>It should be surprising, statistically the odds of a race coming down to one vote is exceptionally small -- and the larget larger the township the more unlikely. It happening twice is weird. It happening for the same party is another layer.

This comment's entire thesis is that it's unlikely because it benefitted one party over another. This makes me suspicious because realistically if you find this occurrence weird, it should be weird even if D won one and R won the other. It's all so statistically improbable right? So you seem a little fixated on the outcome here. It makes me wonder if we would be seeing this thread at all if the R candidates had won the close election instead. You can say what you want in reply to this, but given your fixation its a suspicion that immediately comes to mind and that's really all that is relevant here.

>You'll notice that most of those are not one-vote wins, but a few hundred or two votes and (a) It isn't that many (b) the majority are much smaller votes (c) they're having to fudge, e.g. "1.1 votes per precinct across the election" (d)Two races winning by one vote for the same party is like winning the powerball multiple times. Statistically possible but surprising as hell.

You seem very interested in putting on the appearance of approaching this rationally and statistically - but then in these comments you cite a source of close elections and your entire argument is essentially "but I feel like this isn't convincing." I am highly suspicious of people making feelings based argument. You then make a statistical assertion with absolutely no evidence. If you want to liken close elections occurring to the probability of winning the power ball multiple times the onus is on you to show that this is a meaningfully equivalent statement. The fact that you didn't just leaves me to think that the math hasn't actually been done. If that is the case, then you said this with the intention of being hyperbolic. If you are being hyperbolic, then you are doing it because you're trying to rile up an emotional response to your statement instead of a rational one. This leaves me suspicious.

Then the entire parent comment here in the first place is just a classic "begging the question." If you don't want to look like you're begging the question, then you could have simple said "Wow, thats two elections going the way of the same party by 1 vote this year. I wonder what the probability is on that?" The things we say and the way we present ourselves matter. Your initial comment, as it is presented, is draped in a tone of suspicion. Maybe english isn't your first language, maybe there is a bunch of other explanations for that - but you should know that you sound, in tone, one or two comments away from being an election denier. The bedrock for the rhetoric is there, and the thought patterns are there. Do with that what you will.

EDIT: To any readers just know that this poster blocked me. I have no idea how they replied and the fact that they blocked me despite putting in the effort above is a large tell. They are arguing in this thread in bad faith and the moment they were challenged they folded and blocked me to protect their own feelings. Don't buy in to any arguments coming from this poster - they are trying to stoke flames of conspiracy.