This is accurate. It matches the Bloomberg realtime province data that I watched for 3 hours yesterday. Note that the areas controlled by criminals and gangs are the ones where the rigging is most prevalent. One of the provinces was cheating especially hard with almost 77% of the vote in favor of Lula. [Nordeste = Northeast part of the country]
From my election data analysis from US the last 6 years or so, it appears that in a 2-person race any numbers above about 2/3 (66%) in favor of one candidate indicates cheating of some kind. Once you hit 70%, the probability of cheating goes up dramatically, and over 75% it rapidly approaches 100% probability. How H&S works: https://greatawakening.win/p/15K6utnYcF/
They are either too dumb to realize or just don't care and throw it in our faces that they are obviously cheating and there is nothing we can do about it.
This is accurate. It matches the Bloomberg realtime province data that I watched for 3 hours yesterday. Note that the areas controlled by criminals and gangs are the ones where the rigging is most prevalent. One of the provinces was cheating especially hard with almost 77% of the vote in favor of Lula. [Nordeste = Northeast part of the country]
From my election data analysis from US the last 6 years or so, it appears that in a 2-person race any numbers above about 2/3 (66%) in favor of one candidate indicates cheating of some kind. Once you hit 70%, the probability of cheating goes up dramatically, and over 75% it rapidly approaches 100% probability. This appears to be why in the US, the Democratic leadership in the House all typically have wins greater than 75% because they PAY for those numbers and get treated like "royalty" by those rigging the system by giving them 75-25, 80-20, and 85-15 "victories".
They have to be more careful in Senate races and they typically follow the Hammer & Scorecard preprogrammed differentials which are in around 2.2% increments from what I recall. This means that a Senate victory may be typically be 51.1-48.9 (2.2 delta) or 52.2-47.8 (4.4 delta). This is how H&S works: it goalseeks the desired "margin of victory" by switching enough votes to hit the target. If you want to win you PAY, if you want to win bigger you PAY more. [if you get the raw 2020 CA election day computer results before the ballot harvesting you can see all of the increments. EVERY race had precise margins of victory because every race used Hammer & Scorecard. There appeared to be at least 6 tiers of victory margin].
They are either too dumb to realize or just don't care and throw it in our faces that they are obviously cheating and there is nothing we can do about it.
This is accurate. It matches the Bloomberg realtime province data that I watched for 3 hours yesterday. Note that the areas controlled by criminals and gangs are the ones where the rigging is most prevalent. One of the provinces was cheating especially hard with almost 77% of the vote in favor of Lula. [Nordeste = Northeast part of the country]
From my election data analysis from US the last 6 years or so, it appears that in a 2-person race any numbers above about 2/3 in favor of one candidate indicates cheating of some kind. Once you hit 70%, the probability of cheating goes up dramatically, and over 75% it rapidly approaches 100% probability. This appears to be why in the US, the Democratic leadership in the House all typically have wins greater than 75% because they PAY for those numbers and get treated like "royalty" by those rigging the system by giving them 75-25, 80-20, and 85-15 "victories".
They have to be more careful in Senate races and they typically follow the Hammer & Scorecard preprogrammed differentials which are in around 2.2% increments from what I recall. This means that a Senate victory may be typically be 51.1-48.9 (2.2 delta) or 52.2-47.8 (4.4 delta). This is how H&S works: it goalseeks the desired "margin of victory" by switching enough votes to hit the target. If you want to win you PAY, if you want to win bigger you PAY more. [if you get the raw 2020 CA election day computer results before the ballot harvesting you can see all of the increments. EVERY race had precise margins of victory because every race used Hammer & Scorecard. There appeared to be at least 6 tiers of victory margin].
They are either too dumb to realize or just don't care and throw it in our faces that they are obviously cheating and there is nothing we can do about it.
This is accurate. It matches the Bloomberg realtime province data that I watched for 3 hours yesterday. Note that the areas controlled by criminals and gangs are the ones where the rigging is most prevalent. One of the provinces was cheating especially hard with almost 77% of the vote in favor of Lula. [Nordeste = Northeast part of the country]
From my election data analysis from US the last 6 years or so, it appears that in a 2-person race any numbers above about 2/3 in favor of one candidate indicates cheating of some kind. Once you hit 70%, the probability of cheating goes up dramatically, and over 75% it rapidly approaches 100% probability. This appears to be why in the US, the Democratic leadership in the House all typically have wins greater than 75% because they PAY for those numbers and get treated like "royalty" by those rigging the system by giving them 75-25, 80-20, and 85-15 "victories".
They have to be more careful in Senate races and they typically follow the Hammer & Scorecard preprogrammed differentials which are in around 2.2% increments from what I recall. This means that a Senate victory may be typically be 51.1-48.9 (2.2 delta) or 52.2-47.8 (4.4 delta). This is how H&S works: it goalseeks the desired "margin of victory" by switching enough votes to hit the target. If you want to win you PAY, if you want to win bigger you PAY more.
They are either too dumb to realize or just don't care and throw it in our faces that they are obviously cheating and there is nothing we can do about it.
This is accurate. It matches the Bloomberg realtime province data that I watched for 3 hours yesterday. Note that the areas controlled by criminals and gangs are the ones where the rigging is most prevalent. One of the provinces was cheating especially hard with almost 77% of the vote in favor of Lula. [Nordeste = Northeast part of the country]
From my election data analysis from US the last 6 years or so, it appears that in a 2-person race any numbers above about 2/3 in favor of one candidate indicates cheating of some kind. Once you hit 70%, the probability of cheating goes up dramatically, and over 75% it rapidly approaches 100% probability. This appears to be why in the US, the Democratic leadership in the House all typically have wins greater than 75% because they PAY for those numbers and get treated like "royalty" by those rigging the system by giving them 75-25, 80-20, and 85-15 "victories". They have to be more careful in Senate races and they typically follow the Hammer & Scorecard preprogrammed differentials which are in around 2.2% increments from what I recall. This means that a Senate victory may be typically be 51.1-48.9 (2.2 delta) or 52.2-47.8 (4.4 delta). This is how H&S works: it goalseeks the desired "margin of victory" by switching enough votes to hit the target. If you want to win you PAY, if you want to win bigger you PAY more.
