Pffff.. fucking amateur hour.

File: 381 KB, 1171x1128, 1604777252275.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:43:08 2020 No.12315662 [Reply] [Original]

Pffff.. fucking amateur hour.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:46:02 2020 No.12315671 >>12315662 What is believed to have been the mechanism for the fraud? Fake ballots, fake intermediate tabulations, or fake totals?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:48:02 2020 No.12315675 >>12315671 Partisan vote counters? Whatever the modality of the votes, does it really take anything more than that?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:48:39 2020 No.12315676 >>12315662 Trump won more states with 1 million votes biden won more states with more than 3,4,5 million votes oh wow big thinky.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:49:12 2020 No.12315680 >>12315671 I don’t know but I’ve seen claims for all three. According to what Rudy Giuliani is saying, it seems fake handling by counters

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:50:20 2020 No.12315683 >>12315676 >states That graph is for Michigan

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:52:23 2020 No.12315686 >>12315671 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCM15klVU9A&ab_channel=ProjectVeritas As well as "dominion voting system" software having a 6% error rate and used in 30 states

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:52:24 2020 No.12315687 >>12315683 So you're saying it doesn't count nationwide but it does count statewide? Why? Benford's is supposed to be some special tool that works in all situations.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:52:27 2020 No.12315688

>>12315675
It's important because fake totals can be overcome in a recount. Fake ballots end up giving the same results in a recount (discounting actual counting errors).
Fake ballots come with their own risks, such as hidden watermarks (doubt they actually exist) that can be used to throw out fraudulent ballots but if official blank ballots are filled out and mixed in with the rest, even if it is known that this happened, it is impossible to unmix them to remove the fraudulent ballots. At that point the election is unrepairable.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:52:54 2020 No.12315689 >>12315662 Can you anyhow proof that? It's utter bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:53:52 2020 No.12315693 >>12315689 The point isn't proof it's cope.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:54:09 2020 No.12315695 >>12315689 Seriously what is up with ESLfags today?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:56:08 2020 No.12315704 >>12315687 No I’m just saying the graph only shows Michigan data. I’d like to see data for all the states

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:56:29 2020 No.12315705

>>12315686
As someone who has been a programmer since the 80s, it annoys me highly that we're using more and more software in our elections systems. Most software is complete crap even when the programmers are trying to honestly do a good job. It's completely unreliable for this task and we'll continue to have endless problems as long as we use it. The company developing the software doesn't matter, software in general is not a suitable solution for elections.
It is said that if we built cities like we write software that the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization. That's not too far from the truth.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:56:45 2020 No.12315706

>>12315671
Fake mail-in ballots.
Mail-in ballots are much easier to fake than in-person ballots, because they can keep "arriving" for days after the election.
There's a reson why Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia all flipped blue like 2 days after the election.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:56:49 2020 No.12315707 >>12315704 They won't show you the data for all states because it proves that this benford's analysis is just bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:57:05 2020 No.12315708 >>12315662 >ELI5 Nice try, reddit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:57:29 2020 No.12315711 >>12315662 Now show the states Trump won that didn't follow Benford's Law. You believe Trump cheated too, right?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:57:35 2020 No.12315712 >>12315695 Get used to it, this is the future of the United States.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:58:23 2020 No.12315713

>>12315671
It's probably a combination of various styles, the machines seem to be simply adding up to a desired score while various flavors of physical ballots are being faked ranging from real ballots from dead people to flat out chain filling empty ballots. The totals once provided are probably counted right, it's just the numbers behind the totals are essentially fraudulent.

>>12315707
You can make it yourself in like 10 mins if you know what you are doing

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:58:35 2020 No.12315715 >>12315712 And I thought the Germans were bad.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:58:37 2020 No.12315716 >>12315711 Why don't you show them?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 15:59:49 2020 No.12315718 >>12315705 Blockchain voting is interesting. Though I'm not sure how it could maintain both secrecy and verifiability.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 16:00:05 2020 No.12315719 >>12315713 >You can make it yourself in like 10 mins if you know what you are doing Which is why it's so easy to dismiss.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 16:00:32 2020 No.12315721 >>12315716 I'm not the person accusing either side of cheating due to Benford's Law. If you're going to use it as evidence, then you need to show that Trump's numbers follow the law across all states, not just the ones you've cherry picked.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 16:02:10 2020 No.12315724 >>12315721 Naw that would just make it stronger evidence. It's still evidence without it.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 16:02:46 2020 No.12315725

>>12315719
It's not easy to dismiss, it shows clear fraud on biden votes on multiple states. Because the graph is easy to make yourself you can apply the law of the shill, the lack of equivalent trump graphs means trump didn't cheat. If Trump votes didn't follow the law everywhere shills would be using those instances to counter the biden failures instead of shilling against the method.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 16:04:51 2020 No.12315731

The United States needs a Constitutional Amendment that allows states to leave. If Biden wins, only red states would ratify it, but the next time a Republican wins, the blue states would join in to ratify it. At that point the stakes would become high enough that the federal government would have to scale back it's governance over state and local affairs because to do otherwise would risk parts of the country leaving. As it stand now, the federal government can get away with pretty much anything and there's not much the individual states can do to push back.
The most recent secession talk was coming from the political left over the prospect of Trump winning so this isn't only a rightwing idea.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 16:04:57 2020 No.12315732 Where can I download the data?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 16:05:14 2020 No.12315733 >>12315725 >It's not easy to dismiss, it shows clear fraud on biden votes on multiple states. >it shows clear fraud >clear fraud This is all the proof I need that you only know what benford's law is from a wikipedia entry.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 16:06:09 2020 No.12315736 >>12315721 You're the one making the assertion that other states show that Trump cheated but you refuse to show evidence. Your opinion can be discarded as your refusal to show your evidence is a sign of your lack of evidence.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 16:07:01 2020 No.12315740

>>12315725
this and the Snopes principle.
There was fake Wisconsin data floating around, and there are hundreds of debunk articles on it in Google News if you look up "wisconsin voter data"
Absolutely no results on Benford's law, downballot discrepancies, bellwether states...

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 16:07:35 2020 No.12315742

>>12315724
Multiple graphs here >>12308592 showing several locations that Trump won didn't follow Benford's Law either. Either we accept it's a valid measure of fraud, in which case both candidates look guilty, or we accept it's not a valid measure of fraud.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 16:07:39 2020 No.12315743

>>12315732
Go to a search engine and type in the name of the state you want to graph and "SOS". This will give you the website for that state's Secretary of State. They're the ones responsible for recording election results so they have the numbers you want.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 16:08:45 2020 No.12315747 >>12315742 link the posts

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 16:09:50 2020 No.12315750 >>12315742 Trump supports recount and ballot audit in the states he won too if the communist demand it so that's not an issue, audit them all and let supreme court sort them out.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 16:12:48 2020 No.12315759 Do we actually have the raw data or is it just screenshots? How long is that data stored? Is it kept safe? If the answer to 1 and 3 is no then fuck off. If not then #2 better involve timeframe longer than "a few days".

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 16:14:40 2020 No.12315765

>>12315688
>such as hidden watermarks (doubt they actually exist)
they actually do. even if it is just a certain kind of high quality paper.
fun fact: do you know who uses that? mexico. and a bunch of other 'underdeveloped' countries
do you know who doesn't? usa and western europe (some even use shittiest recycled paper). why? because muh democracy muh well maners muh we are too dignified to fuck an election
so here we are. we will end up accepting even electronic votes via fb while a bolivian or an afgan use high quality printed ballots and have mark a finger with ink to further avoid cheating, all the same day at the same fucking opening hours. about a couple of hours after closing they have a pretty good idea of the results and on the next morning the definitive results. and it is basically open and clear to everybody if and where cheating has happened.
meanwhile, we want to vote through fuckbook or something. who's the retard?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 16:15:09 2020 No.12315766 >Biden won with fraud Based

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 16:20:26 2020 No.12315790 >>12315750 >Trump supports recount and ballot audit in the states he won too It doesn't matter whether he supports it or not. It's up to the SC, and if they demand a recount, so be it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 16:22:03 2020 No.12315802 >>12315766 Not fraud if you never get caught.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 16:25:58 2020 No.12315827 >>12315790 It matters to the shill I was responding to, his "gocha" being that trump must have cheated too => lets not check either candidate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 16:31:57 2020 No.12315845 >>12315683 Ok - Biden won in urban precincts with greater vote count than Trump. By the way - from Republican Gerrymandering.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 16:33:20 2020 No.12315851 >>12315845 good god wingcucks are insufferable

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 16:42:51 2020 No.12315877

>>12315827
I am that "shill," and I'm not against a recount, I'm saying that the people calling out Biden's numbers due to Benford's Law alone are idiots since Trump's numbers don't conform in multiple locations as well, and I'm not convinced that's a valid measure anyway.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 16:44:37 2020 No.12315884

>>12315877
I don't think anybody is claiming that a handful of instances of Benford's law failing is proof of fraud. Every instance is evidence, not proof.
To what degree would Biden's numbers need to fail Benford's more than Trump's in order for you to see it as evidence of fraud for Biden?

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 16:50:22 2020 No.12315896

>>12315884
>I don't think anybody is claiming that a handful of instances of Benford's law failing is proof of fraud.
That seems to be exactly what's happening.

>To what degree would Biden's numbers need to fail Benford's more than Trump's in order for you to see it as evidence of fraud for Biden?
If it's a legitimate law that can be applied to elections, then one instance for either candidate should be enough to prove fraud, much less be evidence of it. Each candidate should gather there evidence and take it to the courts. Trump's already doing that. We're going to be hearing about this for months, no need to jump to conclusions like the OP.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:07:39 2020 No.12316093 >>12315765 >and have mark a finger with ink to further avoid cheating Don't some use blood?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:12:38 2020 No.12316108 >>12315896 It's being used as evidence, not proof. >then one instance for either candidate should be enough to prove fraud That's retarded. You're demanding a method of proof that doesn't give false positives.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:14:31 2020 No.12316114 >>12315896 It’s not a smoking gun, but it does raise suspicion

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:14:44 2020 No.12316116 >>12316108 >You're demanding a method of proof that doesn't give false positives. This is literally what proof means.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:18:53 2020 No.12316129 >>12316108 >It's being used as evidence, not proof. The very first post implied otherwise, so I don't know why you're suggesting that it's not happening.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:21:08 2020 No.12316142 >>12315662 Why would you manipulate the first digit when manipulating the second is already enough to win?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:21:46 2020 No.12316146 >>12316129 What, the first post in this thread? No it doesn't.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:21:55 2020 No.12316147 File: 28 KB, 619x500, FloridaVotes.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Anons, can someone smart than me please chime in on this? >>12316090 I'm going through the vote counting data and noticing some weird, really strong log-linear relationships.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:22:49 2020 No.12316150 >>12316116 Then asking for proof is retarded and they should be asking for evidence. Smoking gun mentality is dumb.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:25:14 2020 No.12316158 >>12316146 What do you think they were suggesting by calling it "fucking amateur hour," especially when we already had at least two other threads on the topic?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:27:15 2020 No.12316164 >>12316150 You are not mentally capable of determining what is evidence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:30:17 2020 No.12316174 >>12316164 >failure of bedford's law is not evidence of artificial numbers ok

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:30:20 2020 No.12316175

>>12315662
There is no reason to expect Democrat and Republican vote tallies to follow Benford's law equally. Biden vote tally magnitudes are expected to be more bimodal since his voters are concentrated in urban areas and in mail in ballots while Trump vote really magnitudes should be more evenly distributed.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:30:25 2020 No.12316176 File: 126 KB, 839x830, 1604784628246.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Was hoping Trumps elite lawyer team would address this

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:31:27 2020 No.12316179 >>12316158 "wow, this is another bit of evidence" /sci/ is getting all these threads because Bedford's law is scientific in nature, moreso than the other voting anomalies that don't get threads here

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:33:39 2020 No.12316187 File: 63 KB, 1024x573, 1604721995357m.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12316176 Remember that time 12 hours ago when Biden forgot to come to the podium for an entire hour and then gave a pre-recorded speech above an empty stage?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:36:57 2020 No.12316199 >>12316187 I'm definitely not voting for Hunter Biden now.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:37:03 2020 No.12316200

>>12316174
It's not. There are plenty of artificial processes that follow Benford's law and plenty of natural processes that don't. Essentially, in this case it measures whether vote tally magnitudes are evenly distributed, but there is no guarantee that they should be, since vote tally magnitudes are effected by location, voter turnout rate, and method of voting. These factors are not necessarily independent from candidate preference.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:38:39 2020 No.12316206 >>12316199 That was Joe and Kamala literally last night.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:39:26 2020 No.12316210 >>12316206 I mean, what's the scandal here?

