Show HN: Debunking Election Fraud Claims – Interactive Data Viz and Simulations(sullivan.zip)
sullivan.zip
Show HN: Debunking Election Fraud Claims – Interactive Data Viz and Simulations
https://sullivan.zip/clark-county-election-analysis/
4 comments
This analysis seems rooted in a misunderstanding of the law of large numbers.
LLN only says that large samples converge to the observed distribution, it does not guarantee that the samples reflect voter intent. If Elon has a few hundred million to throw at a campaign, he for sure has enough to hire a few statisticians.
LLN only says that large samples converge to the observed distribution, it does not guarantee that the samples reflect voter intent. If Elon has a few hundred million to throw at a campaign, he for sure has enough to hire a few statisticians.
LLN means that the mere fact that large samples converge is not a conspiracy.
Election Truth Alliance's claim is essentially that 1000 coin flips should come up all heads just as often as 10 coin flips will come up all heads.
The fact that large samples produce consistent results is not suspicious, it's a fundamental truth of sampling and the entire reason that we want to collect large samples.
Election Truth Alliance's claim is essentially that 1000 coin flips should come up all heads just as often as 10 coin flips will come up all heads.
The fact that large samples produce consistent results is not suspicious, it's a fundamental truth of sampling and the entire reason that we want to collect large samples.
State actors are smart enough to follow the law of large numbers.
....?
Please elaborate. What is the mechanism whereby a state actor hacked the machines to get them to start changing the rate at which incoming votes go for one candidate vs the other... without changing the rate at which incoming votes go for one candidate or the other?
Seriously. Look at the "Smoking Gun (The Complete Absence Of)" section, and explain to me how the machines were hacked in the way that ETA describes without causing any change in the trend line of any individual machine.
This is like saying "the chemtrail makers are smart enough to know how condensation works" or "the moon landing filmmakers are smart enough to know how retroreflectors work".
That's not an argument. The fact that moon landing fakers would have known how retroreflectors work doesn't change the fact that the retroreflectors exist, and their existence disproves the conspiracy theory in its entirety.
Please elaborate. What is the mechanism whereby a state actor hacked the machines to get them to start changing the rate at which incoming votes go for one candidate vs the other... without changing the rate at which incoming votes go for one candidate or the other?
Seriously. Look at the "Smoking Gun (The Complete Absence Of)" section, and explain to me how the machines were hacked in the way that ETA describes without causing any change in the trend line of any individual machine.
This is like saying "the chemtrail makers are smart enough to know how condensation works" or "the moon landing filmmakers are smart enough to know how retroreflectors work".
That's not an argument. The fact that moon landing fakers would have known how retroreflectors work doesn't change the fact that the retroreflectors exist, and their existence disproves the conspiracy theory in its entirety.
I built this after seeing several references to Election Truth Alliance on social media, and after reading their analysis, I just couldn't get the problems I saw in it out of my head.
So I downloaded the data, and rebuilt their full analysis from scratch.
Their critical error is a simple misunderstanding of the Law of Large Numbers: values collected in large samples converge to the true probability in the sample distribution.
(not to be confused with the Law of Very Large Numbers: which states that unlikely things happen given enough time. That confused me too)
Technical Details:
- No build system, this is entirely handmade HTML, CSS, and plain Javascript.
- Initial analysis done in Python with only standard libraries.
- Visualizations created in Observable Plot and D3.js
- Simulations run entirely client-side
- Web page built with Scrollama for animations and behavior controls
- Vote history visualizations process ~600k individual ballot records in real time, with a little bit of cacheing to keep your browser from chugging.
Interesting Challenges:
- Making the visualizations performant without a backend, which is accomplished with a bit of preloading as you scroll, and some amount of reusable cacheing so that the visualizations can share resources whenever possible.
- Windsurf does run wild sometimes. During the initial preprocessing stage, it at one point dumped an absolutely massive json blob to disk, it was so large it actually crashed my whole computer while writing. Then to read it, obviously it couldn't just be read in, but rather than storing in a more sane format, my Opus 4 powered coding agent decided to build a streaming JSON parser from scratch. It worked, and I got the data out that I needed so I didn't go back and make it more sensible, but man that was dumb.
This actually started with the simulation, which took only about a day of work, and then later grew to include the re-analysis and visualizations. The visualizations were all dnoe within 2-3 days after I got the data.
If I did it over again, I would've probably tried to find some kind of build system or static site generator to compose the final result. Once the page got very long it was quite unwieldy even for windsurf. Very short conversations could flood Sonnet 4's rate limit because there was just so much stuff in a single file.