I'll admit that I'm not a maths professor, but just with secondary school maths, something that doesn't seem to come up when people talk about statistical probability is that these are calculated using random samples. E.g. if you have 3 marbles in a bag, one white, one black and one green and you pick one out blindfolded, you have a 1 in 3 chance of picking a particular color.
If you asked 1000 people at a Democrat convention who they would vote for and all 1000 said Biden; or if you asked 1000 people at a Republican convention and they all said Trump; would you say that either of these were fraudulent because it's statistically impossible to not get a single vote? No, because neither is a random sample. They are both biased samples.
If you look at how many times Trump negatively commented on mail-in votes, it would be disingenuous to say that mail-in votes would be a random sample.
Given how hard Trump spoke against mail-in voting, the statistical anomaly would not be how few were for Trump, but how many he got. After all, if 100% of people who were voting for Trump believed that mail-in votes were not safe, then a 0% mail-in vote for Trump could be expected, given the bias of the sample. It would not need to be fraud, it would just mean that people who voted for him believed what he said.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you want to use maths and talk statistics, can we please at least acknowledge the difference between random samples and non-random samples.
Okay, not trolling, but asking an honest question. I believe that the evidence for massive election fraud should be investigated and brought to court (by professional investigators and judges, not by social media, or even either side of imgflip). If these allegations prove to be true, then the people responsible should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
My question is, if it turns out that the allegations end up being largely unfounded, and it turned out that it was largely a strategy by Mr Trump to win, what should happen then?
