[Truthsearcher]

https://i.imgur.com/KznBEmn.jpg

[Diogenesis]

when fraud is not extinguished, it grows exponentially.

when allowed in politicians, countries and justice die.

[Rurudyne]

Benford?

Joe the Fraud-Man Biden

“More fraud! Ugh ugh ugh!”

[Boogieman]

“in an random set of numbers in a base 10 system”

Well, there’s the error in your logic. Vote counts are not random sets of numbers.

[freeandfreezing]

Lets get our math wizards to work. Here are some charts from crowd sourced analysis on 4chan/pol:

The original thread from 4chan is here, the usual warnings about the coarse language, etc. apply.

Note that the Trump results seem to follow the expected distribution, but the Biden results do not. That is quite unusual, and in most forensic accounting investigations would lead to suspicion.

[Pollard]

I made the image bigger but it's getting more blurry. Trump is the top three and biden's the bottom. You can see the 3-4am bump for biden in Philly on the left.

[DoodleBob]

I’m very familiar with Benford’s law. What is the x-axis? I can’t tell from the picture - the resolution isn’t strong.

[ml/nj]

EXCELLENT !!

Here are the graphs:

ML/NJ

[freeandfreezing]

Fixed link

[orlop9]

Great Post

I trust our friends are looking into this

[Pollard]

From wiki. What it should look like. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford's_law

[William Tell]

"This is how even a cursory look at the data alert you to human made up numbers."

I've never heard of "Benford's Law" but I can see how it could come about. I would imagine that it applies only to complete numbers. If you examine a large enough list of random numbers drawn from the range from, let's say, 0 to 999,999 then I would expect that the least significant digit would be distributed evenly; that is, there would be the same amount of each of the ten digits.

I believe that somebody reported that one state had too many precincts reporting totals that ended in "00". That would be very hard to explain unless humans were involved in picking the numbers.

[Stosh]

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.

[posterchild]

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

[William Tell]

Those of us who grew up using slide rules might recognize this distribution of values as being logarithmic. I tabulated below where
f = 100( log(n+1)-log(n) ).

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	4.6

This 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.

[cgbg]

Great zero hedge article—worth the read and worth additional analysis state by state:

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/why-does-biden-have-so-many-more-votes-democrat-senators-swing-states

[Pajamajan]

bttt

[aposiopetic]

Pinging here too

[wintertime]

Why is the zero digit not listed?

I would think that would be important.

[wintertime]

Ok, I have figured it out.

It is law governing **leading** digits, therefor this explains why there would be no zero.

[Truthsearcher]

This video also shows it.

Look at the graphs, ONLY Joe Biden’s vote in those swing state major dem counties violate this law, Trumps and Jorgensens’ numbers always follow this law all over the country. And Biden’s in other counties also follow this law.

Only Joe Biden’s vote tallies in big Dem counties of swing states doesn’t.