Posted on 11/07/2020 3:23:27 AM PST by TigerClaws
As the vote counting for the 2020 Presidential Election continues, various facts suggest rampant frauds in Joe Biden’s votes. So does mathematics in terms of the votes from precincts.
Benford’s law or the first-digit law, is used to check if a set of numbers are naturally occurring or manually fabricated. It has been applied to detect the voting frauds in Iranian 2009 election and various other applications including forensic investigations.
This is what described by Wikipedia:
“Benford’s law, 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.
For example, in sets that obey the law, the number 1 appears as the leading significant digit about 30% of the time, while 9 appears as the leading significant digit less than 5% of the time. If the digits were distributed uniformly, they would each occur about 11.1% of the time. Benford’s law also makes predictions about the distribution of second digits, third digits, digit combinations, and so on.”
One of the examples is the population of the world, which are naturally occurring numbers.
Distribution of first-digit (in %) of population numbers in 237 countries in 2010. Source: wikipedia.org A number of people on the internet have checked the votes (precinct by precinct) of Joe Biden, Donald Trump as well as other candidates for their legitimacy in terms of the Benford’s Law.
According a Reddit user, r/dataisbeautiful’s calculation, the ‘normal’ distribution of first digits for the different candidates based on Benford’s law is illustrated below.
Agreed, the SC has no choice, or as u say Democracy dies.
Joe Biden will be in the field for this year’s Masters.
I have attached his predetermined score as directed by the DNC. After riding in the cart with his mask on for 12 holes he will take a nap and play will stop.
His playing partners and rules officials will not be allowed to watch him finish the last 6 holes.
Hole 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Score
Par 4 5 4 3 4 3 4 5 4 4 4 3 5 4 5 3 4 4 72
Joe 3 4 3 2 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 41
Joe is declared the winner by the Media.
In that case of 1000 voters, analysts would focus on the 100th, tenths, and ones digits.
My thought is....if you dropped your mail in vote at a drop site, it did NOT have a post office date stamp. Which means you can introduce or separate (destroy) votes any way you please.
i did not go through all the recent edits, but it appears that at least some of the recent controversy deals with the question of whether or not to include references 37 and 38 in regards to the application of benford’s law to political elections. It went back and forth several times before allowed and the page locked down by the wiki powers that be to control (for better or otherwise) further editing. In the following, Mebane (who has used Benford in the recent past (2006; currently listed as citation 34) for election fraud analysis) formally published a 2011 rebuke to a 2011 paper by Deckert which claims that there are problems applying Benford’s Law to find election fraud. However, some people seem to have gone on to apply Benford to the 2016 Russian election for the purposes of fraud detection, in particular, Mebane in the Washington Post in 2017 (currently listed as citation 42).
37 Deckert, Joseph; Myagkov, Mikhail; Ordeshook, Peter C. (2011). “Benford’s Law and the Detection of Election Fraud”. Political Analysis. 19 (3): 245–268. doi:10.1093/pan/mpr014. ISSN 1047-1987.
38 Mebane, Walter R. (2011). “Comment on “Benford’s Law and the Detection of Election Fraud””. Political Analysis. 19 (3): 269–272. doi:10.1093/pan/mpr024.
42 Kirill Kalinin and Walter R. Mebane, Jr., “When the Russians fake their election results, they may be giving us the statistical finger”, The Washington Post (January 11, 2017).
note that it can be difficult to tell what controversy is relevant simply by volume of edits during a wiki editing controversy in which an edit lockdown occurs, because sometimes the editing lockdown itself can be politically motivated.
The following may be something to watch for as the2020 presidential election vote count mysteriously slows down... (ie, some of the telltale benford fraud fingerprints might be deliberately erased by fraudsters fine tuning their fraud to remove the benford fraud fingerprints):
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.[42]
Mitch McConnell has no further use for DJT. He has his conservative courts and a 6-3 supreme court. Now he & Chief Justice Roberts are going to look the other way while the president protests the count and publicly — in the case of Mitch — counsel the president to ‘give it up’.
dkGba: "If federal Supreme court determines it’s a state issue and we already know that the states involved supreme courts are corrupt, then..... everyone has committed the perfect crime?
The right has to take some responsibility for this since they sat back and did nothing about voter fraud since Obama got elected."
Sadly, Republican leaders in the Pennsylvania legislature are being quoted as saying they've see no fraud.
If Republicans see no evil, hear no evil... we're doomed.
The article above suggests that the democrats have become so arrogant that they have not even bothered to make sure that the election results conform to Benford’s law.
Can they go in a week or two afterwards and manipulate the results so as to make local elections look like the conform to Benford’s law?
This just doesn’t happen, it must be coordinated. And there is communication somewhere that shows that coordination.
