Rigged? Wasserman Schultz vs. Canova election: Charting the vote reveals a pattern which defies laws of population statistics.

Posted on Posted in Uncategorized

“On election night, Wasserman Schultz was announced the winner by a commanding lead of 13.5%. However, we have examined statistical analysis of the race from four separate analysts and after detailed demographic research have concluded that there are red flags that deserve further investigation.

“What you show are results that could have been manipulated to get to this graph.” Dr.Scheuren suggested that the best way to resolve whether there is a problem with the election is to do a manual count of the ballots. “We have to find a way to find out if they were manipulated, and that requires a recount, of at least a sample of locations.” He added that it would be best to start with precincts “where the gaps are very wide,” meaning the precincts with the largest distance in percentage between the candidates. If there are differences between the manual count in those precincts and the machine count, he recommended expanding the recount to other precincts.

The precincts are being added together cumulatively, so as you move further right on the graph, it becomes harder and harder for any individual precinct to overcome the average percentage of all the votes that have been added up so far. Because of that, after enough votes have been added in, we expect the data to begin to graph as a flat line. Figure 1 shows a graph of the Republican counterpart to the Wasserman Schultz/Canova race (Kaufman vs. FeigenBaum). This race follows the expected statistical pattern. Once enough votes are counted, the average level of support for each candidate is clear, and the graph settles into a relatively flat line. The more votes counted, the flatter the line becomes. This behavior is predicted by the law of large numbers, a mathematical principle that is the basis for all polling. Investopedia provides an easy to understand explanation for it, “A principle of probability and statistics which states that as a sample size grows, its mean [average] will get closer and closer to the average of the whole population.”

Figure 1 – The Republican Congressional primary in the 23rd district follows the expected statistical pattern.

In other words – as the number of votes sampled increases – the expectation is that each candidate’s percentage of support will get closer and closer to the average of their support in the whole population; exactly what happens in the Republican primary of the 23rd district (Figure 1).

In the race between Wasserman Schultz and Canova, that does not happen (Figure 2A). As more and more votes are added in, instead of the pattern approaching the average level of support for each candidate (a flat line) Wasserman Schultz’ percentage climbs continuously in a mathematically precise pattern, and Canova’s percentage decreases steadily.”


Figure 2 – There is a 10% difference between the expected statistical pattern and the results in this race.


These excerpts are taken from “AN UNPREDICTABLE, HIGH-STAKES ELECTION.” on the blog of Edward R. Murrow award-winning journalist lulu Fries’dat. Follow her on Twitter @luluFriesdat

For extensive analysis and discussion that comprise the entire work, go tohttp://www.hollerbackfilm.com/blog/wass-can

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *