Thank you for posting this. Can you please tell me what your data source is? I ran 1400 districts in michigan and couldn’t find anomalies but that’s far from the whole state
Edit: also did you do first or second digit analysis
Thanks. Did you calculate the data yourself? I’m interested in what a 2nd digit analysis would look like.
I’m no expert, all i know about this i learned tonight, but from what i read , voting districts in large cities may require 2nd digit analysis. This is because they tend to be divided into similar population blocks. For example i analyzed the city of detroit, and the ‘1’ digit was like 70% , most likely because their precincts are divided into population blocks of a similar size. I’m 100% not shitting on your effort i just wonder what 2nd digit analysis would look like, but if they did something like add 100 to a bunch of districts that might conceal the fraud from 2nd digit analysis
Second digit would be evenly distributed, the non-even distribution only occurs on the first digit because the large distances between logarithmic "steps"
What is important is the extreme difference in the characteristics of Biden's numbers versus ALL of the other candidates.
It is more important to put effort into making those differences as visible as possible than putting effort into proving Benford law type violations.
There can be legitimate reasons why the data would violate Benford's law that are not fraud.
There is no legitimate reason for one candidates numbers have different fundamental data characteristics.
There are many more tools beyond Benford's law that indicate fraud. Showing Biden's numbers violate or show signs of those additionally versus the other candidates would be more useful.
You nailed it! It doesn't matter if the precincts are small or the same rough pattern would've been observed for all candidates. The fact that Biden's votes are the only votes symmetric about 5 tells a very damming story to anyone who knows data analysis. FRAUD!
This is incredible. Thank you pede!! Amazing people we have here. This infographic is the best explanation I've seen and now you have your data in git form? My man
Maybe you should include others for comparison: pedojoe's votes in some state where it most definitely fraud didn't happen, like pick the reddest state biggest city, pedojoe's votes in California, where he wouldn't feel the need of cheating etc.
So we can hammer the anomaly exactly in time and place.
Thank you for this explanation, pede. I understand the underlying premise of Benford's law, but it was unclear to me specifically what data was being referenced as running afoul of Benford's law.
Without a question there is still mass voter fraud, but I am gonna push back against this. I think Benford's law is being misapplied here
For Benford's law to work, the data needs to spread across more than an order of magnitude.
In Milwaukee, most of the precincts had 600-1500 votes and Biden generally ranged from 50-95% of the vote. So the range of his votes generally clumped between 300 and 1400. This range does not spread across an order of magnitude so it violates curve. There are too few precincts low enough to be in the 200's and few where it is high enough to be in the 2000's so the number 2 is underrepresented. But not due to fraud, but due to too short of a range
Trump generally received 5-50% of the vote, so his general range was between 30 and 750 votes. Because this spreads along a range that goes beyond an order of magnitude, this follows the curve.
Democrats likely proportionally applied the ballots that they harvested to each precinct. If the fake votes get eliminated, the true Biden range will probably be between 250 and 1200 votes, and the curve will still violate Benford's law.
Benford's law is too specific for what is going on here. Benford's law is just one of many ways for data to show signs of fraud. What is fundamentally important is Biden's data is showing clear characteristics that none of the other candidates are. It could be just Benford's law, it could be other forms of human intervention where they are doing a bad job of spreading excess vote counts around because humans are terrible at faking random sequences, or combinations of these, or something else.
All that matters is getting the evidence out that Biden's numbers in battleground states are showing fraudulent characteristics that NONE of the other candidates are.
In case it helps anyone else understand. No matter if a county counts 100 1,000 or 10,000 votes, that would be a 1, this is why the first digit follows the pattern described, you start at 1 so there will be more of them, if the count climbs in the 1000s then 1 is passed again but 9 is not passed until right before you get to the 10ks. Therefore there will be more counties with votes starting with 1 than 9 if you have a large sample size and it's organic. Looking at Bidens numbers there are way more 5s than 2s for example. This is because if they need more biden votes they say to fill out 500 or 5000 more for biden that will mess up the organic-ness of this pattern.
like why would they follow that exact curve. all this number organising sounds like some nostradamus random prophecy. like so far this sounds like a made up conspiracy theory that the people who invented knew would sound really dumb to the average person so it would just discredit other real evidence.
like are you sure this is real stuff? because it would look 10times more wacky to be wrong about this than to be wrong on anything else like old people voting or etc.
to be sure we need to see ALL STATES and if there are irregularities even within republican states, then we can note that yes there are some random irregularities occuring, or maybe that place was cheated by republicans.
we need all this because if no other place there are irregularities, while examining literally ALL, then we can safely assume that the irregulars are fake. so far we just found irregulars, but until we see all states this is no proof at all.
