If 60% of people are concentrated in 1 large city that takes up 3% of the state, if every single person voted for 1 party in that city, the other 97% of the landmass would lose, regardless of its size.
Simply by virtue of higher density over a small area.
Its really, really simple.
You are almost there!!!!
Just add in a tad bit more complexity and approach this from the mindset of, if I wanted to scam an election and not get caught, how would I design it?
I would target a few really populated districts that leaned on my side. I would avoid fraud in states I knew I was going to win because that increases risk of getting caught and provides no reward. I would avoid states with heavy registration for the opposition because the only way I can create enough votes is to risk having more votes than registered voters.
By targeting a few specific areas with high populations and heavy registration for my party,, it would be hard to prove my side didn't just turn out in force - even if they didn't anywhere else.
Dane County is the perfect example of this. 390,000 registered voters, presumably a high number of dems, even though they don't publicly publish this data. 260,000 votes for Biden,, 78,000 votes for Trump. That is an 87% turnout. It likely is an almost 100% turnout for the democrat party if they have a similar dem:rep ratio as say, another liberal state, MA. Biden wins this district by 180,000 votes and takes the state by somewhere around 23,000 votes.
No other district in the state has more than 70% turnout.
No district in MA (where there is no likely way for the dems to lose, more than 2/3 of the registered voters are dems) has more than 70%
No district in TX has more than 70% (where there is no way for the dems to win, without more votes than registered voters).
So, what are the chances of 87% turnout in the most heavily populated area, with an almost 90-100% liberal turnout when the rest of the country is averaging less than 66% turnout and nowhere in the same state was there similar turnout? Nowhere in the country, with some notable exceptions coming up, was more than 70% turnout? But this one district just barely swings an entire state with these unusual stats?
It would be bad, but merely unusual if it only happened in WI. But this same pattern exists in MI and NV as well...only instead of 87% it's over 90% in 2 heavily populated districts in those states.
The mathematical probability of that happening 3 times, with no overflow into surrounding areas with lower densities and such surgical precision is very unlikely. MA doesn't have a single district that went for Trump - it isn't the most heavily populated areas only. Look at TX - it's a mix and not just 1 or 2 areas.
Also, your map doesn't add info, it deletes info to present only the most heavily populated areas. They are not the only areas that count either. Again, that map basically says Biden took New England and CA (must have stayed up all night crunching that data) and Trump barely took TX. It just essentially deletes the lower population areas in order to leave only the Biden strongholds...you're big on Dunning-Kruger. This map is a case of using a little tiny bit of information and thinking it is more than it is. It lacks a lot of info. But I would expect that from the people who voted for Biden.
Feb 2021 will be a good month, I'll be able to forget about Trump and his theatrics and the political mess will have subsided. Everyone that supported Joe Biden and Donald Trump will also go do something else and focus on other things with their lives. Can't wait for this to be over.
Not me. I am going to start doing everything I can to #resist.
