Failed far-right Nevada Republican gubernatorial candidate Joey Gilbert _filed a lawsuit_[*] seeking to overturn his primary defeat, citing an "analysis" that found his loss to be a "mathematical impossibility" even after a recount he requested confirmed the results.
Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo last month defeated Gilbert, who attended former President Donald Trump's Jan. 6 rally ahead of the Capitol riot, by double-digits, 38-27. But Gilbert, a voter fraud conspiracy theorist, refused to concede the race.
Gilbert on Friday filed a lawsuit on Friday in Clark County seeking to overturn his loss. The suit claims that Lombardo's win is a "mathematical impossibility." Once the results are "statistically corrected," said a copy of the complaint obtained by The Nevada Independent, will show "with irrefutable geometric finality" that Gilbert won by more than 55,000 votes.
Nevada counties already completed a recount sought by Gilbert, which confirmed that he lost to Lombardo by more than 20,000 votes.
If anyone finds either some claims from the suit (there's a hint to some mathematics in the Salon article, but not enough to deduce illogic from), can you post them here for debunking - unless someone else has already done that, in which case a link to that would be a perfectly fine way of closing this thread.
They was taking plaster tire tracks, foot prints, dog smelling prints, and they took twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us. Took pictures of the approach, the getaway, the northwest corner the southwest corner and that's not to mention the aerial photography.
"Contestant can prove with an irrefutable mathematical certainty that the actual vote result
counted was miscalculated, is a geometric, mathematical impossibility and that Joey
Gilbert, in fact, won his party's nomination for Governor."
I'm somewhat disappointed, that sentence should end ", actually!"
I cynically think that lawyerish is an attempt to look smart, but so many modern legal documents look like they're written by 7-year-olds who are trying to look smart.
It also looks like I've got some reading and cogitating to do, thanks @Mendel.
Well, it starts easy, he's gone wrong in his presumptions, theoretically I don't even need to look at the logic that follows, as anything derived from a falsity is not logically supported.
Page 8, Item 28, lines 18-20:
"In a fair election, we expect a strong linear correlation between Gilbert's Election Day, Mail-in and Early Vote percentages across the districts".
No we don't.
Different districts can have different demographics (e.g. employment state, and type), and the pressure to use the different voting mechanisms with thus differ. In particular as such demographic factors may be correlated with the political stances of the voters. Outliers are totally to be expected. I'm not sure exactly where he's going with this, as he could go in a couple of different directions, so I'll stop here, and read on...
Jeeebus, I clearly posted too early. The very next sentences are a doozie
External Quote:
That is, whatever Gilbert's Election Day percentage is at a
particular precinct, we expect bath Gilbert's Mail-in percentage and Early Vote
percentage to be roughly the same, not exacily, since that would imply causation...
Nope. Exactly the same would not imply causation. The guy who wrote this clearly isn't a mathematician.
He's done the predictable, and drawn a false conclusion from his false premise.
External Quote:
The fact that in
the top graph the red ine is not ending at 0%/0% as shown n he bottom graph.
means that there is a problem with the election results. (Emphasis added) In a
fair election the sum of the Early Day and Election Day votes should produce
very similar results to the Mail-in votes, meaning the x-values and the y-values
should be similar (when x is 10% then y should be close to 10% as well) and not
off by 25% [as demonstrated in the top graph].
pp17-18 section 51/6
Let's consider the situation where most Harting supporters are [people] who don't trust mail-in ballots. In no way would you expect the line of (EDV+Early) against Mail-in to intersect 0/0. More of his voters would use EDV or Early, because fewer were using Mail-in, so you'd expect the whole scatter plot to be even higher on the graph, and more to the left.
This is beginning to do my head in, I'm feeling something between pain and nausea reading it. I've proved to my own satisfaction that it's bunk, so case closed. If anyone wants to do more digging, please feel free.
So, paraphrased, "they stole my election because I didn't receive as many mail-in votes as I would have liked". Hmmm, where have I heard that before?
Clearly, the fact that the y-axis intersects at 25%, this means that the voting machines in the precincts were tampered with, and Gilbert himself tried to steal the election!