I want to leave this here because this is really interesting. Here is a science journal actually using Benford's Law to verify COVID-19 reported cases in China. It is quite technical, but the overview can be grasped.
You can even see in Trump's totals on his bar graph, a suggestion of when the votes would have been physically taken from GEOTUS and added to Pedo's totals
The fundamental reason this happens is, if you pick a random number between 1 and 11, you're twice as likely for the leading digit to be 1 compared to any other number. If it's between 1 and 12, 1 or 2 are twice as likely.
The glue that holds it together, is lower numbers are slightly more probable than higher numbers.
I wonder if there is any value looking at the numbers in non-decimal numbering systems.
I'm sure someones on it but this needs to be sent to the Trump Team
I agree Trump's team does need to see this. If mods sticky, it will be seen.
u/Shadowman3001 u/Ivaginaryfriend u/Doggos u/CovfefeBucks u/zettapede u/pray_for_kekistan u/Katfish29
Better than any "secret watermark." Like a natural checksum.
Yo dawg I heard you like SCIENCE
Only the checksum is more for data integrity. Not validity. HUGE difference.
Thank you for posting this. Can you please tell me what your data source is? I ran 1400 districts in michigan and couldn’t find anomalies but that’s far from the whole state
Edit: also did you do first or second digit analysis
https://github.com/cjph8914/2020_benfords/
Thanks. Did you calculate the data yourself? I’m interested in what a 2nd digit analysis would look like.
I’m no expert, all i know about this i learned tonight, but from what i read , voting districts in large cities may require 2nd digit analysis. This is because they tend to be divided into similar population blocks. For example i analyzed the city of detroit, and the ‘1’ digit was like 70% , most likely because their precincts are divided into population blocks of a similar size. I’m 100% not shitting on your effort i just wonder what 2nd digit analysis would look like, but if they did something like add 100 to a bunch of districts that might conceal the fraud from 2nd digit analysis
Biden's most frequent last two numbers are 00 lol.
If they seriously look for fraud, they will find it.
Second digit would be evenly distributed, the non-even distribution only occurs on the first digit because the large distances between logarithmic "steps"
Data repo can be found here: https://github.com/cjph8914/2020_benfords/
Finding unevenly distributed 2nd digits could be valuable then?
What is important is the extreme difference in the characteristics of Biden's numbers versus ALL of the other candidates.
It is more important to put effort into making those differences as visible as possible than putting effort into proving Benford law type violations.
There can be legitimate reasons why the data would violate Benford's law that are not fraud.
There is no legitimate reason for one candidates numbers have different fundamental data characteristics.
There are many more tools beyond Benford's law that indicate fraud. Showing Biden's numbers violate or show signs of those additionally versus the other candidates would be more useful.
You nailed it! It doesn't matter if the precincts are small or the same rough pattern would've been observed for all candidates. The fact that Biden's votes are the only votes symmetric about 5 tells a very damming story to anyone who knows data analysis. FRAUD!
Worth a shot!
This is incredible. Thank you pede!! Amazing people we have here. This infographic is the best explanation I've seen and now you have your data in git form? My man
Excellent.
Maybe you should include others for comparison: pedojoe's votes in some state where it most definitely fraud didn't happen, like pick the reddest state biggest city, pedojoe's votes in California, where he wouldn't feel the need of cheating etc.
So we can hammer the anomaly exactly in time and place.
TFW the cheating in California dwarfs any other state it is compared to
Thanks! I was trying to find data to see what the LA chart looks like. Guess I'll wait.
Numberwise, yeah I'll concede that.
In relative terms, no. CA has enough dumbasses just like that, really.
good idea
South Dakota would be a good start. Or WV
Thank you for this explanation, pede. I understand the underlying premise of Benford's law, but it was unclear to me specifically what data was being referenced as running afoul of Benford's law.
This was the same problem I was having so I'm glad to see this cleared up.
Thanks from me too
This is incredible.
Regular M&Ms if true.
Without a question there is still mass voter fraud, but I am gonna push back against this. I think Benford's law is being misapplied here
For Benford's law to work, the data needs to spread across more than an order of magnitude.
