The >100% turnout is not really a good way to convince people, because the people that need convincing believe you're saying that's proof of cheating and so you're dumb because it includes same-day and some district somewhere actually had lots of growth and legitimately had >100% because of new voters.
And because "you're dumb" they'll ignore anything else you have to say, even that you know it includes new voters but that's still suspiciously high.
I think it's better to focus on the areas with 90% actual turnout, as in 90% of eligible voters voted. This is higher than countries like AU with mandatory voting and especially with dirty rolls is all but impossible.
The >100% turnout is not really a good way to convince people, because the people that need convincing believe you're saying that's proof of cheating and so you're dumb because it includes same-day and some district somewhere actually had lots of growth and legitimately had >100% because of new voters.
And because "you're dumb" they'll ignore anything else you have to say, even that you know it includes new voters but that's still suspiciously high.
I think it's better to focus on the areas with 90% actual turnout, as in 90% of eligible voters voted. This is higher than countries like AU with mandatory voting and especially with dirty rolls is all but impossible.