If for some reason Detroit was counting like exactly a batch (or if a precinct has exactly the same number of voters i guess if tgats what they are using) a certain amount every time maybe they could end up with a bell curve around 5 (like if every batch was 700 and Biden was tallying an average if 80%) But its odd then that Trumps data doesn't show a similar bell around the number that would most commonly come up for him by percentage in that case.
Since more people need to see it, evidence of voter fraud
22,530 Views |
142 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by pacecar02
So now we like professors and academia? This board is so confusing...SLAM said:AggieDub14 said:
Bro you're linking 4chan...
Because there is more data there. Holy hell the original tweet is IN THE ****ING POST! The man who did the analysis has a PhD in the field and is a professor.
You people have no leg to stand on at all.
Prime0882 said:So now we like professors and academia? This board is so confusing...SLAM said:AggieDub14 said:
Bro you're linking 4chan...
Because there is more data there. Holy hell the original tweet is IN THE ****ING POST! The man who did the analysis has a PhD in the field and is a professor.
You people have no leg to stand on at all.
My point is that the guy is an expert in the field and isn't just a random person.
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.
You're posting "Proof" from 4Chan???SLAM said:
Benford's law
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford's_law
This statistical distribution can be used to discover all sorts of real world datasets to see if they are fake or real. It's been used in elections in the past and in the financial world.
https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/287767231Quote:
These data are from Milwaukee's various wards. Trump vote totals conform rather well to Benford's law, one of the first things you'd check in trying to determine whether there was fraud. Biden's fail miserably, and, what's more, the frequencies of leading digits for him are virtually symmetric about 5: exactly what you get if these were faked by those ignorant of Benford's law, and wanting to manufacture "average" looking numbers, those that begin with 4,5, or 6.
False debunkings:
>those not understanding the difference between sufficient and necessary conditions
There are plenty of kinds of data sets that are pretty much guaranteed to follow Benford's law. Even if votes in wards aren't one of those kinds, it doesn't mean this isn't anomalous.
>experts say this is useless when it comes to elections
Some do. Some say the opposite. Also, this isn't just a failure of Benford's law, it's a specific kind of failure (symmetric about 5) in an area where voter fraud is already expected.
>there are anomalous results in Trump's favor
Show me one that looks like this, and not like random "noisy" failure, and where voter fraud is already suspected.
Trump's votes follow the distribution while Biden's do not.
Biden's vote distribution looks worse than Enron's Financials.
Another comparison between Trump and Biden
To us and those like us...damn few of us left---
Does that change the math?
Prime0882 said:So now we like professors and academia? This board is so confusing...SLAM said:AggieDub14 said:
Bro you're linking 4chan...
Because there is more data there. Holy hell the original tweet is IN THE ****ING POST! The man who did the analysis has a PhD in the field and is a professor.
You people have no leg to stand on at all.
Statistics, math, business, economics (some, not the Keyenesians).. yes
English, African American studies, anthropology, history, sociology? Not for a second.
It calls into question any validity. Absolutely.ANSC Ag said:
Does that change the math?
To us and those like us...damn few of us left---
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.
You don't have to prove a Georgia. You have to prove Atlanta where the fraud occurred. The governer and supervisor aren't counting ballots at the precincts.
BQ88 said:You're posting "Proof" from 4Chan???SLAM said:
Benford's law
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford's_law
This statistical distribution can be used to discover all sorts of real world datasets to see if they are fake or real. It's been used in elections in the past and in the financial world.
https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/287767231Quote:
These data are from Milwaukee's various wards. Trump vote totals conform rather well to Benford's law, one of the first things you'd check in trying to determine whether there was fraud. Biden's fail miserably, and, what's more, the frequencies of leading digits for him are virtually symmetric about 5: exactly what you get if these were faked by those ignorant of Benford's law, and wanting to manufacture "average" looking numbers, those that begin with 4,5, or 6.
False debunkings:
>those not understanding the difference between sufficient and necessary conditions
There are plenty of kinds of data sets that are pretty much guaranteed to follow Benford's law. Even if votes in wards aren't one of those kinds, it doesn't mean this isn't anomalous.
>experts say this is useless when it comes to elections
Some do. Some say the opposite. Also, this isn't just a failure of Benford's law, it's a specific kind of failure (symmetric about 5) in an area where voter fraud is already expected.
