One in a quadrillion to the 4th power of silliness

The statistic is based on “What’s the chance Biden would have won the four states if a) the preferences of the 2020 electorate were just like those of the 2016 electorate and b) the voters whose votes were counted late were just like those whose votes were counted early, when Trump seemed to be ahead.”

Obviously not the case. Yet, this was included as evidence for SCOTUS in the Paxton case. Is it any wonder that courts threw these cases out 50+ times. Yet I’m sure lots of folks will say that math backed up the data. Can anyone say autogolpe?

25 thoughts on “One in a quadrillion to the 4th power of silliness

    1. I didn’t see the movie but the title sure fits.
      I think the biggest lesson to come from this King’s Tea Party is that we have let the presidency become much to powerful. And that is the danger that the founders tried so hard to curtail in the Constitution.

      Time for Congress to take control, as intended in 1784. That is the only way we can actually keep a government “of, by and for the people”.

      A big part of that is for Congress to actually write the laws and the detailed regulatory means of enforcement. Letting a president decide to enforce what he likes and ignore what he doesn’t is wrong. Yet that is exactly what has transpired over the decades, centuries really.

      Add in lifetime appointments for the judiciary and war powers acts and we have a very unbalanced system.


      Liked by 2 people

      1. A supine Congress is certainly at the heart of the problem. And the biggest contributor to that dysfunction are the career politicians that will do (or not do) whatever it takes to hold onto power.

        Term limits.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Term limits has its good points. We now have never ending campaigning from the time the elected take their seats to the next election.

          Perhaps we need to consider a rotating system like the Senate. Maybe extend the House terms to four years, with 1/3 up for re-election each time. No more than 2 terms for either house.

          Consider the presidency with perhaps a single 6 year term limit.

          The stop gaps? A difficult, but doable vote of no confidence in Congress to replace an out of control president.

          Most important, however, is tightening the “norms” into legally enforceable statutes and bring power back to Congress.

          As intended.

          Oh, I have suggested in the past that we need to expand the Congress. Right now a House member has a constituency of 750,000. That puts the politicians way to far out of reach of the voters. The original Constitution called for 30,000.

          Unwieldy? Perhaps. But doable in today’s tech world.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. All good points, unfortunately I’m concerned such changes may have the likelihood of the VA. GA allowing a second term for the Commonwealth’s Governor.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. I don’t think term limits would help that much.

          The problem is that government has its fingers in too many pies. If it were restrained to those functions set forth in Article I section 8, then Congress could produce laws that spelled out what was to be done. But since the 1930s when SCOTUS allowed the Commerce Clause to be misused to giver the Federal government powers never intended, the complexity of government multiplied to the point that no Congressman can know enough about what the government does to write meaningful limits into law. So, instead those powers are delegated to Executive Branch Bureaucrats who make rules with the force of law. Those rules are often in conflict with rules set by other bureaucrats..

          Hence we are left trying to comply with ridiculous regulations and no one accountable for them.


          1. All good points. Add in the coercive effects of mass media and we have a recipe for constitutional failure.



      It has its history in Latin America, hence the Spanish version of “autocoup”.

      Trump is trying everything to usurp an election that he couldn’t rig well enough. Packing courts, extorting election officials and state government leaders, demanding that Congress overturn the results…the usual autogolpe playbook.

      So far, our institutional “guardrails” have held, but we may not be so lucky next time. That Democrats control the House is the last defense on January 6. Hopefully, McConnell will reign in his caucus to ignore those idiots in the other chamber.

      Liked by 2 people

  1. The Bloomberg article is erroneous.

    First, the statistician whose affidavit contains the one-in-quadrillions observation never claimed that it was evidence of voter fraud. He claimed only that his calculations raised red flags (my term) that needed further investigation. This is what you’d expect from an honest data analyst.

    Second, his original computations were not based on the two assumptions the Bloomberg writer presents. They were based, instead, on a simple comparison in states he examined between votes tabulated prior to 3 a.m. on election day and votes tabulated subsequently. Because the two tabulations were markedly different, the statistician calculated the probability that the early and subsequent tabulations were randomly drawn from the same population of voters. He wrote, “The vote patterns I analyzed were different and I ascribe the likelihood of finding such patterns from the same population with the same rate of vote propensity as vanishingly small.” (See pages 152a and following in the Texas complaint.)

    Click to access 20201211095822921_TX-v-State-LeaveReply-2020-12-11.pdf

    The Bloomberg writer is either incredibly sloppy, or he is trying to fool his readers. There is nothing wrong with the statistician’s numbers or his reasoning, or the reality of the red flag he documents.


      1. Your Politifact link is absurd. The writer doesn’t accurately describe what the statistician wrote, and obviously can’t figure it out.


        1. The one in quadrillion is absurd, period.

          That the votes did not fit some kind of “random” pattern means nothing.

          We had absentee and mail in ballots that did not even get canvassed and sorted until the next day. Why? Because Republican legislators were trying the muddy the waters after Trump told everyone long before the election that only in person ballots were valid.

          The lawsuit was a get out of jail free card for Paxton and the rest of the states and Congressmen were looking to kiss the butt of the president.

          Anything else is purely designed to destroy our country and install a king. Period.

          SCOTUS agreed the suit was crap.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. RE: “The one in quadrillion is absurd, period.”

          It is not absurd in the least, if you understand what it means. Even your Bloomberg piece admits the math is good.

          Here is what it means:

          There are two tabulations, B and A, one reported (B)efore 3:00 AM on election night, the other reported (A)fter that time. The two tabulations are markedly different, with B showing a Trump win and A showing a Biden win.

          Cicchetti notes that if both tabulations were drawn at random from the same population, you would expect the ratio of Trump votes to Biden votes to be roughly the same. Since they are not roughly the same, we should expect that the two tabulations are from different populations of voters. He calculates that the probability the two tabulations are from the same population is 1 in many quadrillions.

          Your Politifact “fact check” argues that the probability is wrong BECAUSE the two tabulations are based on different populations (in-person and mail-in voters). How stupid is that? Cicchetti had already deduced that something like different populations must explain the patterns in the data.

          Here’s the concept to grasp: Cicchetti’s analysis shows that the final vote tallies in the four states he examined are unexpected in ways that have yet to be explained. Some “fact checkers” are claiming to have the explanation, but they don’t. For the most part they are just poor thinkers. Or else they are propagandists (my choice).


          1. “Even your Bloomberg piece admits the math is good.”

            So. Good math with bad propositions mean just that.

            Garbage in, garbage out.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. “So far, only a handful of cases have resulted in actual criminal charges alleging wrongdoing — some of them against Republican voters aiming to help Trump, according to officials, including a man charged Monday with trying to cast a ballot in Pennsylvania for the president in the name of his deceased mother.”


            My guess is that Trump did as well as he did, only losing by 7 million votes and hundreds of thousands in the 6 swing states, by Republican fraud.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. RE: “Garbage in, garbage out.”

            There is no “GIGO” problem in Cicchetti’s analysis. That problem belongs to your fact checkers, and the idiots who believe them.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s