[drewbug01]

> Select all ballots that were the voter did not vote in the last X elections

I don’t think there’s anything inherently suspicious about voting for the first time in a long time (or ever). This election was incredibly charged, so you would expect to see more people voting than usual.

I just want to push back strongly on the idea that a vote is suspicious just because that voter doesn’t typically vote. It’s a soft form of voter suppression, in a way - and we should be conscious to encourage everyone to vote, regardless of how long it’s been.

—

As an anecdote - I encouraged my family to vote, and some of them did: some of them for the first time in a very long time. I also served as an election judge and registered more than one person to vote on Election Day, including one person who told me they’d never bothered to vote before. But their votes were valid, and don’t deserve to be treated as suspicious.

[charliemil4]

So yeah, totally agree there will be outliers, but it’s definitely a focused sample set that tests the hypothesis well.

It’s complex, with a ton of fractaled placed to hide (day of registrations, first time voters etc)