(If you cheat and still not win, aren't you extra suspicious that the other side cheated as well?)
well as long as YOU think it's bunk then i guess this thread is useful. However, if you want to convince the people who actually believe the alleged bunk, you should probably try to speak regular people english.
well as long as YOU think it's bunk then i guess this thread is useful. However, if you want to convince the people who actually believe the alleged bunk, you should probably try to speak regular people english.
Why do these people believe Gilbert? He certainly doesn't explain his claim in "regular people English". (Which grade reading level is that? 5th grade?)
well as long as YOU think it's bunk then i guess this thread is useful. However, if you want to convince the people who actually believe the alleged bunk, you should probably try to speak regular people english.
Do you believe the "people who actually believe the alleged bunk" are breathlessly awaiting Metabunk's analysis, eager to be proved wrong and to be persuaded to change their minds? That makes no sense in any language. (And I'm curious about what you consider to be "regular people English", because I don't see anything difficult to understand in @FatPhil's posts.)
1. Your audience's reading age is lower than you think
Whether your website is targeted toward the general public or a specific demographic, it is important to realize that the average reading age is lower than you might expect. U.S. illiteracy statistics from the Literacy Project Foundation offer some surprising insights.
The average American is considered to have a readability level equivalent to a 7th/8th grader (12 to 14 years old). This level is actively used as a benchmark for written guidelines in the medical industry.
In the UK, the central government encourages content writers to aim for a readability level of age nine. Their reasoning for this is that around the age of nine, children stop reading common words and just recognize their shape. This allows them to read faster. By reducing long sentences and words, you can help keep text simple and easy to read.
Do you believe the "people who actually believe the alleged bunk" are breathlessly awaiting Metabunk's analysis, eager to be proved wrong and to be persuaded to change their minds? That makes no sense in any language
Let's consider the situation where most Harting supporters are [people] who don't trust mail-in ballots. In no way would you expect the line of (EDV+Early) against Mail-in to intersect 0/0. More of his voters would use EDV or Early, because fewer were using Mail-in, so you'd expect the whole scatter plot to be even higher on the graph, and more to the left.
There are more people in the world than the people who believe the bunk. I was looking for a debunk of the claims in the suit, I didn't find one. That is a problem with a very simple solution - do it myself. Don't thank me, just throw money. Other people looking for an evaluation of the claims in the suit, for example journalists who want to write a story on the matter, now have a better chance of finding same.
i didnt read the court documents because the vast majority of readers dont read court documents, so i'm trying to maintain a clean outlook of how his supporters would view this thread.
His guy said
Article:
Robert Beadles, a cryptocurrency millionaire and activist who funded the recount, wrote on his website that the lawsuit was filed Friday in Carson City District Court and will prove that "Joey Gilbert rightfully won the primary with 100% certainty."
"It's simple; we prove with mathematical certainty Joey Gilbert is the winner of the primary gubernatorial race and that he had over 55,000 votes taken from him," Beadles wrote. "It's a slam dunk case. We'll post the suit, the exhibits, opinions, etc., as soon as the State publishes them."
and
Article:
More specifically, the suit points to alleged irregularities, including the lack of linear correlation between percentages of Election Day, early and mail-in votes for Gilbert — a missing correlation that, it argues, suggests a "geometric impossibility" derived through an "illegal formula."
The suit then argues that, per its own adjusted statistical model, thousands of alleged votes for Gilbert were "drawn illegally" into Gov. Steve Sisolak's pool of votes, and that per the "corrected" mathematical model presented in the suit, Gilbert had instead received more than 83,000 votes to Lombardo's 44,000 in Clark County.
Other people looking for an evaluation of the claims in the suit, for example journalists who want to write a story on the matter, now have a better chance of finding same.
You think journalists can understand you? fair enough. ( I disagree. not that it really matters... Trump endorsed the guy who won so i doubt journalists care about this random guy enough.)
and
Article: More specifically, the suit points to alleged irregularities, including the lack of linear correlation between percentages of Election Day, early and mail-in votes for Gilbert — a missing correlation that, it argues, suggests a "geometric impossibility" derived through an "illegal formula."
"lack of linear correlation between percentages" — language?
"geometric impossibility" derived through an "illegal formula." — you understand this? I don't.
"drawn illegally" — what does this mean?
"corrected" mathematical model — why is a mathematical model needed, and how can he tell it's correct?
