Statistical evidence drove several of the lawsuits challenging the result of the 2020 presidential election. One statistician says that data analyses give odds of one in one quadrillion that the election was fair and free. The legacy media refers to this as “no evidence.” Are they right?
Most Americans have watched a series like C.S.I. that revolves around gathering and securing forensic evidence from crime scenes. They find tire tracks, fingerprints, electronic trails, security camera images, and the gold standard of forensic evidence: DNA. Generally, if you can find someone’s DNA at a crime scene and match it to a suspect, it is considered sufficiently strong evidence to secure a conviction in a criminal court. Is DNA regarded as statistical evidence?
Genes are sequenced into a string of symbols, and there is a certain probability that two individuals can have the same sequence. Experts say that there is around one in one billion chance that the matching DNA belongs to someone else. Fingerprints, tire tracks, bite marks, and other physical evidence are far more uncertain than DNA, but even these are, in conjunction, often enough to secure a conviction.
One in one quadrillion
Now, let us return to the claim that there is, based on statistical evidence, only a one in one quadrillion chance the 2020 election was fair. That comes from the testimony of Rutgers professor Dr. Charles J. Cicchetti. You may dispute the evidence and claim as having flaws or false assumptions in the methodology, but you cannot say that there is no evidence.
By criminal case standards, there is strong evidence of widespread and significant election irregularities, and to report this as “no evidence” is to abandon any pretense of objective reporting.
Compare and contrast this to how the media reported the Russia collusion story. It was entirely based on alleged anonymous Russian sources and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign. Even after it was proven to be a hoax, the media continued to refer to it as evidence.
But what about the claims of methodological problems? Critics have indeed found flaws in Cicchetti’s calculations, analogous to doing a DNA test on a contaminated sample, thereby invalidating the result.
It is appropriate for a defense lawyer to cast doubt on this result because it is not their job to convict their client. However, the media are supposed to be conveyors of truth and objective information, not defense lawyers. If they did their job, they would use the initial statistical claim as a starting point for an independent investigation, correcting the methodological error. That’s called investigative journalism.
If they did this, they would find that the odds of a fair and free election perhaps rise to one in one million, but would that be sufficient evidence to secure a conviction in a criminal case? The only sure conclusion we can draw thus far is that the legacy media are not objective seekers of truth. Who would have thought?
As of now, many say definite proof of election fraud exists, but some of the most substantial cases, such as those in which Matt Braynard of the Voter Integrity Project participates, are yet to be litigated. There is, however, incontrovertible evidence of media incompetence and dishonesty.
Read more from Onar Åm.