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:40:27 2020 No.12316215

>>12316175
I've checked 4 counties in Georgia and in every case it followed Benford except for Biden's advanced and absentee votes

Bifen's election day votes follow Benford. Trump's and Jorgensen's election day, absentee and advanced votes more or less follow benford.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:40:58 2020 No.12316216 Trump fags btfo today. Kys please

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:41:04 2020 No.12316218

>>12316200
>it measures whether vote tally magnitudes are evenly distributed
Anon, that's completely wrong. Benford's distribution is scale-invariant, and it has been used by official sources to detect election fraud in Iran and Russia
>http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.2789
>http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/karroubis-unlucky-7s/
>http://thomaslotze.com/iran/index.php
>http://blog.jgc.org/2009/06/benfords-law-and-iranian-election.html
>http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/mar/05/russia-putin-voter-fraud-statistics

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:44:39 2020 No.12316225 >>12316210 That's my point: where's the scandal in your original post?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:45:56 2020 No.12316232 >>12316218 some hyperautist should check the results across base-n Benford laws for some n =/= 10

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:48:31 2020 No.12316241 >>12316218 Imagine not even checking the links in your post to see if they are still live.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:51:55 2020 No.12316249 >>12316218 >>12316241 They also didn't check to make sure they were even relevant >A local bootstrap method is proposed for the analysis of electoral vote-count first-digit frequencies, complementing the Benford’s Law limit.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:52:01 2020 No.12316250
File: 597 KB, 2048x1536, EmQhzDiXUAIIPeF.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12316225
It's fucking hilarious. Trump has a legal team full of fools. They thought they were having a press conference at the Four Seasons but end up at some landscaping firm next to a crematorium and porn shop. Kind of emblematic of their legal work.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:53:00 2020 No.12316255 >>12316176 Four seasons landscaping is already connected into democratic money laundering, it was all planned.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:53:17 2020 No.12316257

>>12316218
>Anon, that's completely wrong. Benford's distribution is scale-invariant
Where did I say it wasn't?

> it has been used by official sources to detect election fraud in Iran and Russia
Yes, controversially. Your second link explains that vote tallies don't have to follow Benford's law. The Iranian fraud was already expected and it's unclear whether the high amount of 7s actually shows anything. And the Russian fraud was based on the results following Benford's law *too much,* i.e. the results were manufactured to follow Benford's law exactly. Maybe you should have read your sources before posting?

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:53:59 2020 No.12316259

>>12316175
>Biden vote tally magnitudes are expected to be more bimodal since his voters are concentrated in urban areas and in mail in ballots while Trump vote really magnitudes should be more evenly distributed.
this would be true except that both trump and biden are on the ballot in all these counties.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:54:31 2020 No.12316260 >>12316255 Haven't seen Q post about it yet. Has it been confirmed?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:54:57 2020 No.12316264 >>12316255 And don't forget the child sex trafficking in the back room.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:55:15 2020 No.12316265 >>12316257 >vote tallies don't have to follow Benford's law yes when they are fraudulent.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:55:24 2020 No.12316266 >>12316250 >Trump has a legal team full of fools. >Trump has a legal team Can you call it a legal team if you don't have any lawyers?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:56:13 2020 No.12316269 File: 1.45 MB, 1097x706, 1604769882631.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12316266

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:57:04 2020 No.12316271 >>12316260 Yes, pol autists dug it up little while ago.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:57:14 2020 No.12316272 >>12316269 I'm surprised Rudy is actually showing his face in public.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:58:34 2020 No.12316274

>>12316259
>this would be true except that both trump and biden are on the ballot in all these counties.
I didn't say anything to the contrary. If Biden got big numbers where the population is high and small numbers where the population is low, while Trump's tallies were more evenly distributed among rural and urban areas, then we should definitely expect Trump's numbers to follow Benford's law more closely, since his numbers have a better spread over different orders of magnitude.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:59:18 2020 No.12316276 File: 27 KB, 862x485, 12803166-16x9-xlarge[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12316272 He's looking for ballots

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:59:39 2020 No.12316277 >>12316265 >yes when they are fraudulent. Incorrect, your own source disproves this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 18:59:52 2020 No.12316278 >>12316250 >>12316266 >>12316269 >>12316272 Can confirm I saw this on CNN, Trump has been officially debunked out of office by official fact-checkers.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:00:28 2020 No.12316283 File: 474 KB, 509x656, 1604347706133.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12316271 >pol autists dug it up Yeah. No.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:00:51 2020 No.12316284 >>12316278 Nice cope, loser.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:00:54 2020 No.12316285 Imagine not believing everything you see on television. You drumpftards are so foolish haha.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:01:50 2020 No.12316289 >>12316278 every news channel is saying Biden's been elected which is literally not true, this is mental

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:01:53 2020 No.12316290

>>12316274
this is about the leading digit. biden would've gotten big and small numbers everywhere too. just in urban centers they would've been bigger while in rural they would've been smaller compared to trump. the magnitude assumption isn't violated for either candidate. the only thing violated here is benford's law with biden's tallies.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:02:54 2020 No.12316294 >>12316277 it's not my source. and 538 doesn't disprove jack. he made an assumption and goes with it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:03:15 2020 No.12316295 Television is the true source of truth. All other sources are FAKE! Cope harder fascist chuds.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:03:55 2020 No.12316297 >>12316295 cnn said it. i believe it. that settles it.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:04:15 2020 No.12316298

>>12315662
???
Enough with this weak bullshit already. Joe Biden's and Trump's election data are inversely proportional if you compare the results from the same sources. Now who the fuck is the anomaly? Fucking weak minded "mathematicians" and their models, how about you try some fucking logic

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:05:21 2020 No.12316300 >>12316283 The financial records were quite condemning.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:06:31 2020 No.12316304 >>12316300 I'm sure they were sweetie. Any large pizza orders?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:06:49 2020 No.12316305 >>12315731 >but the next time a Republican wins Not going to happen. Even trumps original election was a long shot and your going to have another 8 years of accelerated demographic shift.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:06:55 2020 No.12316307 >>12316304 *sweaty

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:08:30 2020 No.12316310 I get all my facts from TV, that's why I know I'm right. Suck it, bigots.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:09:42 2020 No.12316314 >>12316304 Shill as much as you like, doesn't change the facts

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:10:45 2020 No.12316318

>>12316290
>this is about the leading digit.
OK, and? It shouldn't really matter which digit you look at, it's still measuring the distribution over orders of magnitude. Usually the second digit is used for vote tallies because the vote tallies are capped by nonrandom districts, but my point applies either way.

>biden would've gotten big and small numbers everywhere too.
He did, I'm talking about what the data tended towards.

>just in urban centers they would've been bigger while in rural they would've been smaller compared to trump.
Yes, that's what I just said. This means that the data is less likely to follow Benford's law, because it's less likely to evenly span several orders of magnitude.

>the magnitude assumption isn't violated for either candidate.
What assumption?

>the only thing violated here is benford's law with biden's tallies.
Only if you expect it to follow Benford's law in the first place. So far you have given no reason to expect that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:11:50 2020 No.12316320 >>12316314 Can't wait. Are the private jets on their way from Guantanamo?

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:16:08 2020 No.12316331

>>12316318
>It shouldn't really matter which digit you look at,
iow you don't know what benford's law is about then.

>This means that the data is less likely to follow Benford's law, because it's less likely to evenly span several orders of magnitude.
you seem to misunderstand that the magnitude assumption isn't violated. they are on all the ballots ranging from counties with low to high numbers.

>What assumption?
there are two assumptions for benford's law. one of them is that you need variation in magnitudes like we have with big and small counties.

>Only if you expect it to follow Benford's law in the first place. So far you have given no reason to expect that.
because the problem is set up as a benford's law simulation. both assumptions are there.
>Benford's law, also called the Newcomb–Benford law, the law of anomalous numbers, or the first-digit law, is an observation about the frequency distribution of leading digits in many real-life sets of numerical data. The law states that in many naturally occurring collections of numbers, the leading digit is likely to be small.[1]

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:16:44 2020 No.12316334 It's 2020 you racists, imagine not trusting fact-checkers to show you what's real.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:16:46 2020 No.12316335 File: 83 KB, 900x900, dxl2ui5v2r611.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12316285 >/pol/tards post a bunch of tweets alleging fraud with no evidence >haha libtards so gullible

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:18:21 2020 No.12316341 >>12316331 >ranging from counties with low to high numbers But like actually prove this.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:18:28 2020 No.12316342

>>12315671
If you are really interested, there are some great histories of recent political campaigns that outline some of the mechanisms. A pretty common one is using a canvasser or runner at the polling places to figure out who didn’t vote that’s registered and throw a ballot in for them. This is very very easy in the mail-in setting since you don’t need ID or to even show up in person. The idea is to find people who are registered but haven’t voted in 4 elections or something.