In Milwaukee, most of the precincts had 600-1500 votes and Biden generally ranged from 50-95% of the vote. So the range of his votes generally clumped between 300 and 1400. This range does not spread across an order of magnitude so it violates curve. There are too few precincts low enough to be in the 200's and few where it is high enough to be in the 2000's so the number 2 is underrepresented. But not due to fraud, but due to too short of a range
Trump generally received 5-50% of the vote, so his general range was between 30 and 750 votes. Because this spreads along a range that goes beyond an order of magnitude, this follows the curve.
Democrats likely proportionally applied the ballots that they harvested to each precinct. If the fake votes get eliminated, the true Biden range will probably be between 250 and 1200 votes, and the curve will still violate Benford's law.
I agree and disagree.
Benford's law is too specific for what is going on here. Benford's law is just one of many ways for data to show signs of fraud. What is fundamentally important is Biden's data is showing clear characteristics that none of the other candidates are. It could be just Benford's law, it could be other forms of human intervention where they are doing a bad job of spreading excess vote counts around because humans are terrible at faking random sequences, or combinations of these, or something else.
All that matters is getting the evidence out that Biden's numbers in battleground states are showing fraudulent characteristics that NONE of the other candidates are.
Nice infographic
Dang, wish I thought of using Benford's law!
STICKY THIS!!!
^ u/Faffz
God bless you. I am one of the people who needed this. :)
https://youtu.be/7uhAn19V1EY. This video explains it just as well.
Great link!
Perfect. Thanks. More evidence Joe cheated.
Thank you Pede.
Let’s get a sticky on this! Spread it to normie land and get it to Trump!!!!
Agreed! Message the mods
In case it helps anyone else understand. No matter if a county counts 100 1,000 or 10,000 votes, that would be a 1, this is why the first digit follows the pattern described, you start at 1 so there will be more of them, if the count climbs in the 1000s then 1 is passed again but 9 is not passed until right before you get to the 10ks. Therefore there will be more counties with votes starting with 1 than 9 if you have a large sample size and it's organic. Looking at Bidens numbers there are way more 5s than 2s for example. This is because if they need more biden votes they say to fill out 500 or 5000 more for biden that will mess up the organic-ness of this pattern.
eli5 might be too complicated, need an eli2.
like why would they follow that exact curve. all this number organising sounds like some nostradamus random prophecy. like so far this sounds like a made up conspiracy theory that the people who invented knew would sound really dumb to the average person so it would just discredit other real evidence.
like are you sure this is real stuff? because it would look 10times more wacky to be wrong about this than to be wrong on anything else like old people voting or etc.
to be sure we need to see ALL STATES and if there are irregularities even within republican states, then we can note that yes there are some random irregularities occuring, or maybe that place was cheated by republicans.
we need all this because if no other place there are irregularities, while examining literally ALL, then we can safely assume that the irregulars are fake. so far we just found irregulars, but until we see all states this is no proof at all.
Benford's law is a well established law in statistics, it's been around forever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law
I want to leave this here because this is really interesting. Here is a science journal actually using Benford's Law to verify COVID-19 reported cases in China. It is quite technical, but the overview can be grasped.
Benford’s Law and COVID-19 reporting
I love the analysis. To pre-counter the naysayers, what do you say about the conclusions in this article (Wikipedia reference):
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/political-analysis/article/benfords-law-and-the-detection-of-election-fraud/3B1D64E822371C461AF3C61CE91AAF6D
But also found arguments for it.... https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Berber+Bernd+and+Scacco+Alexandra+.+2008.+What+the+numbers+say:+A+digit+based+test+for+election+fraud+using+new+data+from+Nigeria.+Paper+presented+at+the+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Am.+Political+Science+Association+Boston+MA+August+28-31.#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DzCBVDaR-LkUJ
Good stuff. Sharing this with others.
You can even see in Trump's totals on his bar graph, a suggestion of when the votes would have been physically taken from GEOTUS and added to Pedo's totals
Another ELI5, if I'm interpreting this correctly:
The fundamental reason this happens is, if you pick a random number between 1 and 11, you're twice as likely for the leading digit to be 1 compared to any other number. If it's between 1 and 12, 1 or 2 are twice as likely.
The glue that holds it together, is lower numbers are slightly more probable than higher numbers.
I wonder if there is any value looking at the numbers in non-decimal numbering systems.