B E N F O R D ' S
L A W
Biden's ballots are as fake as the SUPPRESSION POLLS. Don't fall for this phase of their garbage fake-as-shit plot. They lost Pennsylvania, a state that is 59% non-college white (even fake news admits that they go overwhelmingly for Trump) that was impossible for Biden to win without rigging (always votes the same as Ohio, its "Rust Belt" state neighbor).
Biden (in his senile phase) said the silent part out loud in the debate and insulted 6.5 million energy workers by saying he would ban Fracking and Coal, the bedrock of their economy. These "ballot dumps" after 4pm are absolutely blatantly fake, as GEOTUS is saying. They will laugh at you and treat you like dogshit if they blatantly rigged a state that was going to go overwhelmingly for Trump like this. You'll be powerless from now on should they get away with finessing and brainwashing you to this extent.
No wonder Biden never had rallies with an actual audience in the state. He wasn't worried, even after he insulted their entire economy. They didn't even knock on doors or do ANY "get out to vote" efforts until 2 days before the election (just to check that box).
If Trump's 80 million voters all rise up and SPEAK OUT, it is impossible for them to get away with this phase of the coup d'état.
IMPOSSIBLE, meaning zero percent chance (the same probability that Biden won Pennsylvania).
Literally had a simp at work go on his phone at lunch and come back thirty minutes later with a msm article from this morning trying to disprove it. I took auditing in university, Benford is day one simple shit. Professor literally said “Benford is the smoke you need to find the fire.” His MI graph looks like a Somalian tax return.
Always has been.
Fortunately, the media portrayal of a fair election doesn't mean jack-shit.
The experts who go before the court to testify will rely upon time tested methods for identifying and cataloguing fraud.
There is a reason Wikipedia isn't considered an "academic source"
From wikipedia (note, I did have to specifically search wikipedia, whereas it's usually the top of the heap):
Election data Walter Mebane, a political scientist and statistician at the University of Michigan, was the first to apply the second-digit Benford's law-test (2BL-test) in election forensics.[34] Such analyses are considered a simple, though not foolproof, method of identifying irregularities in election results and helping to detect electoral fraud.[35] A 2011 study by the political scientists Joseph Deckert, Mikhail Myagkov, and Peter C. Ordeshook argued that Benford's law is problematic and misleading as a statistical indicator of election fraud.[36] Their method was criticized by Mebane in a response, though he agreed that there are many caveats to the application of Benford's law to election data.[37]
Benford's law has been used as evidence of fraud in the 2009 Iranian elections.[38] An analysis by Mebane found that the second digits in vote counts for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the winner of the election, tended to differ significantly from the expectations of Benford's law, and that the ballot boxes with very few invalid ballots had a greater influence on the results, suggesting widespread ballot stuffing.[39] Another study used bootstrap simulations to find that the candidate Mehdi Karroubi received almost twice as many vote counts beginning with the digit 7 as would be expected according to Benford's law,[40] while an analysis from the University of Columbia concluded that the probability that a fair election would produce both too few non-adjacent digits and the suspicious deviations in last-digit frequencies as found in the 2009 Iranian presidential election is less than 0.5 per cent.[41] Benford's law has also been applied for forensic auditing and fraud detection on data from the 2003 California gubernatorial election,[42] the 2000 and 2004 United States presidential elections,[43] and the 2009 German federal election;[44] the Benford's Law Test was found to be "worth taking seriously as a statistical test for fraud," although "is not sensitive to distortions we know significantly affected many votes."[43][further explanation needed]
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.[45]
Thank you, pede. I give this article one more day before the crackdown. We all know this.
Reminder that our side has a completely archived and controlled copy of Wikipedia:
https://infogalactic.com/info/Benford%27s_law
Edit: They could use more editors and promotion as well, if any pedes are willing to contribute.
I'm glad we still have books.
I don't know anything about benfords law, but I saw 2 scientific papers basically saying it's not reliable for proof of election fraud