this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2024
103 points (99.0% liked)

the_dunk_tank

15914 readers
12 users here now

It's the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I know I’ve expressed dislike for the guy in the past, but seriously? I thought for even something like this, he would at least have a good take on it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MalarchoBidenism@hexbear.net 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Those numbers are actually very boring because it's just someone taking the estimated, rounded percentages and extrapolating using the total number of votes.

There is zero reason to do this. What are the estimates based on? Why estimate percentages at all? Just count the votes and give us the corresponding percentages. You're telling me they knew the exact total number of votes but not the exact number of votes each candidate got? But somehow still had enough information to estimate percentages closely matching the final results? Why is everyone pretending this is not weird lol.

I even double checked where the numbers came from, thinking maybe a journalist calculated them from the CNE's percentages or something. But no, the CNE straight up officially said Maduro got 5,150,092 votes. They also don't give the total number of votes, meaning that number was obtained by adding up the results given by the CNE, and not the other way around as you suggested.

You're right that US elections are a sham. If the 2020 Iowa caucus happened in a Latin American country the international-community-1international-community-2 would have done their usual seriously-concerned-about-the-legitimacy-of-this-election routine. That's irrelevant to whether Maduro cheated or not though.

[–] Barx@hexbear.net 3 points 3 months ago

There is zero reason to do this. What are the estimates based on? Why estimate percentages at all? Just count the votes and give us the corresponding percentages.

This question is basically, "why ever do a projection or estimate?" The answer is, "because you don't have all the data". In that same CNE announcement they said 80% of results had been transmitted.

You're telling me they knew the exact total number of votes but not the exact number of votes each candidate got?

They seem to have estimated turnout as well, which makes sense given that the final count wasn't done.

But somehow still had enough information to estimate percentages closely matching the final results?

CNE's Aug 2 results announcement gave Maduro a nearly 1% higher victory.

That's irrelevant to whether Maduro cheated or not though.

Double standards such as those applied to Venezuela operate primarily by distorting perceptions through emphasis.