While fiddling with my binomial probability calculator the other night,  I got a bright idea. I thought about the probabilities of Donald Trump losing the general election by nearly 3 million votes, yet winning the electoral system by a large margin, 305 to 233.  It occurred to me that the odds against both outcomes ocurring simultaneously would be very high, thus indicating the election outcome was highly biased. If true , it would be appropriate to have a grotesque reminder to hang around the neck of every cheating politician who participated in the scam, as well as a constant reminder to voters about the blatant dishonesty of one political party. Armed with such honorable intentions, I went to work on it.

We already knew that the electoral system was rigged by design. The founders gave every state 1 vote for each of their senators, and one vote for each representative. They did so on the phony logic that states with fewer residents should have more votes per capital than states with a lot of residents.  Also, states with lots of slaves would have an undercount because slaves could not vote. But slave owners could in effect vote for them by giving their votes much more weight.  That was the BS that wafted through their minds, so they peddled it. States with a small number of voters also had large plantations, thus the electoral system favored those with plantations. 

The only way for any presidential candidate to lose the general election and win the electoral vote is to get an unearned boost in the tilted electoral college. That alone is proof of bias. But that does not tell us how biased the two combined outcomes were in the last election.  If the cross probabilities of those two outcomes showed 1000 to 1 or worse against both of the actual outcomes occurring, it would be a sure bet that this election was rigged. So, I set my probability (p) outcome to .001 meaning if the odds were less than 1 in 1000, the election was rigged. Then I plugged in the numbers.

Three seconds later (thanks to technology), I had the answer: The odds of his losing one while winning the other by the actual margins given us could happen only 5 times in a million elections, or once in 200,000 years. Now that is a lot more than bias. That is an off-the-charts rigged outcome!

I assumed that both candidates went into the election with a 50/50 chance of winning. But if the state-by-state polls showed Trump losing both the general election results and the electoral results (as they did), then my probability outcome would be understated. He had to overcome much greater than 50/50 odds.

There were, of course, 3 potential sources of bias in that election: First, was the gerrymandering within about 16 or 17 states. Republicans set about winning majorities in those state legislatures back in 2010. They were successful in redrawing voting districts in most of them.  By using computer programs, they were able to redraw districts that enclosed a high number of Democrats in a few small number of districts, while a much smaller number of Republicans were spread out in a majority of a high number of districts. Gerrymandering, by the way, is the nice name for filthy, disgusting, cheating. 

The second source of bias was in many of the same states in which Republican legislators had imposed a lot of restrictions that prevented many poor Hispanic and Black voters from finding their voting precincts, or they faced shortened hours of operation, or they met up with restrictions requiring multiple ID's that many they did not have—even though they had been voting there for many years. The new requirements also made it difficult for young liberal college students to vote. In at least one location, the voting precinct was moved from a location near campus with many parking places, to a new location far outside of town with very few parking places.

The third source was meddling by the Russians. I know only what the news media have reported on this subject. And that is that our intelligence agencies assured us that the Russians absolutely used rather sophisticated techniques to mislead and misinform voters in all or most of the “swing” states—where the results were expected to be close.

Put those three major sources of bias together, and—WHAMMO!—we have a president who won a grossly rigged election. Well, there was one chance in 200,000 that it was free from all those factors.  But that is hard, factual, scientific evidence.  And we also know what cheating liars think about facts, and science, and evidence.

I intend to send this essay to the Princeton Consortium, an election analytical center for review. They have much more experience at fiddling with probabilities than do I. I’m aware that its founder, Dr. Sam Wang, has developed a statistical test for all states that reveals when Gerrymandering is present beyond a reasonable limit. We also need to learn how to stop the Russians and all countries from meddling in our elections. Perhaps we need only paper ballots that are not tied to computer tampering to help stop the meddlers. The crooked politicians who engage in gerrymandering can be identified by name and photo so they can be voted out of office.  Uniform voting procedures across the nation would also help. And flushing the racially biased electoral system into the great abyss of history is long overdue.  Not every early settler from Europe was an honest broker of truth, justice, and the American way.