This is a solid analysis. I say this without having vetted their data collection, I’m assuming they did that part right. If so, the conclusion is obvious. They authors confine all analysis to the appendix, so you can read the paper without having to understand any math.
They found Sanders won 51% to 49% in places that had a paper trail. They found Clinton wins 65% to 35% in places that don’t. That’s amazing! Yes, those are different states. Yes, they looked at a different possible causes They tested for that difference while accounting for the % whites and the ‘blueness’ of the state. No, they didn’t find anything sufficient to explain that difference.
You don’t have to be a statistician to understand that’s a huge difference in proportion. It helps to be a statistician to understand the tests they ran checking other explanations and the resulting output. They are running appropriate tests and the output is unequivocal. Which they stated. I concur.
“As such, as a whole, these data suggest that election fraud is occurring in the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Primary election. This fraud has overwhelmingly benefited Secretary Clinton at the expense of Senator Sanders.”
BTW, I absolutely loved their fake commercial for “Shut your f***ing tweethole” at the 15 min mark.
My work, some of my graphs and my previous post, are included in the appendix of the response article. Lots of interesting graphs there too.