You know damn well if the Parties were reversed, every journalist in the country would be hunting high and low for evidence of cheating.
Its clear the results have been manipulated.
The question I asked was a little different.
The question I asked was to whether the manipulators can go in a week or two later to the databases and manipulate the results once again so as to make the results look like they conform to Benford’s law.
(If so, then investigators want to keep their work on the down low so as not to alert the bad guy’s that the investigators are on to them.)
Thanks. Really appreciate the details!
Science gave up on the democrats to low of a life form to amount to anything of worth.
Benford’s law works for sets of numbers that grow naturally by exponential rates. For example you had 500 dollars and it was in an account earning 25 percent growth every year , your account would have this amount of money each year
500
625
781
977
1221
1526
1907
2384
2980
3725
4657
5821
7276
9095
11369
14211
17764
22204
27756
34694
43368
54210
67763
84703
105879
132349
165436
206795
258494
323117
403897
504871
631089
Notice the numeral “1” appears most of the the time as the leading number, in this case 27 percent , the other numbers as 2-9 show up less as the first digit. This because our number system base 10. If we were to use the most simple number base 2 , with just ones and zeroes, the data would not favor either case , but base 10, favors the first number for when data grows exponentially...
Another example take 120 and if it grows by 25 percent, it takes many iterations before it gets above 200, compare to at 900 with a 25 percent growth , the first iteration the new number is not going to be a 9 anymore , therefore very few 9s and lots of 1s will show up in data that has a compounding growth factor.
Population counts follow Benford’s law, because they grow exponentially , the amount of forestation or any thing that can be measured with a growth rate, using a base 10 number system to record , the numeral 1 will appear more often in the data set.
So what does this have to do with votes ? Votes, are a measure of popularity , like top songs or ideas ,, a few people like , then they tell others, and they tell others , so popularity grows exponentially, and might be that a collected data sets of votes from a region of population ,it seems plausible to follow Benford, but experts say the law might not be reliable always to detect fraud in elections..Benford’s law does not work on all data sets ..
However ... note the 6 key is in the middle of the keyboard , easy to quickly make up and type in.... fits the pattern of accounting fraud according to benfords law, so why are most of the Biden’s counts coming up numerals 4 5 and 6. While a natural distribution we should see more 1s and 2s than 4s 5s or 6s, like Trumps counts show?
Check out this guys analysis of several places where Trump numbers adheres to Benford , Biden does not ..
https://github.com/cjph8914/2020_benfords
Very odd indeed, but don’t expect low information voters will be able to follow the logic
> Can they go in a week or two afterwards and manipulate the results so as to make local elections look like the conform to Benford’s law?
If the ballot tabulation process is truly open and the monitoring is effective from now, it would be imho very difficult if not impossible, since the only way to change the data imho would be to manipulate the ballot invalidation process in a manner designed to cover up one’s tracks, and by now, it is likely that virtually everyone involved is very aware of this technique. The open question I think is worth considering is whether or not the vote fraudsters have already done this prior to opening up the process properly to observers. the policy with regard to independent observers has been erratic from one state to the next and from one county to the next. The exact answers for each case imho would depend on time, logs, and such things as firsthand observer testimony.
Be aware that the technique of covering one’s tracks is described in the wiki article citation 42 (Krill, washington post, 2019) in regards to a suspected fraudulent russian election (see the full citation in my response #27).
i think there is a very sophisticated operation going on, and the question of whether or not they covered their tracks adequately by now depend on how sophisticated the fraudster team leaders are in statistics. if they were really good, we would perhaps never have been able to detect anything at the general public level at any time. So already we know, if the graphs are determined to be prima facie evidence of fraud, that the fraudster team leaders were not perfect. that is a step in the right direction towards determining what happened, how much impact it had, and who the responsible parties are. the less perfect they are, the easier it makes finding evidence of their fraud and bringing it forth during trial discovery and in the court of public opinion are, at least in theory.
actually imho it should be rather embarrassing to the biden camp that they could have covered up their tracks much better if they had only read the 2019 washington post article. hopefully it will instill some insightful questioning if and when a case based in part on Benford ever makes it to court.
Yes, indeed!
(most of) the fraudulent data entry typist(s) is (are) left handed instead of right handed?
apparently touch typing teaches typing students to use the right hand for 6, and the left hand for numbers 1 through 5.
https://thepracticetest.com/typing/lessons/17/
(just a wag)
it might be more significant that there is a variation in contrast to the exact specifics of the variation itself from the norm (dunno).
If the “drop off” vote is in place next election we should all put our vote for Trump (I hope) in those drop off boxes, then show up at the polls to vote. If they say we already voted we claim we did not vote yet. Two can play that game.
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.