Most of these require the coordination of political machines, which is easier for urban democrats for a lot of reasons. You can also google for election fraud convictions to see what happens.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:20:00 2020 No.12316347 >>12316342 >Voter fraud is real and democrats are doing it. >google it I don't think I will.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:20:01 2020 No.12316348 hey /sci/ /pol/ here quick question could you guys stop posting this stuff we are trying to fix the world.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:20:10 2020 No.12316349 File: 1.62 MB, 4096x3072, US-density.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12316341 do i really need to prove to you that density isn't equal across amercia's counties? ok here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:22:14 2020 No.12316357 >>12316294 >it's not my source. So you didn't post it to support your argument? >and 538 doesn't disprove jack. he made an assumption and goes with it. What assumption?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:22:18 2020 No.12316358 >>12316349 Interesting how people continually don't understand that square miles don't vote people do. You the same type of person who would color this map red and blue and complain that blue is smaller?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:22:25 2020 No.12316361 >>12315712 Hola señor! I can’t wait to move to America to help make your country better, like the shit hole I come from. On an unrelated note, I’ll reliably vote Democrat but I’m sure that’s not why they let me in.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:24:11 2020 No.12316368 >>12316358 different counts of ppl per square miles creates difference in county vote tallies. in this case in huge magnitude required for benford's law assumption.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:25:38 2020 No.12316369 >>12316368 Yeah but the ones with less density are larger. Again, Square miles don't vote and people do. Unless you can prove a difference in the actual population of those counties inside the same state you are still a fucking moron.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:28:37 2020 No.12316377 >>12316318 >What assumption? Lmao stop. I just looked up benfords law for the first time and I understand what he’s saying

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:28:44 2020 No.12316378

>>12316369
if you look at the map you see the counties don't differ that greatly as does density but sure here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_statistics_of_the_United_States#Nationwide_population_extremes
also you're in no position to call anyone a moron since you didn't even know what benford's law was but decided to go and spergout with your deboonk anyway.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:30:21 2020 No.12316381 >>12316378 that should be: *the size of counties don't differ that greatly as does their density.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:31:07 2020 No.12316383

>>12316378
Great, you know how to google. Except you don't know what to google. It doesn't matter that some states have large counties and others have small it matters what the distribution is in the particular state you are doing benford's analasys on.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:31:20 2020 No.12316384 >only cheated POTUS >didn't cheat the Senate or House the amateur is you, OP

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:31:53 2020 No.12316387 >>12316305 >accelerated demographic shift Yea no kidding it’s absurd that “let in poor brown people illegally because they/their eventual kids will vote for us” is a permissible strategy.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:31:57 2020 No.12316388

>>12315718
What you can do is encrypt your vote plus a nonce with a public key provided by the state, take a hash (or just store the whole thing for yourself), and commit the vote to a blockchain.
You can later look up your vote on the chain and check to see if the hash/literal is good. If so, then you can be sure that your vote was recorded
That doesn't stop ballot box stuffing though. I don't think it's possible to maintain total secrecy of your vote without attaching your identity to a vote. What you can do to alleviate concerns is ballot mixing. Have ten people vote at a time. You all check to see there are ten votes, with yours being verifiable by yourself. You each sign to say there are ten votes with your true private key and identity. The current blockchain is checked to make sure none of your fellow voters in the pool have already voted or are using fake ID keys. You can do this on your own hardware if you don't trust the voting equipment (and you shouldn't). You all then sign once more to say "yes, I want to commit this vote block". Only blocks with double signatures are accepted onto the chain and during tallying.
That doesn't totally divorce you from your vote, but it limits the benefit of trying to attack the system. Someone who does the work to compromise the state's private voting key to decrypt votes will only be able to KNOW who you voted for if the other nine people in your pool all voted the same as you. The possibility of this can be limited by making sure that some registered repubs and dems are included in each pool.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:34:07 2020 No.12316391

>>12316383
are you that dumb? you can see for texas appears in both lists. if you want whole pop sizes it isn't hard to find:
https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-counties-total.html
knock yourself out. nevada for instance has a country with around 900 and another with over 2.2m ppl.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:34:34 2020 No.12316392 >>12316347 Or just read about political campaigns in Chicago. Someone asked by what mechanisms does cheating occur, so I offered some places to look. Fuck off lazy shill.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:35:19 2020 No.12316395 >>12316391 So do your benfords on texas and nevada.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:36:23 2020 No.12316398 File: 510 KB, 2047x1152, ridin biden.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12316348

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:38:35 2020 No.12316402 >>12316387 Youre just mad because someone else figured out a way to win in the future

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:39:30 2020 No.12316405 >>12316384 Yes but that's were the genius 4d chess comes in. They did it so they wouldn't get caught! Logical!

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:41:13 2020 No.12316408 >>12316392 No thanks.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:42:26 2020 No.12316412 >>12316405 Why is a mixed result less suspicious than a landslide?

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:42:31 2020 No.12316414

>>12316179
>"wow, this is another bit of evidence"
Give me a break. "Amateur hour" was clearly saying they did a piss poor job at rigging the election without getting caught, meaning they're taking this as proof, not just a bit of evidence. But you don't need to remain just in this thread, there's others on /sci/, plus many on /pol/, who aren't just taking this as "a bit of evidence."

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:46:39 2020 No.12316424 >>12316412 No idea, but that's what our finest 4chan detectives are telling us.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:47:04 2020 No.12316426

>>12316331
>iow you don't know what benford's law is about then.
Oh? Please explain what I'm missing then.

>you seem to misunderstand that the magnitude assumption isn't violated. they are on all the ballots ranging from counties with low to high numbers.
Again, I never said they aren't. How does this show that their tallies should be evenly distributed?

>one of them is that you need variation in magnitudes like we have with big and small counties.
We're looking at vote counts, not populations of counties. Vote counts for a candidate are dependent on but not necessarily representative of county population. For example, if a candidate's vote counts tend to be small percentages of small populations, and large percentages of large populations, the distribution will be bimodal. I've already explained this several times and it would be nice if you could address it instead of repeating your canned responses.

>because the problem is set up as a benford's law simulation.
Huh? There is no simulation. Try reading your source.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:49:41 2020 No.12316432 >>12316414 No it means they are taking this as one more piece of evidence. You don't know about any of the others because for some reason the news isn't covering them, instead they're saying Biden's been elected when he hasn't

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:53:59 2020 No.12316447 >>12316424 Truly the greatest minds of our generation are at work on this.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:56:49 2020 No.12316455

>>12316432
>No it means they are taking this as one more piece of evidence.
No, the threads on /sci/ have focused on Benford's Law, the other things haven't even been mentioned. Not to mention OP's post in this thread, which was loaded with information, including a graph and...nothing. Why would I assume they're taking anything else into account? I feel like you're being extremely disingenuous if you're suggesting many people aren't placing a lot of weight on something they don't even understand, far more than it being just a bit of evidence. It's being treated as proof. You can claim you're being fair-minded, fine, but others aren't.

>You don't know about any of the others
I mentioned threads on /pol/, do you really think I'm not familiar with the other claims?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:57:32 2020 No.12316457 >>12316402 Honestly if the plan didn’t involve flooding my country with people with third grade educations I wouldn’t be nearly as pissed. I mean we don’t have enough dumbasses already, you’re gonna bring in more? Very frustrating.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 19:58:22 2020 No.12316462 >>12315695 They are here to watch /pol/ burn So am I desu

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 20:00:06 2020 No.12316466 File: 384 KB, 1275x1181, 1604730932713.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12315662 You need to look at the precinct data in heavy dem districts It's also only apparent at a presidential level Senate votes are fine

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 20:00:28 2020 No.12316470

>>12316426
>Oh? Please explain what I'm missing then.
an understanding of what benford's law is about.

>How does this show that their tallies should be evenly distributed?
that isn't an assumption. the assumption is that the samples you get need to have a range of magnitudes which is intrinsic to the counties having different population sizes. some in the hundreds, some in the millions.

>We're looking at vote counts, not populations of counties.
yes and vote counts will scale with population sizes. a county of 100 can't have 1m votes.

>For example, if a candidate's vote counts tend to be small percentages of small populations, and large percentages of large populations, the distribution will be bimodal.
but in reality your premise doesn't hold to make that true. votes scale with county sizes.

>I've already explained this several times and it would be nice if you could address it instead of repeating your canned responses.
there is nothing to address, you're asserting a premise that doesn't have any merit. again we have a magnitude of vote counts and large cities did come out in large numbers to vote.

>Huh? There is no simulation. Try reading your source.
it is a benford's law setup scenario. simulation was the wrong word to use.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 20:01:28 2020 No.12316472
File: 23 KB, 662x422, Fulton Atlanta Senate.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12316466
Fulton GAs senate results at a precinct level conform to Benford's law for both Rs and Ds
However, as per the previous post, it doesn't for Biden votes at a Presidential level

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 20:06:26 2020 No.12316493 >>12316466 >>12316472 >If I post more graphs people will be convinced. >I don't know what I'm graphing but just need more graphs. >As many graphs as possible.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 20:06:36 2020 No.12316494 >>12316462 /pol/ is gonna get considerably worse after this. Trumpers were a moderating influence since they worried about electability.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 20:07:03 2020 No.12316496 >>12315662 this doesn't belong on this board

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 20:09:21 2020 No.12316503 >>12316493 you can't tell what that graph is measuring?

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 20:09:23 2020 No.12316505

>>12316493
lol, my masters thesis was in financial data variance analysis

This is why this is the only analysis of Benford's law that compares Trump results to Biden's at a precinct level and measures for fitness to Benford's.

Cry all you want but 39148 RSS in Detroit for Biden to Benfords in comparison with Trumps' 3517 RSS means fraud and only fraud

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 20:11:04 2020 No.12316509 >>12315884 Trumps numbers fail the law in every precinct he won, just like bidens. Some graphed it in the thread that was linked earlier

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 20:15:21 2020 No.12316521 >>12316218 >In Iran and Russia Two nations famous for thier fraud-free democratic process

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 20:15:54 2020 No.12316523

>>12315884
>>12316509
You'd need to look at all precincts in counties he won
Not just precincts he won

If the pattern is consistent across all precincts in the county's he won then you'd have an argument

Otherwise you're introducing selection bias into the data

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 20:17:43 2020 No.12316527 >>12316377 Then you should be able to avert the question.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 20:18:40 2020 No.12316530

>>12316405
>>12316412
Its to give republicucks cope and pacify them.
>we didnt win the presidency but at least we got the senate
Its all over the news, giving people illusion lf choice is important. Also the retards on the democrat side will accept that nothing gets done because "opposition" is blocking progress

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 20:19:31 2020 No.12316534 >>12316505 You don't have a masters and you never wrote a thesis.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 20:21:18 2020 No.12316537 what a retarded thread

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 20:28:55 2020 No.12316552

>>12316505
>means fraud and only fraud
You've just demonstrated you don't know shit about statistics. Statistics like this only tells you that it's unlikely the distribution follows the uniform logarithmic one that's assumed in Benford. That can be because of fraud, but it could also just be because of the distribution districts, or something else entirely. Statistical tests do not point to a single interpretation, that is absolute bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 20:33:46 2020 No.12316563 >>12316552 Benford does not assume "uniform logarithmic" distribution you twat, that's not even a thing

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 20:35:05 2020 No.12316566 File: 35 KB, 744x596, Wrong.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12316534 Wrong

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 20:38:54 2020 No.12316575 >>12316455 This is science and math not what people believe. We’re discussing whether or not Benfords law applies here, that’s it

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 20:38:58 2020 No.12316576

>>12316552
Fulton County
384 Precincts
Smallest votes cast by precinct: 1
Largest votes cast by precinct: 5398
Average: 1350
Std Deviation: 1040

70% of voting amounts by precinct are between 300 and 2400

Fulton Precinct data is perfectly acceptable for a Benford analysis
You couldn't be more wrong

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 20:41:38 2020 No.12316585

>>12316575
it does at a precinct level, the data is varied enough and has enough orders of magnitude: >>12316576

If Benford's can apply to electricity bills, which have a magnitude to Fulton's precinct data, then it can apply to elections at the right level

This is why, as per >>12316472, Senate votes in Fulton precincts match Benford's law. That's your control

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 20:44:00 2020 No.12316587 >>12316585 Are you willing to autistically plug in data and come up with a full report by tomorrow evening as to whether there appears to be fraud in the swing states?

