Posted on 11/05/2020 11:17:39 AM PST by Truthsearcher
I don't know how many of you have heard of Benford's test. It's basically a very easy and simple way to spot fake numbers.
It basically says in an random set of numbers in a base 10 system, the likelihood of each number appearing is
1 30.1%
2 17.6%
3 12.5%
4 9.7%
5 7.9%
6 6.7%
7 5.8%
8 5.1%
9 4.6%
When numbers a totally out of synch with those numbers, you know you're not dealing with completely random numbers and dealing with fake made up numbers.
Now here is graph for the number of votes in each precinct for both Trump and Biden in each precinct in Detroit, Milwaukee and Philadelphia
Notice the top 3 Trump numbers are all in line with the Benford curve, whereas the Biden numbers are ridiculously out of line with Benford's law.
This is how even a cursory look at the data alert you to human made up numbers.
My statistics is rusty, but wouldn’t the basic chi-square test more or less prove that these Biden votes during that “downtime” at 3AM are fraudulent?
Ok...I’m really not trying to be dense...you’re saying if there are 100 precincts, the bar under “1” represents the vote tally from all precincts where the first digit in that precinct number is “1”, e.g. 1, 10-19, 100?
If there are 100 precincts, there would be 100 total Biden vote tallies, if you take those 100 numbers and look at each numbers’ leading digit, you would expect 30 of them to begin with the number 1, and about 18 to start with the number 2, and so on and so forth.
When people are making up numbers though, they rarely follow this pattern. That’s often how fraud detectors can quickly look at a set of records and immediately suspect fake made up numbers instead of real life data.
What is “naturally occuring” about vote counts? They are generated by man, using purely deterministic processes...
The Wikipedia article provides a version of Benford’s Law for the third digit, at which the distribution of the ten possible values is almost completely random (it ranges from about 10.2% for “1” to about 9.8% for “9”). I kind of suspect that if people were making up numbers, those deviations might be even more dramatic at the third digit - but that’s just a gut call. The evidence with the leading digit is pretty convincing as is.
Benford's law in this case posits that randomness isn't always a good assumption. I heard it originated, in part, because someone noticed that there was more dirt/finger oils on his logarithm tables corresponding to "1". It can be used in forensics to tease our anamolies.
I’ve not heard of Benford’s law, but it is the type of analysis I was soliciting data for with post https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3902155/posts
n f Benford 1 30.10299957 30.1 2 17.60912591 17.6 3 12.49387366 12.5 4 9.691001301 9.7 5 7.918124605 7.9 6 6.694678963 6.7 7 5.799194698 5.8 8 5.115252245 5.1 9 4.575749056 4.6This indicates that the frequency of occurence of digits is proportional to the spacing on a slide rule for results that match that leading digit. I don't think this is a coincidence.
The sums of the votes are random (in the sense of these kinds of probabilities) - unless the voters in a precinct get together and agree that “176 of us will vote blue and 123 of us will vote red”.
Ahhh.. so the x-axis is the first digit in the vote tally, e.g. 1,384 votes, and the y-axis is the aggregate number of votes where the tally starts with that digit, e.g. 1?
“The sums of the votes are random (in the sense of these kinds of probabilities)”
Well, that’s the thing, you have to qualify the statement. Because they are actually definitely not random at all. You can say they approximate a random distribution, but they are not random.
Y-axis is the percentage of the total that had that leading digit.
Distribution is what we are talking about.
Obviously, but it’s not a random distribution, that’s my point.
Great zero hedge article—worth the read and worth additional analysis state by state:
Marty used this on the tv show Ozark.
Please explain the PHYSICAL meaning of your description of the X axis. I’m an engineer and look at plots all day, but am befuddled by the X axis here. I don’t get the connection between precincts and 1- 9 scale. Probably over-thinking this...
Regardless, Biden’s frequencies are substantially out of whack with the log-normal distributions that are dictated by nature in LEGITIMATE population data. If I presented a plot with Biden’s skew at work, I’d be laughed out of the room and accused of data manipulation.
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.