Was George Gascón Elected by Fraud?

American Thinker.com ^ | June 9, 2021 | John Smith

[Kaslin]

It appears that the election of Los Angeles County District Attorney, George Gascón, on November 3, 2020, was engulfed in substantial, and perhaps irrefutable, fraud. To determine this, I applied standard statistical fraud identification tools to the election data.

In this race, Gascón, previously district attorney of San Francisco County, challenged Jackie Lacey, the incumbent. Lacey, who held the office for the prior eight years (2012 to 2020), and is considered to have conducted her duties in a “tough-on-crime” manner.

I begin with the publicly available final election report, as posted on the web by the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters. Anyone can download this at Past Election Info (lavote.net)

First, here are the vote totals, by voting method (note that Lacey won the “In Polling Place” total across Los Angeles County):

The difference in total vote tally is 264,237 votes, in favor of Gascón.

Let me now briefly describe Benford’s Law, sometimes known as the law of first digits. This statistical tool, used frequently by fraud examiners, relies on the fact that the frequency of first digits in multidigit natural transactions, or tallies, occurs with predictable sameness. The identification of first digits is best explained by example:

Benford’s Law has been written about in a number of technical and professional journals, as well as in other articles presenting the likelihood of fraud in other November 3, 2020, elections. For all instances of first digits in real, natural data, Benford’s Law predicts that the frequency of first digits (1 through 9, zero is never a leading digit) will occur at or near the following percentages of the transactions or tallies (for a sample size of 250 or more).

[Mark17]

Is there any democrat, anywhere, who didn’t need fraud to win?

[marktwain]

Pretty interesting statistical analysis.

It appears both candidates cheated, according to Benford's law, Just the Gascon machine was better at cheating with the mail-in votes!

[Kaslin]

I doubt it very much.

[VTenigma]

perhaps irrefutable, Babalouie? It’s either irrefutable, or it’s refutable. Sort of like a little bit pregnant.

[AndyTheBear]

If there was election fraud, then it was likely done in a way that would not be detected by Benford's law.

For example when Democrat poll workers in Fulton County pulled out extra boxes of ballots after the observers were sent home and re-ran them through the machines, they were producing just as "natural" a number in the Benford's law sense, as when many honest citizens cast one legal authorized vote each.

Similarly with vote harvesting, people mailing in fake ballots for dead people, etc, as far as Benford's law is concerned it is natural.

What Benford's law catches is little changes in the books by single digits. Like when a number starting with a 1 is changed to start with a 4 too many times.

A false positive for fraud detection will often show up in Benford's law looking at voting precincts or roughly uniform size. For example if precincts happen to have about 1,0000, then the number of votes in a two candidate race will typically start with 4, 5, or 6 more than 1 or 2. The fact that the votes are distributed across roughly equal princincts of a certain size relative to where breaks in numbers are in base 10 makes the numbers not "natural" in the Benford's law sense.

It seems unlikely the methods the Democrats have been using to cheat are the kind of changing of the first digit in natural numbers that Benford's law could detect, so I think it is a waste of time and waste of credibility to promote Benford's in our case for vote fraud.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Nice analysis. The problem is that too many people will uncritically accept any argument that validates their ultimate opinion. The idea that there can be bad arguments in favor of the correct position seems lost on many.

I have zero faith in mail-in balloting systems, but those who simply point to fact that a higher percentage of mail in votes than did Republicans as evidence of fraud are missing the point.

In the run-up to the election, I vividly remember messaging from the GOP and conservatives -- including Rush -- urging us all to vote in person on election day. The fear among many in the GOP was that mail-in ballots from Republicans might be "lost" in the mail. So, Trump voters were urged to vote in person.

Democrats did the opposite. Their "get out the vote" campaign was based on urging people to vote by mail, and of course a bunch of them were too scared of Covid to vote in person. So based on the messaging from the parties themselves, it was expected that Republicans would do better on Election Day with in person voting, and that Democrats would have to catch up by mail. Pointing out that discrepancy after the fact as evidence of fraud is just a case of selective amnesia.

That general pattern aside, I have no doubt that there were significant fraudulent mail-in ballots. It's simply too easy to do, and there were too many hard lefties willing to facilitate that. Means, motive, and opportunity were all there. But as to the actual magnitude of that, we'll have to wait for the results of the audits to get a decent handle on that, and perhaps not even them.

[TBP]

He is a fraud.

[drypowder]

Kalifornia is the epitome of election rigging and vote fraud and has been for decades. How do you think the communist democrat in control of Kalifornia have become so intrenched. Guaranteed it wasn’t be voter choice.

[Hogblog]

The dims have been cheating for decades…they have just scaled it up to epic levels…

[PrayAndVoteConservesInLibsOut]

Was George Gascón Elected by Fraud?

I have always suspected it.

Lacey is amazing. Gascon appears to be evil.