The only part of the claim that's simple is "Gilbert had instead received more than 83,000 votes to Lombardo's 44,000 in Clark County", and you can debunk that by pointing at the recount.
When we're dealing with the mathematical claims, Gilbert is not easier to understand than @FatPhil . Gilbert's bluffing, hoping his audience will pretend to understand.
no kidding, but they (and i and you) understand he is claiming that the math proves the election ripped him off. and I understand that Phil said that if the voters are NOT [people who mistrust mail-in ballots], then Gilbert's graph of linear correlation is correct.
not sure what political campaign managers have to do with anything, but if you think MB is now worthless to ordinary people .... ok. surely you know better than i.
Do you have a better explanation why they could be lead to such an absurd view? If so, just substitute that explanation into my paragraph, and re-read it with that context. The reason they've chosen to think wrongly isn't the important thing, it's the wrong things that they think that I'm debunking. The addition of motive is orthogonal to the mathematical debunking.
is there a mathematical debunking? that's what i've been getting at all along, if there is one i personally think you need to explain the math better so your "journalists" can understand your alleged debunk. That's all i've been trying to get at.
and I understand that Phil said that if the voters are NOT [people who mistrust mail-in ballots], then Gilbert's graph of linear correlation is correct.
"Let's consider the situation" prefaces a hypothetical, one of several possible situation. Phil made a statement about what would be true if this was the actual situation, but it doesn't follow that there can't be other situations where this is true.
Example: Consider the situation where I dine out every day; then I'll be broke at the end of the month.
Does this mean I won't be broke if I don't do that? Obviously I could blow my paycheck on something else, and still be broke—or not.
The only mathematics that has place in an election is counting (and adding). Gilbert is making his maths up, it's not properly connected to reality.
The funny thing was that just before sending that post I had included a coda along the lines of "Would you like me to explain the word 'orthogonal'?", but I decided to not include that snark as it was unproductive, so I deleted it.
If you do not understand the language in which a discussion is being made - bow out.
But it doesnt matter, as i like Lombardi. so am not interested in arguing against your bias and insults, i'm just trying to get you to speak in language that the average Metabunk reader can follow.
I have no bias with regards to the US elections. No matter how interested I am in US politics, I'm completely disinterested in it too. Find me a case of idiotic election-fraud claims by a Democrat, and I'll happily debunk it.
If you are judging the readership of metabunk such that you think that 80%-95% will not follow what I am posting in this thread, then perhaps it it you who is being insulting.
youre getting closer. i appreciate you at least trying to clarify.
perhaps "he says that the graph is incorrect because his ratio of votes with mail-in votes should be the same as the percent he got with in person votes" ?
i see. thank you for clarifying. I was confused because Donald Trump has nothing to do with this particular election, and Gilberts campaign page says he is more distrusting of the actual secret algorhythm machines then the paper ballots [of mail-ins].
I could but that would be way off topic. plus your addition of "idiotic" means that you will personally judge which cases you feel are worthy or not to fit the criteria. perhaps you can drop the ad hominins like "paranoid lunatic" and "idiotic".
i see. thank you for clarifying. I was confused because Donald Trump has nothing to do with this particular election, and Gilberts campaign page says he is more distrusting of the actual secret algorhythm machines then the paper ballots [of mail-ins].
Mail-in ballots are mail-in ballots whether it's a 2020 election or a 2022 election. "Recommended" is past tense. 2020 was in the past. "Recommended" was therefore the correct term for me to use.
so even though Trump endorsed the other guy, you think Trump distrusting mail-ins only affected Gilbert voters vs all the other GOP candidates?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
looking at numbers i can see now sort of why Gilbert is suspicious. He won in alot of counties that had high mail-in rates**, where Lombardo shot ahead in Cark County after the 77% totals by 11,000ish and Gilbert got 5,000ish after the 77% totals. Still this is Clark County where Lombardo served for years as sheriff including during the Vegas mass shooting... it's not surprising to me he won there and Lombardo was ahead by twice the amount at the 77% tally, so 11k to 5k seems on par.
Heres some links of charts of vote numbers and mail-in rates... i cant quote because they are charts (some examples below)
with 77% of votes counted:
***add note: the Democrat primary was same day/time frame so not all these numbers of voter turnout apply only to Republican. Possible 90% of mail-ins were all democrat voters. ??