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 20:45:01 2020 No.12316589

>>12316563
Yes it is, look at the wiki page.
>Therefore, this is the distribution expected if the logarithms of the numbers (but not the numbers themselves) are uniformly and randomly distributed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law
>>12316576
>Fulton Precinct data is perfectly acceptable for a Benford analysis
Show your working. Stating some statistics and then just making a claim is not a justification.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 20:45:03 2020 No.12316590 >>12316566 Australians should shut the fuck up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 20:48:58 2020 No.12316598 Georgia data https://gofile.io/d/YT7IHZ Good luck anon, I already tried a bit. It's the absentee vote

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 20:51:01 2020 No.12316602 >>12316575 >This is science and math not what people believe. So you're saying OP's post should have been reported and removed?

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 20:55:25 2020 No.12316609

>>12316470
>an understanding of what benford's law is about.
I already explained what it's about. You failed twice to explain what's wrong with my explanation. This indicates that you're lying.

>that isn't an assumption. the assumption is that the samples you get need to have a range of magnitudes which is intrinsic to the counties having different population sizes. some in the hundreds, some in the millions.
Not just a range of magnitude, an even distribution among the orders of magnitude. You don't understand Benford's law. Nice projection.

>yes and vote counts will scale with population sizes. a county of 100 can't have 1m votes.
Yes, that's why I said it's dependent but not necessarily representative. Agreeing with me is not showing how I'm wrong.

>but in reality your premise doesn't hold to make that true. votes scale with county sizes.
Are you illiterate? Percentages of the county scale with county size by definition. Again, you're not even disagreeing with anything I said, because you don't even understand the topic.

>again we have a magnitude of vote counts and large cities did come out in large numbers to vote.
Please explain how this contradicts anything I said.

>it is a benford's law setup scenario.
So your justification for expecting the data to follow Benford's law is that you applied Benford's law to it? Doesn't make sense, try again.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 20:55:26 2020 No.12316610 >>12316602 Considering there are already multiple threads, yes because at this point it's spam.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 20:56:46 2020 No.12316614
File: 23 KB, 794x424, Fulton county numbers.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12316589
https://results.enr.clarityelections.com/GA/Fulton/105430/web.264614/#/summary

Data is there, downloadable at the Precinct level on the right hand side
Feel free to look up the county codes and the ballots cast in your own spreadsheet and compare to the screenshot as an audit of my numbers

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 20:59:44 2020 No.12316618 >>12316587 I've already done so for Fulton and Detroit countys It'll take me longer to do all the precincts in all the states though, as that data is hard to find It'd be easier if I had precinct data to begin with

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 21:06:54 2020 No.12316632 >>12316614 You misunderstand. The statistics are not the problem. The point you haven't justified why these statistics demonstrate that Benford should be valid. You gave the data and your conclusion but there's none of the explanation in between.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 21:12:45 2020 No.12316654

>>12316632
because if Benford's is valid for the following:
>It has been shown that this result applies to a wide variety of data sets, including electricity bills, street addresses, stock prices, house prices, population numbers, death rates, lengths of rivers, and physical and mathematical constants
Many of which require human intervention, especially electricity bills then it's likely as valid for elections

Have I done a report on all the precinct data in the USA and whether precincts nationally confirm to Benfords in the past. No I haven't

However, Electricity bills are a lot like votes in that people have to do specific things to use electricity to drive up the bill value. A lot of people have very similar energy pattern usages (mornings and nights, nothing in the day while everyone is at work). So if this data, that has a very high degree of human intervention and human patterns in usage conforms to Benford's then so likely will election data
That said, you need to look at the right level of election data. Across counties doesn't work, individual ballot boxes would be best but precincts would be next best

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 21:16:52 2020 No.12316662 >arguing with shills

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 21:19:46 2020 No.12316667

>>12316654
What a bullshit handwavey answer. "It applies to elections because they're like electricity bills."

And this has nothing to do with what you actually said:
>Fulton Precinct data is perfectly acceptable for a Benford analysis
You specifically claimed the data justified the use of this test on this one predict in particular. Were you just talking out of your ass?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 21:20:47 2020 No.12316674 >>12316667 >>12316472 Shill

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 21:22:42 2020 No.12316681 >>12316654 >Have I done a report on all the precinct data in the USA and whether precincts nationally confirm to Benfords in the past. No I haven't Well here you go then Those would've been relevant control groups

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 21:29:55 2020 No.12316701

>>12316609
>I already explained what it's about. You failed twice to explain what's wrong with my explanation. This indicates that you're lying.
you didn't even know this is about the leading digit. as shown here:
>>12316318
>OK, and? It shouldn't really matter which digit you look at
when the law is about the leading digit:
>A set of numbers is said to satisfy Benford's law if the leading digit d (d ∈ {1, ..., 9}) occurs with probability

>Not just a range of magnitude, an even distribution among the orders of magnitude.
but you need the range which was my point.

>Please explain how this contradicts anything I said.
you're arguing that biden's vote would be bimodal magnitude because of it's concentration in urban areas, the point i was telling you was that trump is also on that ticket and it's not like urban areas voted exclusively biden and rural was trump. even if that was the case the only difference would be the range, not the shape of the distribution. so they are on all the ballots. trump and biden will get the full range of magnitudes and be uniformly distributed.

>So your justification for expecting the data to follow Benford's law is that you applied Benford's law to it? Doesn't make sense, try again.
the point was that the criteria for benford's law is met.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 21:33:55 2020 No.12316718 >>12315733 your own post has nothing to do with benfords, you just disagree with him so you say he doesnt understand it get some fucking substance

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 21:36:29 2020 No.12316722 >>12316618 Just focus on swing states. Do Pensilvania, Michigan and Arizona. That should be enough of a dataset to gain more attention. And make it a thesis.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 21:39:40 2020 No.12316729

>>12316654
Roflmao, the first explanation to why Benford's should apply to election data I've seen this far, and this is the best you can do? This makes zero sense, none at all.

We're talking frequency in numbers here. How much more likely you are to get one value over the other. This only applies to a select few instances. House prices vary wildly, depending on how big an area you focus on. Population numbers vary wildly, depending on what areas you focus on. Your daily electricity pattern isn't measured, it's how much you spend in total within a defined timeframe. Stop forcing shit you dont understand

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 21:41:33 2020 No.12316736 >>12316718 >get some fucking substance Ok, If you think a few graphs can show clear fraud I don't think I'll change your mind with words.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 21:41:49 2020 No.12316737

>>12316335
>>/pol/tards post a bunch of tweets alleging fraud with no evidence
you mean the video evidence of people not being allowed to witness and the people caught on camera filling in ballots, or are you talking about other pieces of evidence not being evidence

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 21:44:22 2020 No.12316740

>>12316737
>you mean the video evidence of people not being allowed to witness
Random assholes on the street don't have the right to witness anything.

>the people caught on camera filling in ballots
You mean the republican and democrat at the same table filling in bubbles because retards can't read and instead put a fucking X?

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 21:49:40 2020 No.12316752

>>12316736
>Ok, If you think a few graphs can show clear fraud I don't think I'll change your mind with words.
you quoted "clear fraud" and then went on to shit on him for not understanding benfords law
and now backtracked again to "clear fraud"
hes clearly working on the assumption that anomalous benfords implies fraud, yet you refuse to fucking acknowledge this explicitly and just keep saying that he doesnt understand benfords instead
understanding benfords and trusting its application are separate things you sperg
argue your own point and stop being so goddamned scatter brained in your posts

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 21:52:32 2020 No.12316757

>>12316740
>Random assholes on the street don't have the right to witness anything.
both dishonest and untrue

>You mean the republican and democrat at the same table filling in bubbles because retards can't read and instead put a fucking X?
ah yes, pay no attention to how they fill in all the same bubbles over and over again, theyre merely fixing it for the rest of the population, its just a coincidence that all the ballots they get all have the same marks

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 21:54:38 2020 No.12316763

>>12316752
>understanding benfords and trusting its application are separate things you sperg
No they aren't. If you understand something you know where and where not to trust it's application. You can't know where to trust something without understanding it.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 22:01:24 2020 No.12316781

>>12316763
>If you understand something you know where and where not to trust it's application
if you understood it you would actually give reasons why its application wouldnt be trustworthy here, rather than just constantly repeating "its just not, trust me"
and now that i called you out on it youre going to use the go-to ad-hoc responses which you dont understand either, or which you arent even going to justify

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 22:22:50 2020 No.12316822 File: 18 KB, 640x480, hahahaha.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >muh log magnitudes have to be uniform for benford's law lmao nope

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 22:26:54 2020 No.12316831
File: 53 KB, 403x448, cvbbmwwe4rzz.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12316701
>you didn't even know this is about the leading digit.
What does that even mean? You must be fucking illiterate.

>when the law is about the leading digit:
Too bad you didn't finish reading the wikipedia page:

>It is possible to extend the law to digits beyond the first.

You have no clue what you're talking about. Time to go back to /pol/.

>but you need the range which was my point.
Your point is pointless. I never said there wasn't a range. You are incapable of even grasping the argument yet you keep posting for some reason.

>you're arguing that biden's vote would be bimodal magnitude because of it's concentration in urban areas, the point i was telling you was that trump is also on that ticket and it's not like urban areas voted exclusively biden and rural was trump.
You are one dense retard. Nothing I said implied urban areas being exclusively for Biden. Stop posting.

>the point was that the criteria for benford's law is met.
You can't even accurately describe the criteria, let alone show Biden's vote tallies should adhere to them as much as Trump's.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 22:28:00 2020 No.12316833 >>12316831 >blah blah blah you got deboonked here faggot, see: >>12316822

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 22:32:26 2020 No.12316838

>>12316781
Not the guy you're arguing with, but dodge more, homo. No one ever labels these garbage graphs, you can read that shit however you want. What are the units here? Boxes of votes, pallets, garbage bags, wtf are you trying to measure? What does it prove? Small units don't get you up to thousands, making the higher numbers more likely. Then you have a couple of instances where Trump crushed him, giving Biden 100s or even 10s, but not as many 2s, 20s, 200s or 2000s as projected. This is meaningless.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 22:32:32 2020 No.12316839 >>12316831 you can try it yourself if you don't believe me. plot the first digit and magnitude frequency distributions. or will you continue to be a brainlet? https://datahub.io/JohnSnowLabs/population-figures-by-country

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 22:41:32 2020 No.12316855 File: 19 KB, 640x480, hahahaha.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] benford's law in action. suck my right nut, midwits.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 22:45:54 2020 No.12316867 File: 98 KB, 600x600, C3E5192A-DCC9-4335-909A-7055116B5A64.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12316176 He hosted it at a landscaping place to "Rake America Great Again."

