POSSIBLE VOTER FRAUD SMOKING GUN

Here's me old one.

archive is/Fs1Rv

Probably has said some newer stuff since then, but he was adamant on wanting to shoot Iranians after the US invaded them and wanting to kill the deal and start bombing.

Source: Buzzfeed FactCheck on 2016 CNN GOP Town Hall , Feb 19, 2016

That one already invalidates the whole thing. It's pure propaganda

bump. I still need to hear why the total votes% have decreased on those states

...

That's called responding to aggression, not calling for a genocide on Iran.
Contain your fantasies, kike

Still need a logical answer on why the number would ever go down. This smells like kike tricks

Any US ship over there is in Iranian waters. That's the point of the boats showing up, and this was made right after the US tried doing a raid on the IRG missile base.

what is your point? why are you derailing the thread? the point of the thread is finding out why the % number of votes counted ever goes down

Easiest answer is the ballots were discarded, next is that some of the states were called while nowhere near reporting, like Washington.

How exactly that would cause the number to go down?

bump

Projections, There were twice as many people expected to vote as actually did this time.

As for the ballot discard, should have paid attention to the mail in threads.
Alternately, Harambre bullshit as those ballots get thrown out as being protests.
Very easy to spoil a ballot, so if a bunch of people elect to ignore the rules on fill in only the circle, it all goes into the trash.

Then it should have happened in most states, rather than only a select few, also, it was about 10% less dems than otherwise, not half

The total% would go up instead of down in this situation, if you have already accounted 15 of 50, and 5 faggots write harambe, now you have accounted 20 of 50 but invalidated 5, therefore you have counted 15 of 45. 15 of 45 is more than 15 of 50

Probably recounts.

Here is some interesting fraud, and fits the talk about the Float usage in voter programs discussed very well.

...

the problem is the word "estimated"

That's right and that's why we need more Holla Forums in state board of registrar, county board of canvassers, polling places etc. Need to get started right now getting in these positions to be ready for 2020.

See they can say "Well with so many votes counted by volunteers you can't expect it to be perfect". So there are 'tolerable' levels of error they can intentionally get away with, otherwise you have to pay for an expensive recount and 'disrupt the peaceful transition of power', etc.

They can trash 1% of Trump votes. Record 1% of Trump votes as hillary votes instead. And if 30% of registered votes didn't show up to vote, then they can fill out 10-15% of those ballots for dems, which is why you see shit like 13% of republicans voting for hillary. Those are the people who couldn't make it to the polls so the poll workers voted for them.

Good find, OP.

Judging from the presentation of the site and what it says, it looks like this is just the NYT doing "their best" to provide accurate coverage in a short amount of time. As you can see from the first pic, they acknowledge that they're not providing an accurate vote count. They don't seem to have that data. What they've done is make an estimate (how voter percentage will turn out) on an estimate (how many votes remain). The first estimate is based off of how the votes were going (Trump KILLING it), and how votes in that state went in the past (When Obama beat Romney in a landslide).

That doesn't explain the dip in the estimate though, as that seemed to occur at probably around 10 or 11am according to the graph in the second picture. So yeah, it looks like there may be some fuckery going on. What I find most suspicious is that the votes counted picture (all of them really) show a steady uprising line going towards 100%. This is like the standard sort of statistical curve, that's what the line should be showing (Vermont's a better example, the first link you shared). However, because information was released from the election offices in unusual rhythms, you'll get the long horizontal blocks where the number of votes counted essentially freezes, until it jumps up from like 45% of votes counted to 65% of votes counted. That all makes sense in how to read the graphs, but in Utah's case it's different. There's a steady progression on votes counted marred slightly by the times that they got their numbers leading to the chunky appearance. Then at about 9am, after not getting updates for 2 hours, they get an update, pause on it for almost an hour, and then decide "Yeah, nah, let's go with the numbers and votes we PREVIOUSLY had"

We need alternative sources for checking votes. I went to uselectionatlas and screengrabbed the fourth picture. This seems to be a much more comprehensive view of the votes that were cast, yet it's still flagged as an unofficial result. However, look at the difference between the NYT overall percentages and the elections atlas overall percentages. 47% Trump goes down to 46.36% and Clinton drops from 29% to 27.71%. That's a difference of about 0.64% for Trumps numbers, but a difference of 1.29% for Clinton's numbers.

We need to dig into this more, there's some sort of fuckery going on.

Hold up, what's the population of Utah? If I recall correctly Clinton's popular vote lead was only by about 300,000 or something. That discrepancy in Utah alone could mean 10% of that.

and OP proved he was retarded yet again

True, but that's not the point. If MSM is basing Hillary's "majority" off of estimates, then there's shit to call them out on