>there are anomalous results in Trump's favor
Show me one that looks like this, and not like random "noisy" failure, and where voter fraud is already suspected.
Trump's votes follow the distribution while Biden's do not.
Biden's vote distribution looks worse than Enron's Financials.
Another comparison between Trump and Biden
Says the poster who can't offer a refutation, only and ad hom.
Says the poster who trolls 4Chan for their news. lolol....at least tune into Fox News. Never thought I'd see 4Chan posted as fact. Perhaps check in with Q?Rittenhouse said:BQ88 said:You're posting "Proof" from 4Chan???SLAM said:
Benford's law
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford's_law
This statistical distribution can be used to discover all sorts of real world datasets to see if they are fake or real. It's been used in elections in the past and in the financial world.
https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/287767231Quote:
These data are from Milwaukee's various wards. Trump vote totals conform rather well to Benford's law, one of the first things you'd check in trying to determine whether there was fraud. Biden's fail miserably, and, what's more, the frequencies of leading digits for him are virtually symmetric about 5: exactly what you get if these were faked by those ignorant of Benford's law, and wanting to manufacture "average" looking numbers, those that begin with 4,5, or 6.
False debunkings:
>those not understanding the difference between sufficient and necessary conditions
There are plenty of kinds of data sets that are pretty much guaranteed to follow Benford's law. Even if votes in wards aren't one of those kinds, it doesn't mean this isn't anomalous.
>experts say this is useless when it comes to elections
Some do. Some say the opposite. Also, this isn't just a failure of Benford's law, it's a specific kind of failure (symmetric about 5) in an area where voter fraud is already expected.
>there are anomalous results in Trump's favor
Show me one that looks like this, and not like random "noisy" failure, and where voter fraud is already suspected.
Trump's votes follow the distribution while Biden's do not.
Biden's vote distribution looks worse than Enron's Financials.
Another comparison between Trump and Biden
Says the poster who can't offer a refutation, only and ad hom.
To us and those like us...damn few of us left---
Charlie Manson said 2+2=4. Should we check that? If the concepts are too complex for you that's understandable. You not understanding and it not being valid are not the same.BQ88 said:It calls into question any validity. Absolutely.ANSC Ag said:
Does that change the math?
If you'd like to look up Benford's law and it's many uses in criminal cases and regulatory processes feel free. By the way, how the **** do you think forensic data analysis works?
BQ88 said:You're posting "Proof" from 4Chan???SLAM said:
Benford's law
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford's_law
This statistical distribution can be used to discover all sorts of real world datasets to see if they are fake or real. It's been used in elections in the past and in the financial world.
https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/287767231Quote:
These data are from Milwaukee's various wards. Trump vote totals conform rather well to Benford's law, one of the first things you'd check in trying to determine whether there was fraud. Biden's fail miserably, and, what's more, the frequencies of leading digits for him are virtually symmetric about 5: exactly what you get if these were faked by those ignorant of Benford's law, and wanting to manufacture "average" looking numbers, those that begin with 4,5, or 6.
False debunkings:
>those not understanding the difference between sufficient and necessary conditions
There are plenty of kinds of data sets that are pretty much guaranteed to follow Benford's law. Even if votes in wards aren't one of those kinds, it doesn't mean this isn't anomalous.
>experts say this is useless when it comes to elections
Some do. Some say the opposite. Also, this isn't just a failure of Benford's law, it's a specific kind of failure (symmetric about 5) in an area where voter fraud is already expected.
>there are anomalous results in Trump's favor
Show me one that looks like this, and not like random "noisy" failure, and where voter fraud is already suspected.
Trump's votes follow the distribution while Biden's do not.
Biden's vote distribution looks worse than Enron's Financials.
Another comparison between Trump and Biden
Hurrrr 4chan just had a thread about it. The original mention of this was Twitter from a PhD in the field, which is in the OP.
Gfy commie and gtfo.
Do you ever feel like Barbarino?
Now this is informed commentary.BigC said:Quote:
AccountantAg said:
I don't understand this, can someone do a benford law for dummies explanation?
Why would a 1 be the most common number?
I use Benford analysis in my job. It is kinda like F=M*A in that it is much harder to explain "why" it works than to just observe that is "does" work. However, I'll try to give an example that helps people somewhat understand it.