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 22:47:05 2020 No.12316870 >>12316737 There are bipartisan observers in the counting process and with Republican state legislature and Secretary of states

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 22:47:24 2020 No.12316872 File: 25 KB, 460x230, mh9grksfaox51.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12315662 deboonked

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 23:23:22 2020 No.12316941

>>12316833
>>blah blah blah
Not a counterargument. You lose.

>you got deboonked here faggot, see: >>12316822 #
It's an irrelevancy. Populations that grow exponentially eventually follow Benford's law. Vote tallies are not part of an exponential process.

https://www.persee.fr/doc/pop_1634-2941_2002_num_57_4_18419

Explain why Biden's vote tallies should confirm to Benford's law or fuck off.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 23:24:25 2020 No.12316944 >>12316839 Vote tallies do not grow exponentially. Try again.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 23:27:25 2020 No.12316947

>>12316941
>>12316944
you keep changing the script over and over again. first it was you need a uniform distribution in magnitude to get benford's law now this.
>Populations that grow exponentially eventually follow Benford's law. Vote tallies are not part of an exponential process.
you mean like counties? so yes vote tallies do actually grow exponentially since so do the populations of those counties. you fail.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 23:31:56 2020 No.12316952 File: 22 KB, 916x480, murrica.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] oh look county pop also follow's benford's law. shocker. and county pop grow's exponentially and so does their vote counts with that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 23:33:18 2020 No.12316955 File: 22 KB, 916x480, murrica.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] oh look county pop also follows benford's law. shocker. and county pop grow's exponentially and so does their vote counts with that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 23:33:47 2020 No.12316956 holy shit, you guys are so pathetic. lol. you fucking lost.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 23:34:45 2020 No.12316959 File: 22 KB, 916x480, murrica.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] oh look county pop also follows benford's law. shocker. and county pop grows exponentially and so does their vote counts with that.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 23:41:04 2020 No.12316969

>>12316947
>first it was you need a uniform distribution in magnitude to get benford's law now this.
Incorrect, what I said was

>Essentially, in this case it measures whether vote tally magnitudes are evenly distributed

Population totals are not the same case as vote tallies, nor are they analagous, because population totals are determined by an exponential process.

>you mean like counties?
Vote tallies are not necessarily representative of county populations. I already explained this to you.

Explain why Biden's vote tallies should confirm to Benford's law or fuck off.

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 23:43:35 2020 No.12316972

>>12316952
>>12316955
>>12316959
We're looking at vote counts, not populations of counties. Vote counts for a candidate are dependent on but not necessarily representative of county population. For example, if a candidate's vote counts tend to be small percentages of small populations, and large percentages of large populations, the distribution will be bimodal. I've already explained this several times and it would be nice if you could address it instead of repeating your canned responses.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 23:46:26 2020 No.12316975 >>12316972 I would be very surprised if any candidate's vote counts were a bimodal distribution, some data-anon could prove this

Anonymous Sat Nov 7 23:48:15 2020 No.12316978

>>12316969
>Incorrect, what I said was
what i said you said.

>Population totals are not the same case as vote tallies, nor are they analagous, because population totals are determined by an exponential process.
so now you only get benford's law through exponential processes? nowhere is there a proof for that.

>Vote tallies are not necessarily representative of county populations. I already explained this to you.
you made this claim and keep asserting it without evidence.

>Explain why Biden's vote tallies should confirm to Benford's law or fuck off.
it meets all the criteria. wide range in magnitude and is randomly occurring unless fraudulent.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 23:51:12 2020 No.12316986 >>12316972 your bimodality hypothesis doesn't matter as shown. i showed you two examples where normal distributions in magnitude result in benford's law. you keep screeching about something that you read on wikipedia. good grief like a broken record.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 7 23:55:00 2020 No.12316995 >>12316969 >vote tally magnitudes are evenly distributed >not a uniform distribution ffs you're beyond retarded.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 00:02:08 2020 No.12317008

>>12316975
How is it surprising? You can see it in every election, Democrats' votes primarily come from a few high density areas, while Republicans votes are spread out much more evenly.

>what i said you said.
What you said I said was an inaccurate paraphrase. I already quoted what I said. Cry more.

>so now you only get benford's law through exponential processes?
Not what I said. Try again. Do you have a learning disability?

>you made this claim and keep asserting it without evidence.
The evidence is the example I gave you, which you once again ignored. Vote tallies are not only determined by population, they are also affected by preference for the candidate in that location, voter turnout rate, and method of voting. The only one who has yet to provide evidence for your claim is you. I predict that yet again you will fail to explain why Biden's vote tallies should conform to Benford's law .

>wide range in magnitude
Necessary but not sufficient.

>randomly occurring
Vague and unnecessary.

Try again.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 00:05:58 2020 No.12317017

>>12317008
>What you said I said was an inaccurate paraphrase.
it's not. evenly distributed means uniform distribution.

>Not what I said. Try again. Do you have a learning disability?
oh you mad, son.

>The evidence is the example I gave you
the one you pulled out of your ass? you know large cities also had trump voters too right? your example is meaningless.

>Vague and unnecessary.
it is a requisite.

>Try again.
i'm tired of watching you fail to justify your ccp plant, fraud, child-diddling president.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 00:06:51 2020 No.12317020

>>12316986
>your bimodality hypothesis doesn't matter as shown.
Where?

>i showed you two examples where normal distributions in magnitude result in benford's law.
Too bad they conform to Benford's law for a reason that doesn't necessarily apply to vote tallies. You don't need examples, you need a reason why this particular case should conform.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 00:07:53 2020 No.12317023 >>12316995 >>vote tally magnitudes are evenly distributed Source?

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 00:08:35 2020 No.12317024

>>12317020
>Too bad they conform to Benford's law for a reason that doesn't necessarily apply to vote tallies. You don't need examples, you need a reason why this particular case should conform.
surprising how the senate's vote tallies magically conform to benford's law. according to you they shouldn't. and i gave you a reason. the criteria for benford's law is met. hence why it works for senate votes.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 00:08:56 2020 No.12317026 >>12317008 Also replying to >>12316978

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 00:10:10 2020 No.12317029

>>12317023
not what i said. i said you don't need your insisted criteria which is shown to be false with two examples. i was explaining to you when you say evenly distributed that means uniform. or did you guys change the dictionary definitions again to suit an argument?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 00:14:10 2020 No.12317038 >>12316956 It's not about winning or loosing. If there is evidence for fraud It should be investigated

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 00:23:31 2020 No.12317047

>>12317017
>it's not. evenly distributed means uniform distribution.
Really, I think you have a learning disability. Where did I say anything to the contrary?

You claimed I said a uniform distribution is necessary to conform to Benford's law, when what I said was *in this case* that's what Benford's law is measuring. You gave two examples outside of this case.

>oh you mad, son.
I'm not, learn how to read. I said exponential processes tend towards distributions that conform to Benford's law, not that this only way to get distributions that conform to Benford's law. You would argue a lot better if you could actually understand what you're arguing against.

>it is a requisite.
It's not. Are the powers of 2 random? Fibbonaci sequence? No. In fact, conforming to Benford's law too closely is a sign of a non-random process.

>i'm tired of watching you fail to justify your ccp plant, fraud, child-diddling president.
You're tired because you got caught lying. Back to your containment board, schizo.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 00:27:33 2020 No.12317052 >>12317047 They are being intentionally stupid as to distract you from working on finding evidence for fraud.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 00:28:21 2020 No.12317054

>>12317029
>i said you don't need your insisted criteria which is shown to be false with two examples.
I've asked you several times to provide your own criteria but you refuse to do so. Since vote tallies don't have to satisfy the criteria in your examples, they're irrelevant. Use your brain.

>i was explaining to you when you say evenly distributed that means uniform.
Why would you explain something that I never even questioned? It's a complete non sequitur, another sign of your illiteracy.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 00:32:14 2020 No.12317060

>>12317047
>Where did I say anything to the contrary?
>>12316969

>You claimed I said a uniform distribution is necessary to conform to Benford's law, when what I said was *in this case* that's what Benford's law is measuring.
you didn't say this. your whole thesis was biden's log dist will be bimodal when it needs to be uniform.

> You would argue a lot better if you could actually understand what you're arguing against.
says the anon who doesn't know how to read flippancy.

>No. In fact, conforming to Benford's law too closely is a sign of a non-random process.
lmao what?

>You're tired because you got caught lying.
oh pottery.

>>12317054
>I've asked you several times to provide your own criteria but you refuse to do so.
i have. i gave you my criteria several times:
large enough magnitude in distribution and random process.

>Since vote tallies don't have to satisfy the criteria in your examples, they're irrelevant.
yet they do. notice how the senate vote tallies conform to benford's law.

>Why would you explain something that I never even questioned?
you did though hence the point i was making.

>another sign of your illiteracy.
oh more pottery. that's all you have. pottery and a child diddler who rigged an election. congratz.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 00:37:45 2020 No.12317065

>>12317024
>surprising how the senate's vote tallies magically conform to benford's law.
Source?

>and i gave you a reason. the criteria for benford's law is met.
That's very nice sophistry, but the question is, what is the criteria? You can't name it because you're full of shit.

>hence why it works for senate votes.
I'm very curious how you can explain how the supposedly fraudulent ballots for Biden are simultaneously legitimate for Senate candidates. I guess the Democrats just didn't want the Senate huh?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 00:39:24 2020 No.12317068 >>12317038 The only evidence of fraud were the two Trumptards caught with a Hummer full of ballots.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 00:40:22 2020 No.12317069 >>12317008 >You can see it in every election I have never seen vote count data that follows a bimodal distribution. Provide a specific graph or dataset.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 00:43:47 2020 No.12317078

If you look up "benford's law election 2020"
You get two "rebuttals" of this claim. They do not refute the idea, rather they just point out inaccuracies.
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/49782/do-vote-counts-for-joe-biden-in-the-2020-election-violate-benfords-law
The claim is here that
>the y-axis is on a different scale which invalidates the line.
This is something that excel will do by default when you create a graph, so the intention was not to do this as someone claimed.
Also when you look at the commenters graph, you can clearly see that Biden does deviate more from Benford's law than Trum, even on their own graph (of which they don't explain how it was generated).
>the graphs are deliberately constructed to sell a lie.
This claim is not supported by what they claim or have posted.

The other comments are valid criticisms about the application of Benford's law, however it is not supposed to be used as a conclusion as to if there is or isn't fraud, more as a basis to begin an investigation or use as supporting evidence with other evidence.
This is the whole point. To do an investigation into the election to find out why there is so much deviation from previous elections and when analysed using a tool such as Benford's law, there seems to be some deviation from the law.

People are missing the point of all of this. If in a democratic country, there is any evidence of election rigging it should be investigated, as either parties in the future will start to take us for fools and get away with it.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 00:46:04 2020 No.12317083 [DELETED]

>>12317065
>Source?
see: >>12316466
>what is the criteria?
i told you.
>You can't name it because you're full of shit.
says the guy who got his log uniforn dist criteria utterly gtoed.
>I'm very curious how you can explain how the supposedly fraudulent ballots for Biden are simultaneously legitimate for Senate candidates. I guess the Democrats just didn't want the Senate huh?
the goal was orangeman he was the outsider in washington. they are all freinds otherwise. you know mitch and biden are buddies right?

