And if I get your point, the “gatekeeper” is assigning the vote and in turn committing the fraud? That’s where the process is being influenced by a special cause because common cause variation has to be part of anything we all do and people do and will make errors. Even exceptionally well trained pros, not Philly voters, make errors and they have many elements refined for their success.
I agree that these might be the most Dem precincts but that still assumes that 5% or so are totally defect free and thru over 19000 attempts there are perfect results? Seems like a fairy significant probability that something other than the Philly folk was present to ensure such a level of perfection.
I wouldn’t bother with the academic stuff looking back, instead how about we start checking the stats to see how normal; this is against a larger sample size from this election? How often does this occur, and to what level of confidence?
That would actually be informative for myself and others and really allow us to generate some real data about where voter fraud may or may not be occurring as far as statistical probabilities goes.
Your emphasis on 19000 perfect attempts ignores the 700k total attempts (black population in Philly) and the grouping of 400 attempts into the divisions.
If there are just 100 divisions trying for a perfect Obama score then 59 getting it perfect is not unreasonable (although a gatekeeper would be required to eliminate mistakes and achieve that much perfection).
There are 1700 divisions so there are very likely hundreds of those divisions trying to make the perfect score. With hundreds trying and everybody knowing what they are supposed to do, it is not unreasonable that 59 made it.