You compared two different data sets. Then dropped the winner's percentage from 90% to 80%. Which made it impossible to follow the rules the US State Dept. does which was the title of your analysis. Voters Voting percentage is equivalent to voter turnout which is the number of registered voters who voted divided by the total number who are registered. Plus you mentioned the winner's percentage and BOTH of these at 90%. Further down you mention a percentage (60%) of the population voting. This is not voter turnout. Then you drop the winner's percentage to 80%. These are mistakes only a rookie would make.
@bgr, I did indeed stretch the State Department criteria for two reasons - Because:
1) there is no county, let alone state in the US that has win % - vote % in the State Department “corruption zone”. My goal was to highlight the counties with the closest results to the “corruption zone”.
2) I couldn’t find a US county database of eligible voters or registered voters, so I used 2010 population as a proxy, then set the criteria to a smaller percentage assuming that most counties don’t have more than 70% of the 2010 population as registered voters. If you can find me a data source for registered voters for 2020, I would rerun with the analysis that you really want.
The real conclusions a reader should infer from my results are that there is no systemic fraud in any of the US counties (as I think you point out) AND that there are numerous explainable anomalies in election data.
You compared two different data sets. Then dropped the winner's percentage from 90% to 80%. Which made it impossible to follow the rules the US State Dept. does which was the title of your analysis. Voters Voting percentage is equivalent to voter turnout which is the number of registered voters who voted divided by the total number who are registered. Plus you mentioned the winner's percentage and BOTH of these at 90%. Further down you mention a percentage (60%) of the population voting. This is not voter turnout. Then you drop the winner's percentage to 80%. These are mistakes only a rookie would make.
@bgr, I did indeed stretch the State Department criteria for two reasons - Because:
1) there is no county, let alone state in the US that has win % - vote % in the State Department “corruption zone”. My goal was to highlight the counties with the closest results to the “corruption zone”.
2) I couldn’t find a US county database of eligible voters or registered voters, so I used 2010 population as a proxy, then set the criteria to a smaller percentage assuming that most counties don’t have more than 70% of the 2010 population as registered voters. If you can find me a data source for registered voters for 2020, I would rerun with the analysis that you really want.
The real conclusions a reader should infer from my results are that there is no systemic fraud in any of the US counties (as I think you point out) AND that there are numerous explainable anomalies in election data.