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 00:47:45 2020 No.12317085

>>12317060
>>>12316969 (You) #
Nowhere in this post do I state anything about even being diffrent from uniform. In fact I don't even mention the word uniform. Learning disability.

>you didn't say this.
I already quoted myself saying it. Pathetic liar.

>Essentially, in this case it measures whether vote tally magnitudes are evenly distributed

>your whole thesis was biden's log dist will be bimodal when it needs to be uniform.
Yes, in this case. This must be the 50th time in this thread you've failed to read. Is it dyslexia?

>says the anon who doesn't know how to read flippancy.
>'twas only pretending to be retarded
Sure you were buddy.

>lmao what?
LMAO read the thread retard. >>12316257

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 00:47:52 2020 No.12317086 >>12317068 ????

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 00:48:20 2020 No.12317088 >>12315662 what does the graph represent?

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 00:48:40 2020 No.12317089

>>12317065
>Source?
see: >>12316466
>what is the criteria?
i told you.
>You can't name it because you're full of shit.
says the guy who got his log uniforn dist criteria utterly btfoed.
>I'm very curious how you can explain how the supposedly fraudulent ballots for Biden are simultaneously legitimate for Senate candidates. I guess the Democrats just didn't want the Senate huh?
the goal was orangeman he was the outsider in washington. they are all freinds otherwise. you know mitch and biden are buddies right?

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 00:51:54 2020 No.12317092

>>12317060
>i have. i gave you my criteria several times:
And I already told you how that was wrong. And your response was...

>lmao what?

>notice how the senate vote tallies conform to benford's law.
Source?

>you did though
Then quote me saying it. Oh you won't, because you're a liar.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 00:53:42 2020 No.12317094 >>12317086 https://www.cnn.com/cnn/2020/11/07/us/pennsylvania-convention-center-arrests/index.html

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 00:55:52 2020 No.12317099

>>12317085
>I already quoted myself saying it. Pathetic liar.
such desperate tryhard attempt to save face.
>Yes, in this case.
why would it have to be in this case but then not in other cases?
>>12316257
all they do is make assumptions on what cases were fraudulent like in russia. did it occur to you that putin was legit and that russian's don't want to wash black people's feet like you do?

>>12317092
>And I already told you how that was wrong. And your response was...
you made some assertions that have been deboonked.
>Source?
see: >>12316466

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 01:03:53 2020 No.12317113 File: 71 KB, 679x960, photo_2020-11-07_00-54-35.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I like trump but hes not gonna be able reelected.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 01:05:17 2020 No.12317116

>>12317089
>see: >>12316466 #
That image shows nothing about Senate vote tallies, it's all Trump and Biden. Every. Single. Post. Is. Illiterate.

>i told you.
No, you have me some vague and insufficient criteria. Try again.

>says the guy who got his log uniforn dist criteria utterly btfoed.
Your example is irrelevant, it didn't BTFO anything. You BTFO yourself by not being able to present any criteria for why we should expect Biden's votes to follow Benford's law. You lose.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 01:11:01 2020 No.12317124

>>12317099
>such desperate tryhard attempt to save face.
Oh another non-response. Thank you for admitting you lied.

>why would it have to be in this case but then not in other cases?
I already explained it to you several times, vote tallies are not the result of an exponential process.

>all they do is make assumptions on what cases were fraudulent.
Sounds very familiar.

>you made some assertions that have been deboonked.
Another non-response. Thank you for admitting you lied.

>see: >>12316466 #
>Trump
>Biden
Those are presidential candidates, not Senate. Which learning disability is it?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 01:17:20 2020 No.12317130 File: 20 KB, 1526x480, fib.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] did someone say fibonacci won't follow benford's law? think again.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 01:17:41 2020 No.12317131

>>12315662
>electionreporting.com
Okay, let's aggregate some data.

>Barrien County
37,438 Biden
43,518 Trump

>Branch
6,161 Biden
14,066 Trump

>Cass
9,130 Biden
16,699 Trump

>Detroit
233,908 Biden
12,654 Trump

>Gratiot
6,693 Biden
12,102 Trump

>Ingham
Unreported

>Isabella
14,072 Biden
14,815 Trump

>Kent
186,753 Biden
165,318 Trump

>Lake
2,288 Biden
3,946 Trump

>Midland
20,493 Biden
27,675 Trump

>Newaygo
7,874 Biden
18,864 Trump

>Saganaw
51,088 Biden
50,785 Trump

>St Clair
31,363 Biden
59,185 Trump

>St Joseph
9,262 Biden
18,127 Trump

>Van Buren
16,800 Biden
21,591 Trump

Biden digit distribution: [2 2 2 0 1 2 1 0 2]
Trump digit distribution: [8 2 1 1 2 0 1 0 0]

Mulling over the fact that the graph you give is inaccurate, each party's voter counts span only 3 orders of magnitude. Trump's 1s are mostly coming from only the fifth order of magnitude, so if you remove this, the distribution falls apart. Now, if you think of any set of values in a distribution where if you remove a single value, it changes the entire distribution, we call that value a statistical outlier anywhere else, so why can't we call it that here?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 01:18:27 2020 No.12317134 >>12315671 Lots of different methods >hacked software by Dominion used in a bunch of different states (seriously) >fake ballots >ballots with dead people on them (at least 10,000 were found in michigan so far) >dumped ballots found everywhere

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 01:18:43 2020 No.12317136 >>12317130 I said it would, it's an example of a non-random process conforming to Benford's law. Maybe you should do an analysis of how many times you failed to read in this thread.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 01:19:54 2020 No.12317137 >>12317136 >I said it would and it did. so suck it, faggot. maybe instead of pulling shit out of your butthole you can lrn2code.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 01:20:15 2020 No.12317139 >>12317131 >Benford's law on n=15 nice try kid

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 01:21:09 2020 No.12317141 >>12317137 So I should stick it because you proved me right? I'm thinking it's not a learning disability at this point. I think you're just mentally ill.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 01:21:43 2020 No.12317142 >>12317141 i proved you wrong over and over. but all you can do is cope.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 01:22:42 2020 No.12317143 >>12317139 That's the source cited on OP's image. I'm going by the constraints given and the results presented from those constraints.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 01:23:06 2020 No.12317144 >>12317142 >i proved you wrong over and over Nice projection.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 01:25:11 2020 No.12317148 File: 586 KB, 2016x1512, white guilt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12317144 whatever enjoy washing black people's feet for the next 4 years. your claim that uniform dist in magnitude was necessary was btfoed.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 01:26:00 2020 No.12317152 File: 56 KB, 621x702, ce8.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >randomness is a criteria for Benford's law >It's not. Are the powers of 2 random? Fibbonaci sequence? No. >did someone say fibonacci won't follow benford's law?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 01:27:11 2020 No.12317153 >>12317148 >your claim that uniform dist in magnitude was necessary was btfoed. No it wasn't, your examples were irrelevant to my claim, which was specific to this case from the beginning.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 01:28:21 2020 No.12317156 File: 20 KB, 893x613, rky62b9y2gt31.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12317153 >in this case you need to have uniform dist for no reason except i said so

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 01:29:10 2020 No.12317158 >>12317143 Precinct data, not county-wide

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 01:30:31 2020 No.12317161 >>12317156 It is, look up criteria for Benford's law and see which ones apply to vote tallies.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 01:33:13 2020 No.12317164 >>12317161 so it's specific to vote tallies but doesn't need to be the case anywhere else? somehow vote tallies have a magical property of being vote tallies but everything else is fine. is this what you really believe?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 01:35:44 2020 No.12317170 holy cope

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 01:39:28 2020 No.12317176 >>12316276 the girl was flirting with him during the interview and then lead him by hand into the next room to "have some drinks" of course he'd think she wanted to fuck him lol

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 01:41:20 2020 No.12317180
File: 19 KB, 767x459, murrica.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

ok i'm bored of shitposting. here are the criteria for benford's law:
https://search.proquest.com/docview/216734639?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true
>Under the assumptions of Benford's Law, the law applies to lists of numbers that describe the relative sizes of similar phenomena, such as the market values, net incomes, or daily trading volumes of corporations listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Other examples could include the populations of cities or counties.
check
>The list of numbers should not have an arbitrary minimum or maximum cut-off point such as "cities with a population in excess of 50,000 people." Lists with maximums would include income tax deductions that have an upper bound (child care expenses or certain categories of moving expenses). Lists with minimums would include the revenues of the Top 100 companies where the Top 100 are ranked according to revenues.
now i know some deboonker will say what about the number of people in a precinct or county. that isn't arbitrary. that is like saying the net income is invalidated because of how much money the corporations have to give being a maximum.
>Benford's Law would not apply to numbers that are influenced by human thought, such as supermarket prices, NYSE stock quotes, or Automated Teller Machine cash withdrawals.
and another place a deboonker may come is here and say well votes are influenced by human thought but it's 1 vote per person they don't give the value. human reproduction is influenced by human thought and human population size follows benford's law since it's not a single person dictating the size of a country.
>The law also would not apply to assigned numbers such as personal identification numbers, telephone numbers, or car license plate numbers.
check.
no mention of the distribution of the magnitude needing to follow a certain shape. that is not a criteria. these 4 are.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 01:58:00 2020 No.12317215

>>12317180
OP's picture is counts of voter's registered counties' first digits, that's influenced by human though, you can choose which county to live in within your state. The only thing OP's graph says is that Trump voters are spread relatively homogeneously across the state, while biden voters mostly reside in certain counties.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:02:12 2020 No.12317221

>>12317215
>that's influenced by human thought
i explained what that means. someone picking values in the list such as stock market prices. not single vote. otherwise it couldn't be applied to market values, net incomes, or daily trading. or overall population sizes where benford's law works. trump and biden were on ballots everywhere and no that spread doesn't mean jack. biden's tallies violated benford's law not its criteria.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:06:09 2020 No.12317230
File: 12 KB, 718x288, data_src.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12317158
The data's coming in, and it's not as damning as you're trying to make it out to be. I'm really not sure you want me to complete this, anon.

If you want to do it yourself, I used the data here:
>electionreporting.com/county/c64f9ade-9049-43ef-ab73-3feebc7ef5f0/contest/President%2FVice-President

It's all kept as a single HTML table, and I plugged it into an HTML-table-to-CSV converter. If you really care about the truth, let's go for the raw data instead of an image from Reddit.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:07:01 2020 No.12317234

>>12317221
Yes, you can pick which county you live in. If I want to live in X county of my state, I move there. OP's graph applies benford's law to the COUNTIES of the voters not the VOTES, which you can't do as stated previously.

Picking the county you live in is just like picking your stock portfolio.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:11:49 2020 No.12317239

>>12317234
>OP's graph applies benford's law to the COUNTIES of the voters not the VOTES, which you can't do as stated previously.
it's their overall count which you can. it's not a singular influence of the count but many. the element is total votes in a country, that isn't picked by one person, if it is then the law is violated. hence why it is used for detection of fraud.

