UPDATE: Benford’s Law Has Been Used to Prove Election Fraud in the Past – Joe Biden’s Numbers in Michigan are 99% Flawed — No Surprise that Tech Giants are Banning This Information

Gateway Pundit ^ | 11/08/2020 | Jim Hoft

[SeekAndFind]

From a TGP reader, Austin :

Biden’s vote numbers in Michigan do not match Benford’s law at a 99.999% significance level.

Benfords law has been used on many occasions to prove election fraud (2000&2004 elections, 2003 California gubernatorial election, etc.).

Let me know if you would elaboration but the numbers can be computed in a spreadsheet using data taken from Michigan’s election data tracker from individual precincts. For context, Biden scored a 0.0000017 and trump scored a 0.58.

While Benford’s Law is not 100% proof that fraudulent data has been manufactured, “In the United States, evidence-based on Benford’s law has been admitted in criminal cases at the federal, state, and local levels.”

It was also used to determine fraud in the 2000 and 2004 U.S elections. I conducted a Chi-test comparing Michigan’s precinct vote counts to Benford’s law and found that Biden/Haris votes returned a, 0.000017% (Statistically significant, especially with a very large sample) whereas Trump/Pence votes returned a score of,
53.059791% and whilst looking at my data set I noticed there were 0 write-in votes in Michigan.

Very odd stuff.

This is the source I used for my data, https://detroitmi.gov/webapp/election-results.

Here are some pictures of the spreadsheets with a graph comparison of the expected results vs what actually happened.

Trump’s data matches the law

(not manufactured vote counts):

Biden’s data differs greatly (fake data)

The highlighted percentage value tells you how sure you can be that fraud was committed, typically a score below 0.05 is statistically significant, and Biden scored a 0.00000017

[combat_boots]

I have no words

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/self-described-dem-party-worker-detroit-resident-brags-facebook-work-wayne-co-mi-threw-every-trump-ballot-saw-tens-thousands-co-worke/

[miliantnutcase]

Thank you. Data always tells a story.

[Savage Rider]

In what court did Benford’s Law prove fraud?

[beethovenfan]

What are the x and y axes in these plots? I assume the x-axis is time.

[Nifty]

Ok what are we looking at here?

[hecticskeptic]

Looks like the City of Detroit data has been taken down... I wonder why? Amazing that when folks start poking around data, the data disappears....

[rainee]

In what court did Benford’s Law prove fraud?

That’s my question as well..is there case law referenced?

[Nifty]

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/6/e1602363.full

[SeekAndFind]

See here:

Benford's law has also been applied for forensic auditing and fraud detection on data from the 2003 California gubernatorial election,^[42] the 2000 and 2004 United States presidential elections,^[43] and the 2009 German federal election;^[44] the Benford's Law Test was found to be "worth taking seriously as a statistical test for fraud," although "is not sensitive to distortions we know significantly affected many votes."^[43][]

Amid allegations of electoral fraud in the 2016 Russian elections, an article co-written by Kirill Kalinin and Mebane in The Washington Post observed that the mean of the second digit of the number of voters in each of the country's 96,869 electoral precincts, to four significant figures, was equal to the expected mean (4.187) per Benford's law. In addition, the mean of the last digit of the votes in each precinct for the triumphant party, United Russia, was equal to the expected mean (4.5) per Benford's law. On the basis of other indicators of electoral fraud, Kalinin and Mebane suggest that these "perfect" statistics show that those responsible had deliberately rigged the votes to conform to the expectations of Benford's law.^[45]

---

Also HERE

Benford’s Law has many real-world applications and, in fact, is admissible in court as a means of detecting fraud. Criminals who try to fabricate fraudulent lists of numbers typically aren’t aware of Benford’s Law and almost always don’t account for this statistical phenomena. Many people have been caught for financial dishonesty by applying this formula and it remains a significant component in the fraud-detection industry.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: n what court did Benford’s Law prove fraud?

See here:

Benford's law has also been applied for forensic auditing and fraud detection on data from the 2003 California gubernatorial election,^[42] the 2000 and 2004 United States presidential elections,^[43] and the 2009 German federal election;^[44] the Benford's Law Test was found to be "worth taking seriously as a statistical test for fraud," although "is not sensitive to distortions we know significantly affected many votes."^[43][]

Amid allegations of electoral fraud in the 2016 Russian elections, an article co-written by Kirill Kalinin and Mebane in The Washington Post observed that the mean of the second digit of the number of voters in each of the country's 96,869 electoral precincts, to four significant figures, was equal to the expected mean (4.187) per Benford's law. In addition, the mean of the last digit of the votes in each precinct for the triumphant party, United Russia, was equal to the expected mean (4.5) per Benford's law. On the basis of other indicators of electoral fraud, Kalinin and Mebane suggest that these "perfect" statistics show that those responsible had deliberately rigged the votes to conform to the expectations of Benford's law.^[45]

---

Also HERE

Benford’s Law has many real-world applications and, in fact, is admissible in court as a means of detecting fraud. Criminals who try to fabricate fraudulent lists of numbers typically aren’t aware of Benford’s Law and almost always don’t account for this statistical phenomena. Many people have been caught for financial dishonesty by applying this formula and it remains a significant component in the fraud-detection industry.

