Form 132 Oregon: Fill & Download for Free

This answer may contain sensitive images. Click on an image to unblur it.Let’s say we think they are.That is, let’s say we distrust offical covid-19 death counts because we suspect there is some underhand effort to make the numbers a lot larger than they actually are. For example, it could be that doctors are being pressured to attribute deaths to covid-19 on official records when in fact the cause of death is undetermined, or most likely something else entirely - seasonal flu say, or just old age.How could we check to see whether this was true?Here’s one simple way. Get rid of any attribution of cause of death. Count all deaths: count everyone who dies died from old age, from cancer, from road accidents, from gunshots to the head. Count the lot, no matter how they died, and compare this to previous years.I’m going to assume we’re in the US, simply because this seems to be where an “inflated deaths” theory is being widely promoted by a particular political wing. And for the US, total death statistics are available here, state-by-state, week-by-week, year-by-year: Mortality Surveillance System.To calibrate what we should expect to see versus a baseline of little or no covid, let’s look at a US state where everyone agrees there’s almost no coronavirus deaths: I’ll choose Oregon.The official count says that so far only 132 people have died of coronavirus in Oregon in the last couple of months - that’s a very, very small number in a state where about that number dies every day.So everyone agrees: we should see total deaths 2020 proceeding with approximately the same pattern as previous years. Here’s the plot:Now, let’s pick a state in which those counting coronavirus deaths say there have been a lot killed by coronavirus. I’ll pick New Jersey (why should New York always get the spotlight?)Same exercise, and again, plotting all deaths - to emphasise, we are not listening to anyone as to what the the causes of death are:OK, so it seems that a lot of people dropped dead in New Jersey the last few weeks. A lot more than normal. Mysterious. New York’s spike is even nastier, and there are also large spikes in the stats for Massachussets, Pennsylvannia, Michigan, Illinois… everywhere, in fact which have been reporting high covid death rates.The “covid count is inflated” people are in a spot of bother here. These peaks should simply not be appearing in the total deaths rate if covid were only a categorisation effect. They’ve got to work quickly to explain them away. I see only two places for them to go.This total deaths figure is inflated too. The conspiracy goes deeper than we thought. Not only are doctors under pressure to miscategorise deaths, they are being forced to make up deaths where none exist.Something else unique to 2020 is killing all these people. Flu? Aliens? Deep state operatives? The stress of the shelter-in-place orders?Only the last of these is worth serious comment.It is almost certainly true that shelter-in-place or lockdown orders have bad health effects. Lack of exercise, loneliness, depression could all be exacerbated, and all are associated with bad health outcomes. The trouble with this theory is that, when you go to a state that has a lockdown but not much Covid (like — well — Oregon), then you simply don’t see that uptick.In fact in some states without much covid, you see a small downward effect over the lockdown period, presumably because people have fewer accidents when they don’t go out much, and also don’t catch other communicable diseases. Play with the stats, and see for yourself (NB: not all states have 100% reporting for recent weeks, but these are clearly marked with the percentage of reports received).One last point.Look again at the New Jersey plot. The count of excess deaths over the extent of the 5 week “bump”, comes to about 9,000 more dead than previous years. But, by that date (26th April) there were only 6,000 reported dead from covid-19. The official count of covid-19 missed a full third of the excess deaths.The death toll from covid is not being inflated in the US. It is being undercounted, and significantly so. Just as it is throughout the world, to differing degrees. Just as public health experts keep saying it is.The politically motivated charlatans promoting the opposite know all this, but are judging that the majority of voters are too stupid to notice. I very much hope they are wrong.