>Picking the county you live in is just like picking your stock portfolio.
one person. you don't dictate where everyone lives. if you did that would likely invalidate the law and it would be apparent you have population control. see how this works?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:12:43 2020 No.12317240 >>12317239 >you don't dictate where everyone lives. if you did that would likely invalidate the law and it would be apparent you have population control. see how this works? Then what is gerrymandering?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:14:00 2020 No.12317242 >>12316358 You seem to be lost in your own argument.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:14:34 2020 No.12317243
File: 17 KB, 640x465, cunry.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12317239
this is also why benford's law doesn't apply to stock prices since one person can come in and do a massive buy or dump.

>>12317240
drawing borders like countries do. and country population sizes still follow benford's law.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:16:08 2020 No.12317247 >>12317243 >drawing borders like countries do Yeah every few years countries redraw their boundaries so that they can balance or unbalance their population to get certain electoral results sure thing bud.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:18:21 2020 No.12317249 >>12317247 and somehow the county populations still follow benford's law as shown here: >>12317180

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:19:54 2020 No.12317253 File: 19 KB, 378x248, download.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12317230 https://github.com/zedosoad/Fraud/blob/main/Election_fraud.ipynb

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:20:39 2020 No.12317254 >>12317249 Listen here you little shit. Population and voting are different. Nobody gerrymanders for population. They gerrymander for voting outcomes.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:21:53 2020 No.12317256 >>12317254 but if gerrymandering had such a huge effect it would also show in population sizes and it doesn't.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:23:25 2020 No.12317260 File: 80 KB, 800x1556, Gerrymandering.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12317256 You trade blue for red when you move the lines. You can have a perfectly equal counties and still gerrymander.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:24:23 2020 No.12317262

>>12317239
>it's their overall count which you can.
No, you can't for reasons as stated previously. For human thought to be involved it doesn't mean the choice of a singular person, but that humans are directly influencing the number's distribution in some way. So, for instance choosing your stock portfolio means that you're intentionally avoiding X stocks and preferentially choosing others. Same concept with ballots.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:28:57 2020 No.12317267 >>12317249 County population =/= county ID numbers of individual people Nice try, but they're not the same thing, thus incomparable, one has no consequence on the other.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:29:09 2020 No.12317268

>>12317260
if only the country was a checker board and it was this easy.

>>12317262
>but that humans are directly influencing the number's distribution in some way.
not on aggregate. hence why benford's law still applies to population sizes, market values, net incomes, or daily trading volumes of corporations, etc.
>Same concept with ballots.
it's one vote per person. not one person choosing how many stocks they put into their portfolio, or one person picking the number of votes.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:30:39 2020 No.12317269 >>12317267 they are very related and ofc they have consequences. the number of ids depends on the number of people in the county.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:31:31 2020 No.12317271
File: 527 KB, 1280x1340, The_Gerry-Mander.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12317268
>if only the country was a checker board and it was this easy.
Holy shit you are a literal retard. They've been doing it since the best way of printing images was carving wooden blocks.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:32:59 2020 No.12317274
File: 8 KB, 711x272, data_src02.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12317253
Here's the raw data, but I've got some news for you. That data is ONLY from Milwaukee and nowhere else. Check out the source code.

>import requests
>from bs4 import BeautifulSoup as bs
>
>url='https://county.milwaukee.gov/EN/County-Clerk/off-Nav/Election-Results/Election-Results-Fall-2020'

See that URL it's pulling from? It doesn't list any precincts outside of Milwaukee. Look in other districts, and the distribution looks fine.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:33:53 2020 No.12317276 >>12317271 sure and? it's not a checkerboard of even voting blocks distributed through the country. you cut some lines in some districts that will alter the overall population sizes.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:35:27 2020 No.12317278 >>12317274 and yours seems to be only of detroit when i go to your link.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:35:31 2020 No.12317279 >>12317276 >you cut some lines in some districts that will alter the overall population sizes Shifting the line over doesn't change the population if the density is the same on both sides of the line retard.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:36:29 2020 No.12317280 >>12317279 >if

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:37:45 2020 No.12317283

>>12315671
Those are some but those can be caught by a reexamination.
Other means of fraud would not be remedied by a reexamination.
There is the risk of real ballots that are stolen or paid for (probably more financially optimal than paying off the debt of felons).
There is also the risk of ballots being "lost" or destroyed while in transit.
In states where there was a strict time deadline (or it was still being argued in court), extending the counting process a few days would allow the late ballots to make their way into the official count.

A big issue is that large scale mail-in ballots are not necessarily secret.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot#United_States
You can imagine spouses pressuring each other.
Parents pressuring kids.
Friends pressuring friends.
Neighbors pressuring neighbors.
Or randoms bribing people.
There is a reason for the VOTING BOOTH.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:41:02 2020 No.12317287

>>12317268
>population sizes
Each person can choose to have kids, but they can't choose their country's population size

>net income
competition with other people for jobs (100 applicants anyone?) usually means you can't choose your income, or you have a very minuscule effect on the final number. Different people getting pay raises influences this as well, so when you begin a job you may have influence on your wage, but in general nobody can explicitly choose if they get a raise and how much.

>market prices
No, no one can choose what price a stock is at (outside of someone intentionally enacting buyouts).

>county ID
Yes, you can choose your county ID. If I'm an engineer I'm going to live in a city. If I live in a city, I'm more likely to be liberal. Thus, we see certain county IDs over represented when liberals vote.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:41:31 2020 No.12317288 >>12317280 And if it isn't you get a squiggly ass mess like the dragon I already posted.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:45:03 2020 No.12317298
File: 127 KB, 750x400, Spoon-Feeding.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12317278
My link came from the OP. Jesus, why do I have to spoonfeed you every step of the way? It's like you don't WANT to find out (!!!)

The full list of links are as follows:
>electionreporting.com/county/3820dff5-a1ed-420c-828b-f9d1ec256f11/contest/President%2FVice%20President
>electionreporting.com/county/d317fe58-a8f9-402e-8966-b70684dd2833/contest/President%2FVice-President%20of%20the%20United%20States
>electionreporting.com/county/e3dc24f9-783b-446a-8f37-980ebf521462/contest/President%20of%20the%20United%20States
>electionreporting.com/county/c64f9ade-9049-43ef-ab73-3feebc7ef5f0/contest/President%2FVice-President
>electionreporting.com/county/1e44d63c-29c4-486c-9b4b-56623359590a/contest/President%2FVice%20President%20of%20the%20United%20States
>electionreporting.com/county/cc192a44-77d7-4adc-91a7-afa294442a71/contest/President%2FVice%20President
>electionreporting.com/county/594ccaab-4182-416e-9c8c-32da085c9221/contest/President%2FVice-President%20of%20the%20United%20States
>electionreporting.com/county/db3f9865-656b-4704-9429-bd38e726ab42/contest/President%20%2F%20Vice%20Pres.
>electionreporting.com/county/7666303d-add2-4913-a083-99bbfacbd58c/contest/President%2FVice%20President
>electionreporting.com/county/a46d2b31-7e95-45c0-9857-b7905ff1f20c/contest/President%2FVice%20President
>electionreporting.com/county/c70e2a70-74f6-4cf3-b7ec-d7478f154fbb/contest/President%2FVice%20President
>electionreporting.com/county/93504286-47ea-4e69-9e2f-5033ae188960/contest/President%20and%20Vice-President%20of%20the%20United%20States
>electionreporting.com/county/8f0eb06b-28bd-46f8-a245-85d0c6a3adc0/contest/United%20States%20Senator
>electionreporting.com/county/6540f7df-7c60-4d28-9538-43853cb5f3dd/contest/President%2FVice-President%20of%20the%20United%20States
>electionreporting.com/county/69e75a35-622d-45fe-b1ec-4e21cf946a0e/contest/President
>electionreporting.com/county/7f5af64a-5a9b-4616-a03c-9ce145e683dd/contest/President%2FVice%20Pres

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:45:49 2020 No.12317300

>>12317287
>Yes, you can choose your county ID. If I'm an engineer I'm going to live in a city. If I live in a city, I'm more likely to be liberal. Thus, we see certain county IDs over represented when liberals vote.
engineers aren't that "liberal". they're not retarded and have to deal with reality.
https://www.machinedesign.com/news/article/21819513/the-politics-of-engineers
>Engineers tend to view themselves as much less liberal and slightly more conservative than the general public, according to a recent survey of over 1,200 readers of MACHINE DESIGN and Electronic Design magazines. The same survey also found that engineers say they are more likely to be Republican (42.1%) or Independent (33.7%) voters, as opposed to Democrats (14.5%).

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:52:32 2020 No.12317312 >>12317300 How likely are they to be white men?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:54:17 2020 No.12317315 >>12315671 Maybe the part where the Clinton Foundation owns the company that created the Dominion voting software used in 28 states. Biden be like >Nothing to see here folks, wrap it up.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:55:26 2020 No.12317319 >>12317298 Some of those ONLY show democrat votes... Am I missing something?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:58:38 2020 No.12317328 >>12317319 They also don't span many orders of magnitude and they also don't have a lot of data-points per state. Both great ways to fuck up Benford's shit.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:58:44 2020 No.12317330 >>12315671 It's trivial to do it. Fake identity, using people who didn't vote or a dead or have moved elsewhere, dodgy software, malicious handling of cast votes, etc.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 02:59:57 2020 No.12317333 >>12317330 >It's trivial to do it. Ah yes the handwave is real.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 03:03:40 2020 No.12317342

>>12317319
Do tell, which ones? I re-checked, and they all have Republican votes under them, though I did give the wrong link for Shiawassee; that one's for the Senate race. Here's the correct one for that:

>electionreporting.com/county/8f0eb06b-28bd-46f8-a245-85d0c6a3adc0/contest/President%2FVice-President%20of%20the%20United%20States

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 03:06:36 2020 No.12317348

>>12317333
i'm not american and last time i voted i was thinking how easy it would be and probably already happens on a large scale everywhere, never mind the fact that all voting systems and party systems are broken af, and your voting seems to be much looser than my country's, many more options available, none scrutinised.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 03:06:40 2020 No.12317349
File: 38 KB, 540x357, tea.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12317328
Milwaukee has even less data points than the Detroit data provided, and the Detroit one's less fucked up. It's almost like statistical patterns are better followed by larger sets.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 03:10:21 2020 No.12317356 File: 49 KB, 400x600, bodanoff.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12315662 The frequency of the first digit for what tally? I'm kinda retarded.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 03:11:53 2020 No.12317360 >>12317356 The number of votes reported from each precinct in the city of Milwaukee.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 03:12:13 2020 No.12317362 >>12317349 The law of large numbers was created without input from a single lawyer. I dunno seems pretty suspicious.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 03:14:43 2020 No.12317369 >>12317360 Thank you

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 03:17:20 2020 No.12317377 >>12317360 Is the justification for this the "late" mail in ballots? Would mail in ballots being counted later justify this at all?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 03:19:14 2020 No.12317383 >>12317377 There is no justification. Some mad /pol/ tards just know one or two math things and have decided to make a bunch of graphs proving that trump was totally right about election fraud.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 03:20:17 2020 No.12317389 >>12317383 Yeah but the graphs do show that though?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 03:22:12 2020 No.12317392 >>12317389 >Yeah but the graphs do show that though? Yeah, Just like their info-graphics that prove that 9/11 was a controlled demolition and that nobody died at sandy hook.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 03:23:05 2020 No.12317393 >>12315686 They swapped 35% of the ones in one county to the benefit of Joe Biden. All these "glitches", "typos", and "errors" benefit Joe Biden. Makes you think.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 03:24:10 2020 No.12317394 >>12315695 Pajeet troll farms who couldn't get over the H!-B changes

