Bob Knights Liver said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Good luck with an argument like this in court when you had the first modern election in a pandemic that caused an unprecedented skewing of Dem mail-in votes compared to GOP Election Day votes. And good luck explaining how systematic cheating happened in Georgia with a GOP governor and GOP election supervisor running the show.

---

How many times does this have to be posted - showing statistical irregularities does not prove fraud nor would it be used to prove fraud in courts. However, it shows that something odd is happening and could point to particular polling centers or batches of votes that should be more closely audited. By doing that you may be able to prove fraud if fraud did occur. So stop with the "good luck using math to prove it", the "oh so now math is good", or the "but global warming" responses. If you don't think this will lead to anything that's fine - post that. Otherwise please go discuss other topics on another thread instead of continually trying to blimp the topic being discussed on this one.

---

This exactly. It's a red flag that you need to investigate. It doesn't prove fraud, it just shows that something is very wrong with the system.

Quote:

---

This exactly. It's a red flag that you need to investigate. It doesn't prove fraud, it just shows that something is very wrong with the system.

---

This isn't in a criminal setting, first off. Don't need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, just a preponderance of the evidence meaning is it more likely than not. It also depends on the type of relief one is requesting from a court.

So a blanket statement that it alone "doesn't prove fraud" is slightly misleading. It is very credible evidence of fraud. But what is the evidence to dispute it?

If it is undisputed? Then it is much more likely than not.

bingobango85 said:

---

It seems like the data is for individual wards. The population of each ward seems to range between 500 and 1200, with a few outliers, and an average population of 700 or so.

In that case, wouldn't it be more unlikely for 1's to be the first digit? Biden would not be expected to have less than 200 of each ward's votes, and the number of chances for Biden to have over 1,000 is highly limited by the way that wards are deliberately broken down into groups of 500-1200. It's almost like an inverse of the Benford's Law situation, since that works because 1 has a much greater opportunity for being the first digit.

It makes sense to me that 5 would be the most common digit if the average ward has about 700 people in an area Biden is expected to take 2/3 of the vote.

---

I wrote a few post about Benford analysis earlier in the thread. One of the things that I tried to make really clear was this exact situation. Benford's law will not work in situations where the data set is bond artificially in a way that would lead to similar results of a first integer. Assuming what bingobango85 stated is accurate, the distribution of first integers of the Milwaukee precincts as was reported on the first page would not seem unusual to me, despite that it does not follow a typical Bendford distribution.

Quote:

---

This isn't in a criminal setting, first off. Don't need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, just a preponderance of the evidence meaning is it more likely than not. It also depends on the type of relief one is requesting from a court.

So a blanket statement that it alone "doesn't prove fraud" is slightly misleading. It is very credible evidence of fraud. But what is the evidence to dispute it?

If it is undisputed? Then it is much more likely than not.

---

Now, I'm not a big city pizza lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that this isn't exactly correct. Yes, I don't think that those bringing suit (plaintiff) would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and the preponderance of the evidence would be the hurdle that would have to be met. However, I just don't think a legal team that is worth anything would loose an argument to a unbiased judge that the Benford analysis alone would substantiate fraud. If the relief that was sought was to be able to "further investigate votes that may have inconsistencies", then I could see that working, assuming that the opposing legal team doesn't make a similar argument to the one above. If the relief is that "these votes are fraudulent and need to be disallowed", there is no way that the Benford analysis alone would carry the burden of proof necessary to potentially disenfranchise those voters. In all of the fraud cases listed in this thread, the Benford analysis was used to point the fraud investigators where to look. After that, they uncovered actual proof of fraud, such as fake invoices, fake vendors, fake expenses, ect. Actual, hard evidence. For that, I would expect evidence like, voters signed affidavit that they did not cast the votes that were made, or that the voters were in fact not actual people or deceased, or incapacitated such that they could not vote. Something like that, not just some statistics.

I pulled this data from the state website as to not deal with unofficial data from twitter or wherever, links provided

Not provided, but I totaled votes based on the NYT website for voter totals

https://elections.wi.gov/node/7220

2020

Wisconsin had 87.9% registered voter turnout
3,684,726 total registered voters, 3,245,599 votes

2016

81.3% voter turn out
3,558,877 total registered voters, 2,894,494 votes

3.5% increase in registered voters and a 6.6% increase in turnout


additional site for voting population data

http://www.electproject.org/home

Wisconsin

2020 Voting eligible population
4,368,530

2016 Voting eligible population
4,285,071

2016 to 2020 gave an increase of 83,459 eligible voters while registration resulted in + 125,849


I haven't delved into other states or further back yet