24.5% X 9,818,700 = 2,405,582 (too young to vote), leaving 7,462,212 of age eligible to vote.
22.2% X 10,137,915 = 2,250,617 (too young to vote), leaving 7,887,298 of age eligible to vote.
I insist on using the correct numbers, not the ones that look best.
Which brings us to your 144%. The number all of your calculations spring from. A number supplied by JW. A number they won't explain what data backs up that claim or explain how they arrived at it. They won't explain to the officials in LA county or any other county in California.
The funniest thing you said as you sucked 144% of their dick was they trust their numbers enough to file suit with them. What a joke.
An intelligent researcher challenges unsupported data and questions why they would not release their methods.
Does that bother you? Of course not. You believe Kelly instead of the video. You suck 144% and demand more.
Come back when you can prove your source info and you aren't repeating the same old debunked shit.
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
FTFYour retarded ass, masterdickmuncher, since you insist on putting your own ass on the proverbial silver platter, masterdickmuncher.
Which number is larger, masterdickmuncher: 7,462,212 from the 2010 census or 7,887,298 from the 2016 estimate?
Furthermore, masterdickmuncher:
144% of 7,462,212 (2010 census) is 10,745,585 -- which is 3,283,373 more than 100% of the eligible number of voters, masterdickmuncher.
144% of 7,887,298 (2016 estimate) is 11,357,709 -- which is 3,470,411 more than 100% of the eligible number of voters, masterdickmuncher.
Which number is larger, masterdickmuncher: 3,283,373 based on the 2010 census or 3,470,411 based on the 2016 estimate?
So, masterdickmuncher, your insistence showed you to be a greater jackass for insisting on the 2016 estimates rather than relying on the reported 2010 census, masterdickmuncher ... since your number exceeds by an even greater margin the 2.8 million popular votes you lib-retarded snowflakes keep whining about, masterdickmuncher.
BTW, masterdickmuncher, it seems that you and M T Brain Socket would be the only stupidly illiterate jackasses not understanding what Judicial Watch reported in its article.
In Los Angeles, 144 Voters for Every 100 Voting-Age CitizensAnd as mentioned before, masterdickmuncher, Judicial Watch dared to put their numbers before the court.
There are 144 registered voters in Los Angeles for every 100 citizens of voting age, according to a report released by Judicial Watch on Aug. 4.
The discrepancy is widespread in California, with 11 other counties carrying rolls with more registered voters than actual citizens old enough to vote. The staggering discrepancy has prompted Judicial Watch to threaten to sue unless the state cleans up its voter registration data....
The Judicial Watch numbers are based on public records from the Election Assistance Commission’s 2016 Election Administration Voting Survey. Judicial Watch also received verbal accounts from various county agencies.
(The Epoch Times)