[EinNYC]

So, did someone copy the City of Detroit data BEFORE it was taken down?

[11th_VA]

Ex-Philly election official pleads guilty to stuffing ballot box for Democrats

https://nypost.com/2020/05/21/ex-philly-election-official-pleads-guilty-to-voter-fraud/

[sauropod]

Bump

[SeekAndFind]

More HERE:

EXCERPT

Is Benford’s Law admissible in Court? The answer is yes. If applied correctly, it should be admissible under Daubert and Rule 702. See United States v. Channon (Matthew), No. 16-2254 (10^th Cir. 2018).

If you are so inclined, you can convince yourself the law works. Pick up a random book or magazine and sort the numbers – about 30% of the numbers collected will start with the number 1. The result is always the same: 30% start with the number 1. Using this fact, a fraud auditor has a simple tool to examine large sets of numbers for irregular results.

The answer to the above question, “could Benford’s Law have been used to detect the Theranos fabricated blood test results early on and saved investors billions,” is yes. A fraud investigator could have used Benford’s Law to detect the occurrence of fraudulent lab results at Theranos. The Law is not proof of fraud, but it will highlight irregularities for further investigation.

---

Also see HERE

EXCERPT:

In fact, Benford’s Law is legally admissible as evidence in the US in criminal cases at the federal, state and local levels. This fact alone substantiates the poten

[shaven_llama]

Safe bet the dataset has been downloaded by many. Maybe the server just crashed due to excessive load?

[rolling_stone]

good now what about other battleground states and normal states for comparison

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Ok what are we looking at here?

Here is Another Explanation , Hope it helps...

One of the most common arguments is that in some localities, vote counts for Biden violate Benford’s Law.

In simple terms, the law states that in many real-world data sets, such as demographic data, geographical data, or even sports statistics, the first digit of the numbers will more likely be 1 than 2, and 2 more likely than 3, etc. following logarithmic scale. If the first-digit distribution significantly diverges from this rule, it could be evidence of artificial manipulation of the data.

The law has been used to identify fraudulent financial records and other illegal activities. Walter Mebane, a political science professor at the University of Michigan, used the law to back ballot-stuffing allegations in the 2009 Iran election (pdf). Some researchers also used the law to check for irregularities in the 2016 election in Wisconsin (pdf).

One GitHub user posted an analysis of the 2020 election results in Fulton County, Georgia; Miami-Dade, Florida; Milwaukee; Chicago; and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

While the result in Georgia and Florida generally adhered to Benford’s Law, there were significant deviations in votes for Biden in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Pennsylvania.

One Twitter user went deeper on the Milwaukee analysis and found that in many city wards, votes counted after 3 a.m. on Nov. 4 went to Biden by a much larger margin than those counted before. Sometimes, the difference was as high as 40 percentage points.

Milwaukee’s county clerk didn’t immediately respond to a request by The Epoch Times for comment regarding the discrepancy. Wisconsin is headed for a recount, showing Biden slightly ahead.

Another internet sleuth noticed that in Pennsylvania, nearly 10,000 votes were removed from President Donald Trump’s count at around 9 p.m. on Nov. 4. He said the losses came from three counties: Allegheny (-1,063 votes), Bucks (-2,972 votes), and Chester (-7,135 votes).

Then, around 9 a.m. on Nov. 6, more than 27,000 votes were added to the count, nearly all of them to Biden, he said.

The office of Pennsylvania Secretary of State didn’t immediately respond to questions about the anomalies. While Biden is ahead in the state, Trump has challenged the results in court.

The tally in Michigan, where Biden is ahead by a small margin, also seems to be statistically peculiar.

Around 5 a.m. on Nov. 4, data firm Decision Desk HQ updated the vote count for Michigan, adding 138,339 votes to Biden, but zero to Trump. The statistical impossibility of such a scenario prompted people to speculate that votes were illegally injected into the tally.

Within 40 minutes, Decision Desk HQ posted another update that subtracted 110,796 votes from Biden’s total and added 16,638 to Trump’s. It later said a “clerical error” in Shiawassee County caused the distribution of incorrect data and has since been fixed.

At 5:54 a.m. and 6:05 a.m., the firm posted two more updates for the Michigan race that didn’t appear to show anything unusual.

Then, at 6:18 a.m., the firm posted another update, which added 158,902 votes to the Biden tally and 29,295 votes to Trump’s. Those votes split roughly 85 percent for Biden—an exceptionally high ratio.

One explanation could be that those votes came from a deep-blue county and only included absentee ballots, which were expected to heavily favor Democrats.

However, even absentee ballots in Washtenaw County, which went for Biden by the largest margin, split in his favor by less than 82 percent. In addition, the candidate only picked up 125,927 absentee votes there, so many would have had to have come from another county less favorable to Biden.

[Honest Nigerian]

I don’t think Bentord’s Law “proves” fraud.
But it sure as heck tells you to dig deeper. And maybe even WHERE to look.