Michigan will go red: Benford's law proves unilateral fraud in Detroit beyond a reasonable doubt
(media.patriots.win)
🛑 STOP THE STEAL 🛑
Comments (50)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
I totally agree but is there any way we can prove it and cancel fraudulent votes? Will statistics alone allow for an audit?
The key takeaway from the graphic is that only Biden's votes violate Benford's law, as Trump's votes follow Benford's law to a tee. Benford's law will be used to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was voter fraud in certain areas (Milwaukee, Detriot, Philadelphia, and Allegheny). Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania will be red and Trump will get the corresponding 46 electoral votes.
If nothing else, I hope shows a closer look is warranted.
I haven’t seen the usual “this is why Benfords law being wrong is great!” Articles from the left. Have they attempted this yet?
They edited the wikipedia article on it within hours.
Including citations from 2010 Articles (on Iranian Voting no less) as to why this method can be considered flawed.
Just like their citations that "prove" that white supremacists are responsible for the majority of terror attacks.
Probably because they can't disprove it
On r/politics they had a post showing how Biden is within the law. I didn't dig too much into it but it's probably still there
the journalists would need to understand math to do so, but if they understood math they wouldn't be journalists haha
It shows that its sus. That combined with zombie votes, no poll watchers, etc will make more sus.
Right but there's a difference between suspicious and judges willing to say "yes, we should do something like roll back vote count to everything counted by X and remove all counted after" or anything of that nature.
Which the only solution for that is a rollback. You'd need judges with the balls to say "sorry but the elections board fucked you over and your vote, if counted after this period, isn't going to count. None of them will"
I don't think so. I'm not a lawyer, but I feel like this would have to be apart of a broader case. The case would have to be focused around specifically when those votes were added, where they came from and who they went to. They'd need more detail around the ballots, and I think data like this is supplemental evidence. While mathematically improbable, impossible, I think there needs to be more to support a case like this.
I'd be interested to hear how the IRS has used the rule to litigate in the past as well as the election that was challenged using this method. This rule/methodology seems like it's the starting point of investigation. You're looking for patterns. Well, the patter in there, now what?
This is incredibly damning, but it feels like grounds for a warrant, not the smoking gun. It's basically the metal detector beeping saying you've found something, now go dig it up.
I'm starting to like this Benford guy.
I'd be curious to see the charts next to the senate race chart, like the Wisconsin one. I have a very hard time believing so many people voted only for Biden and no down ballot people at all. Super sketchy.
Can someone explain this better. I don’t understand.
If you had access to all the purchases made in a city made in one day and made it into a list:
-$1.43 someone bought gum
-$20.99 someone bought an umbrella
-$7.12 someone bought a burger
-$4.50 someone bought a coffee
and so on, you would have a list of a million numbers.
If you take the first digit of each of those numbers, you will see most of them start with the digit "1", then next most start with the digit "2", then "3", etc. It's just a strange property of large groups of random numbers, but it holds very strongly.
The same can be applied to vote tallies, which behave in the same random way and there are a lot of these numbers. So most of the vote tallies should start with the digit "1" (152 votes, 1094 votes, 17492 votes), and then 2 and then 3, etc. Every candidate in this election's results follow this law, except for Biden's. The only way this can happen is if human beings are manipulating his numbers, making them not random.
I hope that helps?
Hell, you could even just tell them to look at their bank account. One way or another, most of the purchases being with a 1 or 2. There are of course outliers, but that is what makes it natural. If you take a look at each state where Joe Biden has "miraculously" taken the lead, you'll notice that the numbers for each are stupidly similar in the most of the state. They're too uniform, and they completely disregard Benford's law.
Proving it will take all the evidence we can gather, and thankfully the Democrats are idiots who can't even cheat correctly. We've got more than enough evidence to stick it to them.
haha, that's not a good example because the price tag uses a lot of 9 or 4.
It's more like counting numbers or counting units. The number has to be roughly by random (uniform) over 0 to 9.
You don’t get it.
Benford's law is based on the starting digit only. Does not involve the .99 cents.
No, the entire point of Benford's law is that it's not a uniform distribution.
It’s a counter intuitive property of large data sets of random numbers. Consider this thought experiment: start counting up from 1 and pay attention to how many numbers you have counted start with a 1.
Count to 10, two of the ten numbers start with 1. Now double is and count to 20, about 50% start with 1. Count to 100 and the percentage starts dropping. Now to 200, shit it’s going up again. Slowly drops as you approach 1000, and then spikes up again to 2000. This cycle repeats infinitely. Most of the time 1 has a higher likely hood of showing up.
Mathematicians have analyzed this property and concluded that in a random data set you can expect 1/3 of your data points to start with 1.
To add:
The "distance" between 1 and 2 is "1". If you look how much of the initial number the distance is it is 100%. (1 out of 1 is 100%).
Now if you look at the distance between 2 and 3. It's also "1". But how much of the initial number (2) is this 1? It's 50% (1 out of 2 is 50%).
This goes up to the distance between 9 and 10. Again the distance is "1", but it's now only 1/9 of the initial number, so roughly 11%.
So you unintuitively need more "steps" to cross the distance from 1 to 2 compared to 9 and 10. This results in the observed behaviour that follows the law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXjlR2OK1kM&ab_channel=Numberphile
I've googled Benford's law, and as near as I can tell, at best, there is debate about whether it can prove corruption or not. I'm not a stats guy, but an engineer, and my take on this is that it might be able to be used to help highlight areas that are suspect, but we will have to prove actual fraud for it to holdup in court. There are too many experts that can argue for or against it.
From what I've heard, Benford's Law is admissible in court. Look at Enron's numbers in upper left corner. Biden's are way crazier.
Also Wikipedia changed the article on Benford's Law a couple of days ago to say that it's debatable. Screenshot was posted on TDW recently.
P.S. engineering is awesome. I wish I had the brain for it.
I didn't go to wikipedia, I just found a few papers, one from England, and one from a US university... From what I understand, it's more applicable to financial numbers, and the reason for the law makes sense to me there...but for vote counting ... maybe it would work if election wards are randomly distributed, but if a city breaks wards up into 1000 registered voters, most votes turned in would be 600 or so (60% turn out rate) so that would mean anywhere from 100-600 for each candidate. In a City, you assume 60% for the D, so that would mean most votes reported would begin with a 4.
Anyway, I'm not disputing Benfords Law...I really have not yet done research to go one way or other...I'm just saying that I doubt this is the smoking gun, it's more like a magnifying glass that helps us to find the areas of concern.
Is there any anectodal reason why 2 is very low and 5 is very high? For example, in number 8 (wealthy) is picked in Chinese culture for something fraudulent.
I've seen the benford's law mentioned before, but I'm confused. What data is being used here? Reported votes, absentee ballots requested?
10 was based the whole time.
it's going to take the supreme court to resolve this
https://youtu.be/7uhAn19V1EY
I hesitate to upvote this since it’s at 1776 upvotes, but to hell with it, let’s advance to 1777 and win Saratoga.
We have the evidence. What in law will give us justice?
There should be enough standard of proof to start a fraud investigation.
waaaaaay too many 4, 5, 6, 7. Just like a human would do when making up numbers and trying to appear random