I could but that would be way off topic. plus your addition of "idiotic" means that you will personally judge which cases you feel are worthy or not to fit the criteria. perhaps you can drop the ad hominins like "paranoid lunatic" and "idiotic".
It was you who brought the party affiliation of the people involved into this thread as something that was relevant somehow. You can't do that and then legitimately claim that when I assert the party affiliation is irrelevant, that I have gone off-topic. You are being nothing but unconstructive and attempting to derail the thread. As as happened often, it seems you feel threatened by its content merely because the subject of it is a Republican, and are lashing out for no justifiable reason. It's starting to get pathological.
I judge the mathematical components as someone who did a degree in mathematics, and who recognises valid deductions from valid postulates. Anything that falls so far short is definitionally idiotic. It's not an ad hominem, not only because it's a conclusion from the evaluation - an ad hominem would derive the conclusion from the claim of idiocy - but also because my use of "idiotic" wasn't even aimed at a person, it was aimed at the claims: " idiotic election-fraud claims". The claims are idiotic. They're just plain wrong. That's a fact. Deal with it, and stop taking it personally. You gain nothing from trying to defend them.
perhaps "he says that the graph is incorrect because his ratio of votes with mail-in votes should be the same as the percent he got with in person votes" ?
No. These should not be the same. These ratios should be what the votes cast are. There's nothing wrong with these ratios being different. We've been over this back in 2020, I can find the thread for you if you like.
1. Gilbert has lost his nomination election.
2. Gilbert had hoped to win, and is looking to make this loss someone else's fault.
3. He finds he did better in in-person voting than in mail-in voting.
4. He claims that if his mail-in vote percentage matched his in-person percentage, he would have won.
5. He claims, incorrectly and without evidence, that the mail-in votes were subject to fraud.
6. This is, step for step, out of the Trump 2020 election playbook.
Consider:
if the mail-in vote does not match the in-person vote, we might as well assume (incorrectly and without evidence) that the in-person vote was tampered with. For example, look at this graph: View attachment 52617
It suggests that "EDV and Early" gave a base 25% to Gilbert in every precinct because they were tampered with, i.e. that Gilbert tried to steal the election himself, but failed. This suggestion also lacks evidence, and is proven wrong by the count and recount.
You can claim anything you like if you don't bring the evidence.
It is not enough to claim something should be a certain way, you need to connect that claim to reality, with evidence.
And vote results need to connect to ballots and voters, not to geometry or formulas.
Page 8, Item 28, lines 18-20:
"In a fair election, we expect a strong linear correlation between Gilbert's Election Day, Mail-in and Early Vote percentages across the districts".
Here's some mathematics to prove this is wrong, from simple assumptions.
We assume:
• Supporters for candidate A vote 92% in-person and 8% by mail.
• Supporters for candidate B vote 80% in-person and 20% by mail.
If candidate A bombs (0% result), she gets 0% of the in-person vote, and 0% of the mail vote.
If candidate A dominates (100%), she gets 100% of the in-person votes, and 100% of the mail.
But what happens if she has a less extreme result?
Example:
Candidate A receives 50 votes, candidate B receives 55 votes.
Candidate A receives 50 of 105 votes, that's 48%. She loses.
How does this example look by vote method?
Candidate A has 46 in-person votes and 4 mail votes, because her split is 92%-8%.
Candidate B has 44 in-person votes and 11 mail votes, because her split is 80%-20%.
Candidate A received 46 of 90 in-person votes, that's 51%.
Candidate A received 4 of 15 mail votes, that's 27%.
These percentages are not the same!
In fact, if we do this for different vote outcomes, and graph this with the mail-in result (e.g. 27%) at the bottom and the in-person result (e.g. 51%) on the left, as Gilbert did, we don't get a straight line, we get a curve (red):
I've marked our example with a green dot.
We can now add Gilbert's 25% line, and it becomes clear why the data supports both:
Gilbert's allegation that a fair election requires this graph to be a straight line is a geometric error, and claimed "illegally".
a : mail-in support for A (e.g. 0.08 for 8%)
b: mail-in support for B (e.g. 0.20 for 20%)
y: in-person result for A (e.g. 46/90)
x: mail result for A (e.g. 4/15)