Imagine that you are a company and your expenses are comprised primarily of purchase orders. Your purchase orders are typically anywhere from a few hundred dollars up to several thousand dollars depending on what/how much is ordered. Why would the first digit be one more often than any other? Well for every dollar amount that is less than $1,000 ($1-$999) there is the same amount of dollar amounts that start with a "1" ($1,000-$1,999). If you include the "1's" below 1,000 (1, 10-19. 100-199) you get the the number 1 occurs 55.5% of the time if your number set is from 1 to 2,000. As you expand the range, the percentage of "1's" goes down, but doesn't become "equal" until you get to all 9's (9,999). Since data sets typically aren't so defined (i.e values can be "anything") the number "1" as a first digit has an advantage.
This doesn't hold up though if the data set has some sort of non-random bind to it. For example, if you ran this on a company's sales that only sold one product for $499 and sold to retail clients so most people only bought one, the number 4 would probably be the leading number, and it wouldn't be a sign of fraud.
So, while the Benford analysis is quite interesting, it would take some one with a lot (and I mean a lot) of statistical knowledge and governmental knowledge about Wisconsin to determine that wards/precincts are not set up in some way that would lead data sets to generate non-random first integers. Also, verify that the data isn't entered in a way that would cause this (i.e) voter program limits amount of ballots to 500 or 5,000 at once or something.
TLDR: Benford's law is confusing to anyone who doesn't use it/study it extensively (and still confusing to those who do). It doesn't really "prove" fraud, just that there is some reason (potentially fraudulent or not) that is causing a data set to not follow it.
To us and those like us...damn few of us left---
You're calling me a commie? Someone with an Ag Tag and served his country?SLAM said:BQ88 said:You're posting "Proof" from 4Chan???SLAM said:
Benford's law
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford's_law
This statistical distribution can be used to discover all sorts of real world datasets to see if they are fake or real. It's been used in elections in the past and in the financial world.
https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/287767231Quote:
These data are from Milwaukee's various wards. Trump vote totals conform rather well to Benford's law, one of the first things you'd check in trying to determine whether there was fraud. Biden's fail miserably, and, what's more, the frequencies of leading digits for him are virtually symmetric about 5: exactly what you get if these were faked by those ignorant of Benford's law, and wanting to manufacture "average" looking numbers, those that begin with 4,5, or 6.
False debunkings:
>those not understanding the difference between sufficient and necessary conditions
There are plenty of kinds of data sets that are pretty much guaranteed to follow Benford's law. Even if votes in wards aren't one of those kinds, it doesn't mean this isn't anomalous.
>experts say this is useless when it comes to elections
Some do. Some say the opposite. Also, this isn't just a failure of Benford's law, it's a specific kind of failure (symmetric about 5) in an area where voter fraud is already expected.
>there are anomalous results in Trump's favor
Show me one that looks like this, and not like random "noisy" failure, and where voter fraud is already suspected.
Trump's votes follow the distribution while Biden's do not.
Biden's vote distribution looks worse than Enron's Financials.
Another comparison between Trump and Biden
Hurrrr 4chan just had a thread about it. The original mention of this was Twitter from a PhD in the field, which is in the OP.
Gfy commie and gtfo.
This what you do when you disagree with someone?
To us and those like us...damn few of us left---
If Trump gets to check all ballots counted in all swing states, to verify that they are " LEGAL " , I think he will clearly win the election. It looks to me that the Democrat Corrupt Machines were sloppy, just like the Deep State Creatures going after Trump in " Spygate "
I love the Benford analysis.
That being the case, it's easy to see the sloppy fraud the Leftists are trying to pull all over the place.
Hellen Keller can see this and she is long dead and blind....probably voted this year though.
That being the case, it's easy to see the sloppy fraud the Leftists are trying to pull all over the place.
Hellen Keller can see this and she is long dead and blind....probably voted this year though.
BQ88 said:You're calling me a commie? Someone with an Ag Tag and served his country?SLAM said:BQ88 said:You're posting "Proof" from 4Chan???SLAM said:
Benford's law
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford's_law
This statistical distribution can be used to discover all sorts of real world datasets to see if they are fake or real. It's been used in elections in the past and in the financial world.
https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/287767231Quote:
These data are from Milwaukee's various wards. Trump vote totals conform rather well to Benford's law, one of the first things you'd check in trying to determine whether there was fraud. Biden's fail miserably, and, what's more, the frequencies of leading digits for him are virtually symmetric about 5: exactly what you get if these were faked by those ignorant of Benford's law, and wanting to manufacture "average" looking numbers, those that begin with 4,5, or 6.
