90 million

Total votes in 2000:

Graph: 101 million Table: 104 million

Compare 1992 with 2000 on the Graph. 92 is supposed to be 103 million while 2000 is 104 million. Which of those years looks to be closer to the 105 million line?

Like I said, at least including data on total population would significantly improve the argument. The table includes that and is far better than this graph.

You want to convince people with data? Maybe try to demonstrate the most basic of competency as regards to analyzing and visualizing that data and double check the work.

That table is fantastic. This Graph is embarrassing.

-8
newuserfromreddit -8 points ago +1 / -9

More people voted, must be fraud.

4
krzyzowiec 4 points ago +4 / -0

Voting participation has almost doubled since 1980. Eventually they are going to have 80-90-100% turn out. I wonder how that will be explained.

1
Hullohoomans 1 point ago +1 / -0

This graph doesn't show voter participation. All it shows is total votes.

1
krzyzowiec 1 point ago +1 / -0

True but the gain in total votes has outstripped population increase, so it means higher participation as well.

-2
newuserfromreddit -2 points ago +1 / -3

Explain it? Nah man, we just call it fraud if we lose and patriotism if we win.

2
krzyzowiec 2 points ago +2 / -0

So you believe enthusiasm for Biden existed? Really?

-1
newuserfromreddit -1 points ago +1 / -2

For him? God no.

But enthusiasm to elect literally anyone but Trump? Definitely.

1
Junionthepipeline 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hows that working out

1
GoatInTheHat 1 point ago +1 / -0

And you actually believe the enthusiasm to "elect literally anyone but Trump" was the primary motivating factor to bring 26.6 million more voters to the poles than ever before? If you do, your username checks out.

-1
newuserfromreddit -1 points ago +1 / -2

Yup. You’re talking to one of those that had that motive, same with most of the people I knew who voted.

The opposite was what caused the capitol to be breached for the first time since 1814, so it’s not that far fetched. Of course, most of the Trumpers here seem to believe January 6th simply didn’t happen.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Junionthepipeline 1 point ago +1 / -0

Back to reddit then kiddo

-1
pkvi [S] -1 points ago +2 / -3

26 MILLION more people voted when the avg change was +/-2 mil for 20 years

1
Hullohoomans 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well, according to this graph, 25 million more people voted in '92 than in '88, and 20 million more voted in '04 than in '00. 26 million isn't that out of place on this graph. This graph also doesn't tell me what the population is each election, or what the voter participation rate is. So as far as this graph shows, it's just the US population growing in spurts.

Maybe you made some typos? Maybe you'd like to add more data and context to your graph? This latest election has 99% voter turnout in some districts, which is more than Maduro and Castro ever had, and is a universally-recognized, guaranteed sign of fraud around the world.

0
newuserfromreddit 0 points ago +2 / -2

Just pointing out that your argument is, literally, that increased voter turnout means fraud.

-1
pkvi [S] -1 points ago +2 / -3

Pattern recognition states here that the relative curve is not natural.. growth is one thing but substantial growth and a substantial rate relative to previous data draws suspicion.

-1
newuserfromreddit -1 points ago +1 / -2

It’s not substantial restive to previous data though. Both the ‘88-‘92 and ‘00-‘04 cycles have significant growth that, when set relative to the voting eligible population at that time, is similar to the growth in ‘16-‘20.

0
pkvi [S] 0 points ago +2 / -2

But then you need to look at what happened between 2000 and 2004.. Diebold

Diebold machines were caught overinflating voter rolls

Diebold is now owned by... yep.