They are either too dumb to realize or just don't care and throw it in our faces that they are obviously cheating and there is nothing we can do about it.
This is accurate. It matches the Bloomberg realtime province data that I watched for 3 hours yesterday. Note that the areas controlled by criminals and gangs are the ones where the rigging is most prevalent. One of the provinces was cheating especially hard with almost 77% of the vote in favor of Lula. [Nordeste = Northeast part of the country]
From my election data analysis from US the last 6 years or so, it appears that in a 2-person race any numbers above about 2/3 in favor of one candidate indicates cheating of some kind. Once you hit 70%, the probability of cheating goes up dramatically, and over 75% it rapidly approaches 100% probability. This appears to be why in the US, the Democratic leadership in the House all typically have wins greater than 75% because they PAY for those numbers and get treated like "royalty" by those rigging the system by giving them 75-25, 80-20, and 85-15 "victories". They have to be more careful in Senate races and they typically follow the Hammer & Scorecard preprogrammed differentials which are in around 2.2% increments from what I recall. This means that a Senate victory may be typically be 51.1-48.9 (2.2 delta) or 52.2-47.8 (4.4 delta). This is how H&S works: it goalseeks the desired "margin of victory" by switching enough votes to hit the target.
They are either too dumb to realize or just don't care and throw it in our faces that they are obviously cheating and there is nothing we can do about it.
This is accurate. It matches the Bloomberg realtime province data that I watched for 3 hours yesterday. Note that the areas controlled by criminals and gangs are the ones where the rigging is most prevalent. One of the provinces was cheating especially hard with almost 77% of the vote in favor of Lula. [Nordeste = Northeast part of the country]
From my election data analysis from US the last 6 years or so, it appears that in a 2-person race any numbers above about 2/3 in favor of one candidate indicates cheating of some kind. Once you hit 70%, the probability of cheating goes up dramatically, and over 75% it rapidly approaches 100% probability. This appears to be why in the US, the Democratic leadership in the House all typically have wins greater than 75% because they PAY for those numbers and get treated like "royalty" by those rigging the system by giving them 75-25, 80-20, and 85-15 "victories". They have to be more careful in Senate races and they typically follow the Hammer & Scorecard preprogrammed differentials which are in around 2.1% increments from what I recall.
They are either too dumb to realize or just don't care and throw it in our faces that they are obviously cheating and there is nothing we can do about it.
This is accurate. It matches the Bloomberg realtime province data that I watched for 3 hours yesterday. Note that the areas controlled by criminals and gangs are the ones where the rigging is most prevalent. One of the provinces was cheating especially hard with almost 77% of the vote in favor of Lula.
From my election data analysis from US the last 6 years or so, it appears that in a 2-person race any numbers above about 2/3 in favor of one candidate indicates cheating of some kind. Once you hit 70%, the probability of cheating goes up dramatically, and over 75% it rapidly approaches 100% probability. This appears to be why in the US, the Democratic leadership in the House all typically have wins greater than 75% because they PAY for those numbers and get treated like "royalty" by those rigging the system by giving them 75-25, 80-20, and 85-15 "victories". They have to be more careful in Senate races and they typically follow the Hammer & Scorecard preprogrammed differentials which are in around 2.1% increments from what I recall.
They are either too dumb to realize or just don't care and throw it in our faces that they are obviously cheating and there is nothing we can do about it.
This is accurate. It matches the Bloomberg realtime province data that I watched for 3 hours yesterday. Note that the areas controlled by criminals and gangs are the ones where the rigging is most prevalent. One of the provinces was cheating especially hard with almost 77% of the vote in favor of Lula.
From my election data analysis from US the last 6 years or so, it appears that in a 2-person race any numbers above about 2/3 indicates cheating of some kind. Once you hit 70%, the probability of cheating goes up dramatically, and over 75% it rapidly approaches 100% probability. This appears to be why in the US, the Democratic leadership in the House all typically have wins greater than 75% because they PAY for those numbers and get treated like "royalty" by those rigging the system by giving them 75-25, 80-20, and 85-15 "victories". They have to be more careful in Senate races and they typically follow the Hammer & Scorecard preprogrammed differentials which are in around 2.1% increments from what I recall.
They are either too dumb to realize or just don't care and throw it in our faces that they are obviously cheating and there is nothing we can do about it.
This is accurate. It matches the Bloomberg realtime province data that I watched for 3 hours yesterday. Note that the areas controlled by criminals and gangs are the ones where the rigging is most prevalent. One of the provinces was cheating especially hard with almost 77% of the vote in favor of Lula.
From my election data analysis from US the last 6 years or so, it appears that in a 2-person race any numbers above about 2/3 indicates cheating of some kind. Once you hit 70%, the probability of cheating goes up dramatically, and over 75% it rapidly approaches 100% probability. This appears to be why in the US, the Democratic leadership in the House all typically have wins greater than 75% because they PAY for those numbers and get treated like "royalty" by those rigging the system by giving them 75-25, 80-20, and 85-15.
They are either too dumb to realize or just don't care and throw it in our faces that they are obviously cheating and there is nothing we can do about it.