False debunkings:
>those not understanding the difference between sufficient and necessary conditions
There are plenty of kinds of data sets that are pretty much guaranteed to follow Benford's law. Even if votes in wards aren't one of those kinds, it doesn't mean this isn't anomalous.
>experts say this is useless when it comes to elections
Some do. Some say the opposite. Also, this isn't just a failure of Benford's law, it's a specific kind of failure (symmetric about 5) in an area where voter fraud is already expected.
>there are anomalous results in Trump's favor
Show me one that looks like this, and not like random "noisy" failure, and where voter fraud is already suspected.
Trump's votes follow the distribution while Biden's do not.
Biden's vote distribution looks worse than Enron's Financials.
Another comparison between Trump and Biden
Hurrrr 4chan just had a thread about it. The original mention of this was Twitter from a PhD in the field, which is in the OP.
Gfy commie and gtfo.
This what you do when you disagree with someone?
Yes. If you vote DNC, you're a commie. I don't really care about your past, at all.
Let's see...you joined Texags in May of this year. Welcome! No AgTag...hmmm.SLAM said:BQ88 said:You're calling me a commie? Someone with an Ag Tag and served his country?SLAM said:BQ88 said:You're posting "Proof" from 4Chan???SLAM said:
Benford's law
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford's_law
This statistical distribution can be used to discover all sorts of real world datasets to see if they are fake or real. It's been used in elections in the past and in the financial world.
https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/287767231Quote:
These data are from Milwaukee's various wards. Trump vote totals conform rather well to Benford's law, one of the first things you'd check in trying to determine whether there was fraud. Biden's fail miserably, and, what's more, the frequencies of leading digits for him are virtually symmetric about 5: exactly what you get if these were faked by those ignorant of Benford's law, and wanting to manufacture "average" looking numbers, those that begin with 4,5, or 6.
False debunkings:
>those not understanding the difference between sufficient and necessary conditions
There are plenty of kinds of data sets that are pretty much guaranteed to follow Benford's law. Even if votes in wards aren't one of those kinds, it doesn't mean this isn't anomalous.
>experts say this is useless when it comes to elections
Some do. Some say the opposite. Also, this isn't just a failure of Benford's law, it's a specific kind of failure (symmetric about 5) in an area where voter fraud is already expected.
>there are anomalous results in Trump's favor
Show me one that looks like this, and not like random "noisy" failure, and where voter fraud is already suspected.
Trump's votes follow the distribution while Biden's do not.
Biden's vote distribution looks worse than Enron's Financials.
Another comparison between Trump and Biden
Hurrrr 4chan just had a thread about it. The original mention of this was Twitter from a PhD in the field, which is in the OP.
Gfy commie and gtfo.
This what you do when you disagree with someone?
Yes. If you vote DNC, you're a commie. I don't really care about your past, at all.
I didn't vote DNC, I just disagreed with you, your source, and the way you present arguments. In other words, your intellect.
And it's pretty obvious you don't care about anybody's past, just your own weird agenda from trolling 4 chan.
Honestly, people like you crack me up. You actually argue like a democrat (name calling, making derogatory comments about people you've never met, making assumptions about people/things you know nothing about).
Your character is shining through loud and clear.
To us and those like us...damn few of us left---
Stop quoting mile long posts. Just reply to the loser commie post directly.
BQ88 said:Let's see...you joined Texags in May of this year. Welcome! No AgTag...hmmm.SLAM said:BQ88 said:You're calling me a commie? Someone with an Ag Tag and served his country?SLAM said:BQ88 said:You're posting "Proof" from 4Chan???SLAM said:
Benford's law
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford's_law
This statistical distribution can be used to discover all sorts of real world datasets to see if they are fake or real. It's been used in elections in the past and in the financial world.
https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/287767231Quote:
These data are from Milwaukee's various wards. Trump vote totals conform rather well to Benford's law, one of the first things you'd check in trying to determine whether there was fraud. Biden's fail miserably, and, what's more, the frequencies of leading digits for him are virtually symmetric about 5: exactly what you get if these were faked by those ignorant of Benford's law, and wanting to manufacture "average" looking numbers, those that begin with 4,5, or 6.