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 03:24:57 2020 No.12317396 >>12317392 Dude wtf are you even saying? There's no formula for sandy hook deaths, and Bendford's Law has been used to prove the Iranian election was fraudulent. They are completely different.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 03:27:18 2020 No.12317399 >>12317396 >Bendford's Law has been used to prove the Iranian election was fraudulent. By qualified statisticians not internet morons.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 03:27:48 2020 No.12317401
File: 15 KB, 718x288, data_src01.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12317389
The graph for Milwaukee suggests it, but as you zoom out into larger sets of precincts, it disappears. It's like how when you flip a coin, you have a 50/50 chance of landing heads, but if you only flip the coin once, you'll only see wither 0% heads or 100% heads. You have to have a larger set of coin flips for it to fit the pattern that you know exists.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 03:30:07 2020 No.12317403 >>12316521 Are you retarded? >>12316257 How much do you get paid for this? You're not doing a very good job :/

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 03:30:35 2020 No.12317406 >>12317401 This proves my earlier point >>12317362 Not a single senator voted for the law of large numbers and yet this tyranny continues. We need to destroy the entire concept of statistics to get to the bottom of this fraud.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 03:31:58 2020 No.12317411 1. How come there is no raw data so you can verify the test yourself? 2. How come the test is only run on 1 digit when you can test several digits from the same dataset and in doing so double, tripple, quadruple your data points?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 03:33:15 2020 No.12317413 File: 68 KB, 471x344, unknown.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12315662 Biden got more turnout among the dead than any candidate in American history. I'm surprised he didn't win by greater margins.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 03:35:47 2020 No.12317418 I was feeling a vague kind of excitement due to all the allegations but this thread convinces me its a whole load of fucking bullshit again. Thanks for keeping me grounded (shall I say based) again, /sci/

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 03:35:50 2020 No.12317419 >>12317411 the raw data is posted here, but they're too chickenshit to verify it:>>12317298

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 03:38:14 2020 No.12317423 >>12317411 Here it is, it should be all over mainstream media right now. But they are busy running cover for the fraud. https://github.com/cjph8914/2020_benfords

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 03:47:15 2020 No.12317434 File: 234 KB, 442x446, 1596579475996.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] watching trump tards seething over an election is the most delightful sight in the last few years, right behind seeing libs lose their marbles when he won in 2016

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 03:49:00 2020 No.12317439 >>12316496 You are ideologically possessed, this is a discussion on statistics.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 03:51:35 2020 No.12317446 >>12317418 How dense are you? Benford's law isn't a smoking gun, but it's the sound of a shot for sure.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 03:54:40 2020 No.12317452 >>12317439 There's an empirical discussion to be had, but when the question of larger datasets comes up, the ones pushing it go remarkably silent. It ceases to be any type of empirical discussion if the goal is the agenda instead of the facts.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 03:55:23 2020 No.12317455

>>12317434
>Liberals lose in 2016 start crying, don't learn anything screech for next 4 years.
>Trump tards lose in 2020, start learning statistics, immediately get into action to see if wrongdoing took place.
Man if I had to pick, I'm going with the group more likely to make America mathematically literate again.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 03:57:50 2020 No.12317459 >>12317452 I agree if there is a relevant point being deflected that's political

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 04:05:36 2020 No.12317467
File: 38 KB, 640x974, mi.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

ok so i did all of michigan and well it doesn't quite follow benford's law. i should also point out many places did not have their data. detroit for example has entire precincts reporting zeros for both candidates and ingham county had no data. in any even here are my findings. now milwaukee completely fails benford's law and they have 180 precincts so it's not insignificant. in any event for those who were saying benford's law shouldn't apply to voting, suck my right nut. fuck riggers.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 04:05:50 2020 No.12317468

>>12317455
Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government

>Why does public conflict over societal risks persist in the face of compelling and widely accessible scientific evidence? We conducted an experiment to probe two alternative answers: the “Science Comprehension Thesis” (SCT), which identifies defects in the public’s knowledge and reasoning capacities as the source of such controversies; and the “Identity-protective Cognition Thesis” (ICT) which treats cultural conflict as disabling the faculties that members of the public use to make sense of decision-relevant science. In our experiment, we presented subjects with a difficult problem that turned on their ability to draw valid causal inferences from empirical data. As expected, subjects highest in Numeracy — a measure of the ability and disposition to make use of quantitative information — did substantially better than less numerate ones when the data were presented as results from a study of a new skin-rash treatment. Also as expected, subjects’ responses became politically polarized — and even less accurate — when the same data were presented as results from the study of a gun-control ban. But contrary to the prediction of SCT, such polarization did not abate among subjects highest in Numeracy; instead, it increased. This outcome supported ICT, which predicted that more Numerate subjects would use their quantitative-reasoning capacity selectively to conform their interpretation of the data to the result most consistent with their political outlooks. We discuss the theoretical and practical significance of these findings.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 04:11:13 2020 No.12317474 >>12317467 >ok so i did all of michigan and well it doesn't quite follow benford's law Moments later. >in any event for those who were saying benford's law shouldn't apply to voting, suck my right nut. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYAuR5bkIlQ

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 04:28:15 2020 No.12317510 >>12316250 reminds me of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69wBG6ULNzQ

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 04:59:18 2020 No.12317563
File: 20 KB, 706x747, Skärmbild 2020-11-08 105002.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

This is my first contribution. Drumpf's numbers. I let excel search up all 1s for me, then I subtracted the 1s that where the first digit from the total. I then did the same for the rest numbers. By doing so I:

(1) increase datapoint by about 500 (from 1076 tallies/precincts or whatever you call it).

(2) avoid the "structural argument" that has been put forward - that the way precincts are organized you will see a bias towards 4,5,6 etc.

I will soon post Biden's numbers.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 05:03:51 2020 No.12317568

>>12317563
*1s that WERE the first digit
*by about 500 (from 1076 tallies/precincts to 1532 datapoints
*you will see a bias towards 4,5,6 etc as first digit

Sorry my English is not my mother tongue hence the bad language skills.

I don't have much more to comment on the graph above. It won't look like Benford's graph because it's not over eg the first digit but over 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. The graph does comply to the conceptual law however ie that 1s occur mre than 2s, 3s occur more than 4s etc. The only time a higher number occured more often than a lower is 9 which occured 146 times vs 8 who occured 143 times.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 05:11:18 2020 No.12317584 >>12317455 >start learning statistics obviously they're not done, since they're trying to use irrelevant tools. Cry more faggot.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 05:15:01 2020 No.12317589

Simple explanation for why this is retarded:

Is there anything suspicious if in a list of numbers, about half of the numbers are between 400 and 800? Of course not. In this list, about half the numbers would have 4, 5, 6, or 7 as the first digits. But wait! Benford's Law says that only 30% of the numbers should have 4, 5, 6, or 7 as the first digit. Is Benford's Law wrong? No, just misapplied. Our list has mostly 3-digit numbers. The kinds of lists Benford's Law works well are lists that have lots of numbers with different numbers of digits. For example, a list with comparable amounts of 3-digit, 4-digit, 5-digit, and 6-digit numbers would be expected to satisfy Benford's Law pretty well.

That list in which half the numbers are between 400 and 800 is the vote tallies for Biden in Milwaukee. Of course it doesn't agree with Benford's Law. Why do Trump's counts agree with it? They don't, but the difference is not as large. The reason: Trump's vote counts in Milwaukee are also mostly 3 digits, but he got a lot more 2-digit vote counts than Biden. This makes the list of Trump vote counts closer to the kind of list Benford's Law works well on.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 05:17:04 2020 No.12317590 >>12317589 tldr its a statistical law applied to an experiment of size 1

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 05:25:28 2020 No.12317604
File: 18 KB, 597x596, Skärmbild 2020-11-08 112333.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

This is Biden's graph. By using the method previously explained, I increased the number of digits to analyze from 1363 to 2044. As you can see Biden's graph is a disaster, with 1s having the lowest frequency! Might redo this though just to be sure. But something is very wrong about Biden's numbers.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 05:29:08 2020 No.12317609

>>12317589
>>12317590
Then just run the 2nd digits, 3rd digits, 4th digits etc. There is no point in just running the 1st digit, unless you really want to do a school book Benford's graph. The same logic behind Benford's law would work perfect on the other digits than the first.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 05:49:16 2020 No.12317635 >>12317604 Which dataset is this based on?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 08:35:51 2020 No.12317894 File: 1.39 MB, 4958x4437, 1593507351432.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12317131 How in the WORLD do you manage to get those distributions? This thread is cursed

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 09:14:35 2020 No.12317956 >>12317164 >so it's specific to vote tallies but doesn't need to be the case anywhere else? It is why Benford's law applies in most cases. You know nothing about Benford's law.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 09:20:48 2020 No.12317974

>>12317894

each number in the distribution is the number of times a leading digit appears, so 1 is a leading digit 2 times for biden and 8 times for trump.

however, it's also just being applied to a set of 15 because OP's image gives a site that has 15 counties. you can get those numbers by counting the number of times each digit appears as a leading digit in the set of vote tallies given, and you can find the vote tallies by going to the link on OP's cited web site and looking at the number of votes for each county's presidential contest

it's since been upended by a count of every individual precinct within each country here >>12317467

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 09:27:49 2020 No.12317985

>>12317180
>that isn't arbitrary. that is like saying the net income is invalidated because of how much money the corporations have to give being a maximum.
An example was already posted of Benford's law failing to apply to vote tallies because all of the precincts in a state election had similar sizes.

>no mention of the distribution of the magnitude needing to follow a certain shape. that is not a criteria.
Doesn't follow, there are many sources in this thread describing how conformity to Benford's law results from even distributions of orders of magnitude. Your source failing to mention this is not evidence of it not existing. You illustrate your inability to grasp the subject by listing a few examples of things which don't follow Benford's law as if they define what does.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 09:37:28 2020 No.12317992 >>12317403 >gets BTFO >h-how much do you get paid for this? Typical schizo. Take your meds.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 09:39:35 2020 No.12317995 >>12317446 It isn't. The vote tallies don't even violate Benford's law overall, /pol/tards are just cherrypicking.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 09:44:04 2020 No.12318006 >>12317467 >in any event for those who were saying benford's law shouldn't apply to voting No one said that, they said it doesn't have to apply to voting. Learn how to read moron.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 8 13:41:56 2020 No.12318589 >>12317423 Still not one article on Google news debunking or even discussing Benford's.

Anonymous Sun Nov 8 13:53:46 2020 No.12318612
File: 46 KB, 376x401, sheeple.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12318589
Because the data is cherrypicked. Read the thread; only select data sets are expressing the fucky distribution, while an all-inclusive dataset results in >>12317467 with its data coming from >>12317298

This shit isn't even making it to Google before being shut down, not with even the brainlets of /sci/ being able to sniff out that it's bullshit.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math