About 22%The following states and votes would turn the trick:State Votes People people per voteWyoming 3 568,158 189386District of Columbia 3 617,996 205999Vermont 3 626,431 208810North Dakota 3 683,932 227977Alaska 3 722,718 240906Rhode Island 4 1,051,302 262826South Dakota 3 824,082 274694Delaware 3 907,135 302378New Hampshire 4 1,318,194 329549Maine 4 1,328,188 332047Montana 3 998,199 332733Hawaii 4 1,374,810 343703Nebraska 5 1,842,641 368528West Virginia 5 1,855,364 371073Idaho 4 1,584,985 396246New Mexico 5 2,082,224 416445Iowa 7 3,062,309 437473Kansas 6 2,871,238 478540Arkansas 6 2,937,979 489663Mississippi 6 2,978,512 496419Louisiana 9 4,574,836 508315Connecticut 7 3,580,709 511530Alabama 9 4,802,740 533638Minnesota 10 5,344,861 534486Oklahoma 7 3,791,508 541644Nevada 5 2,723,322 544664Kentucky 8 4,369,356 546170Missouri 11 6,010,688 546426Massachusetts 12 6,587,536 548961Oregon 7 3,871,859 553123Utah 5 2,817,222 563444Colorado 9 5,116,796 568533Wisconsin 10 5,711,767 571177Ohio 20 11,544,951 577248Michigan 17 9,876,187 580952Tennessee 11 6,403,353 582123Maryland 10 5,828,289 582829South Carolina 8 4,679,230 584904New Jersey 15 8,821,155 588077If you remove winner take all the percentage bumps up to just under 38%.Almost the same set of states are involved because they have the highest number of evotes/person but since you need (number of evotes - 1) * number of people to get all the votes in that state, the order changes at the margins.As you can see by the voters per electoral vote, people in the states at the top of the list have up to 4 times the voting power of those in the states of Georgia, California, Florida and Texas which have the most voters per electoral vote.-------------------------------------------------------------UPDATE: Same analysis based on registered voters rather than per capita:Winner Take all: minimum 22% of all registered voters.Popular Vote: minimum 44% of all registered voters.State Electoral Votes Total Registered(000's) Voter/Evote EvotesWYOMING 3 253 84 3DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 3 275 92 6ALASKA 3 333 111 9VERMONT 3 345 115 12HAWAII 4 492 123 16NORTH DAKOTA 3 397 132 19RHODE ISLAND 4 536 134 23DELAWARE 3 408 136 26SOUTH DAKOTA 3 445 148 29IDAHO 4 660 165 33NEBRASKA 5 852 170 38MONTANA 3 512 171 41NEW HAMPSHIRE 4 687 172 45WEST VIRGINIA 5 873 175 50NEVADA 5 905 181 55UTAH 5 932 186 60NEW MEXICO 5 951 190 65MAINE 4 811 203 69KANSAS 6 1,274 212 75ARKANSAS 6 1,316 219 81NEW JERSEY 15 3,487 232 96CONNECTICUT 7 1,650 236 103IOWA 7 1,663 238 110ARIZONA 10 2,378 238 120MISSISSIPPI 6 1,437 240 126CALIFORNIA 55 13,239 241 181LOUISIANA 9 2,179 242 190SOUTH CAROLINA 8 1,986 248 198COLORADO 9 2,275 253 207OKLAHOMA 7 1,776 254 214TENNESSEE 11 2,828 257 225VIRGINIA 13 3,402 262 238NEW YORK 31 8,143 263 269This is the halfway pointGEORGIA 15 3,950 263 284MASSACHUSETTS 12 3,180 265 296INDIANA 11 2,946 268 307MARYLAND 10 2,720 272 317OREGON 7 1,924 275 324ILLINOIS 21 5,779 275 345ALABAMA 9 2,480 276 354NORTH CAROLINA 15 4,160 277 369KENTUCKY 8 2,240 280 377WASHINGTON 11 3,090 281 388TEXAS 34 9,676 285 422PENNSYLVANIA 21 5,991 285 443MINNESOTA 10 2,862 286 453MISSOURI 11 3,170 288 464FLORIDA 27 7,855 291 491WISCONSIN 10 2,948 295 501OHIO 20 5,919 296 521MICHIGAN 17 5,256 309 538

No, this is false. As Erik Lund points out, Oregon did not try to eject the Native Americans, and the 1850s saw a high influx of Chinese laborers, though laws were in place so that they couldn’t really settle down and prosper, and two national exclusion acts brought the rather large influx of Chinese to an end.The “whites only” story is more about exclusion of Black people. A lot of attention is paid to the fact that exclusionary laws were not repealed until 1925, but were in any effect unconstitutional from 1868 - meaning yes, there were Black people living in Oregon prior to 1925.A very interesting and informational pamphlet about African Americans in Oregon and the Portland area is available, here being one relevant quote:Opinion varies but by 1860 approximately 128 to 132 blacks and mulattos resided in Oregon country.So a very tiny number indeed by 1860, expecially considering a mere 10 years later, there were about 3,330 Chinese of a total Oregon population of 90,923 (it is unclear if this number accounts for Black and Native American populations).