False debunkings:
>those not understanding the difference between sufficient and necessary conditions
There are plenty of kinds of data sets that are pretty much guaranteed to follow Benford's law. Even if votes in wards aren't one of those kinds, it doesn't mean this isn't anomalous.
>experts say this is useless when it comes to elections
Some do. Some say the opposite. Also, this isn't just a failure of Benford's law, it's a specific kind of failure (symmetric about 5) in an area where voter fraud is already expected.
>there are anomalous results in Trump's favor
Show me one that looks like this, and not like random "noisy" failure, and where voter fraud is already suspected.
Trump's votes follow the distribution while Biden's do not.
Biden's vote distribution looks worse than Enron's Financials.
Another comparison between Trump and Biden
Hurrrr 4chan just had a thread about it. The original mention of this was Twitter from a PhD in the field, which is in the OP.
Gfy commie and gtfo.
This what you do when you disagree with someone?
Yes. If you vote DNC, you're a commie. I don't really care about your past, at all.
I didn't vote DNC, I just disagreed with you, your source, and the way you present arguments. In other words, your intellect.
And it's pretty obvious you don't care about anybody's past, just your own weird agenda from trolling 4 chan.
Honestly, people like you crack me up. You actually argue like a democrat (name calling, making derogatory comments about people you've never met, making assumptions about people/things you know nothing about).
Your character is shining through loud and clear.
Sounds like I hit a nerve huh communist?
Ttt
GE said:
What is the "tally" number that the first digit thing is referring to?
It's the first digit in the number. For example, the tally for 12345 would go into the 1 "bin" while 54321 would go in the 5 tally "bin".
For some vaguely understood reason, real data has a 1 in the first bin approximately 30% of the time.
I generally understand the concept, just wasn't sure 1) what the numbers that the first digit was taken from were intended to represent and 2) what population characteristics are necessary for Binfords law to applydepriest1022 said:GE said:
What is the "tally" number that the first digit thing is referring to?
It's the first digit in the number. For example, the tally for 12345 would go into the 1 "bin" while 54321 would go in the 5 tally "bin".
For some vaguely understood reason, real data has a 1 in the first bin approximately 30% of the time.
GE said:I generally understand the concept, just wasn't sure 1) what the numbers that the first digit was taken from were intended to represent and 2) what population characteristics are necessary for Binfords law to applydepriest1022 said:GE said:
What is the "tally" number that the first digit thing is referring to?
It's the first digit in the number. For example, the tally for 12345 would go into the 1 "bin" while 54321 would go in the 5 tally "bin".
For some vaguely understood reason, real data has a 1 in the first bin approximately 30% of the time.
Sorry. "I think" if you have a data set that doesn't conform due to constraints in the distribution, you can observe the first non-zero digit in the mantissa of the log10. I haven't looked at this in a while though.
More graphs from Milwaukee. Every candidate follows the distribution except for Biden whose is hilariously off.
Here is a rigged Iranian election:
They had one obvious fake. Biden's is so far off the mark that it's just pure fantasy.
They had one obvious fake. Biden's is so far off the mark that it's just pure fantasy.
SLAM said:
More graphs from Milwaukee. Every candidate follows the distribution except for Biden whose is hilariously off.
Chicago:
Of this data is brought to a court... how do they handle it?
It's obviously a sham.
It's obviously a sham.
Can anyone here validate the numbers underlying the graphs?
Is there a way to look at 2016 and 2012 for these same places to show that the law holds for Hillary and Obama but not Joe? That would be telling.SLAM said:
Chicago:
Probably, most places have election data going back years. I don't see why you couldn't do this.GE said:Is there a way to look at 2016 and 2012 for these same places to show that the law holds for Hillary and Obama but not Joe? That would be telling.SLAM said:
Chicago:
Featured Stories
See All
LIVE: No. 13 Texas A&M at South Carolina
by Luke Evangelist
68:03
8h ago
3.9k
Presenting Texas Aggies United's 'Florida Slam Dunk' Sweepstakes!
by Texas Aggies United
Keys to the Game: No. 13 Texas A&M at South Carolina
by Luke Evangelist