>>12364317>>>12364312 (You)>yes they can count a bunch of ballots then report them all at one time. you don't need a small trickle in.And if they did, they did so with nearly 50% more votes than any other given time in the list, in the middle of the night when everyone was gearing down to go home. I didn't say there needed to be a trickle in, I said that if this was true they would ha e had boxes and boxes of votes sitting there not being processed and counted for no other reason that to drop them all at once. It's not impossible, but if you've ever counted votes that's a pretty retarded thing to do that leads to congestion. Either way, it's worth investigating.
>>12365028>it's especially stupid because you're not even looking at anything that matters, just when the new york times received and updated their tally. You have no idea how an unofficial source like the NYT is receiving their counts, how they're updating it etc etc. You aren't even looking at which counties were reporting and when. The whole thing is just braindead I'm sorry.I'm not looking into those things because they're not here. I did look at every one of those beforehand, and there are discrepancies like 121% of one county voting, how they all reported this spike of votes after the recess, and all counters somehow taking their break at the same time but large additions were being made right afterwards. That's not what I have. What I have is a graph with a weird spike in it, as reported in the NYT on their interval chart. This and even the other things I listed doesn't prove anything is weird, it just suggests it. Which is what an investigation is. For all we know, some dumbass fucked the system and had to do over the last few sets, someone wrote the wrong time on the break times or the new York times is making this all up for fucking clicks. It doesn't matter. This is enough to investigate.
