| Hey, the website that you use to host your report you cite (quark.cards) has an expired certificate, and a whois shows it belongs StackFrame, just FYI since I saw you listed as working there. I noticed the "Wikipedia's list of American supercentenarians" you cite to cross reference which describes itself as "a list of the longest lived American supercentenarians according to the GRG." [0] is not an exhaustive list of all supercentenarians. For example, the wikipedia page only lists 4 people who are currently alive, but looking at Wikipedia's underlying reference [1] there's at least 7 who are validated and currently alive, and I see around another 9 who have passed away since ~2019. Additionally, looking at Wikipedia's underlying source [1] it says "The total number Supercentenarians that we have cited above has been frequently been misconstrued in the news media as representing every single person in the world aged 110 and over. The actual estimated number of worldwide living Supercentenarians is more likely to be between [300 - 450] persons. For the USA, we predict something like [60 - 75] Supercentenarians". This seems like it means Wikipedia's underlying source predicts they're capturing at best ~10% of all who exist in the US. I'm wondering if theres any census data or other sources that could help with this- guessing not since Wikipedia would likely cite that instead if it existed. Could use their extrapolation (60-75) of expected # of Supercentenarians to Florida along with the fact that Florida has an older population to just get a gut check if the # you found seems reasonable. I find the idea and approaches looking into the voting data interesting, and I'll definitely look more into the the other reports you released when I get a chance. > "found some fraud."
As a final note, I'd just suggest that we all be super careful when levying charges like this given 1) it seems you just found some circumstantial non-peer reviewed evidence of fraud 2) how important trust is in our electoral systems to the function of open societies and 3) the vast majority of research points to voting fraud being almost non-existent. Questioning these institutions is incredibly important and part of an open an effective democratic system, but we have to be careful and specific with what we assert and our evidence. This is true especially now, with political factions across the US actively seeking to undermine our faith in electoral system using bad-faith and non-fact based arguments for political gain. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_supercentenar... [1]: http://supercentenarian-research-foundation.org/TableE.aspx |
I did not realize the cert had expired. I'll check that out. Thanks.
I agree with you that I should not have used the word fraud. I was careful in writing the original post and careless with this comment on HN.