10
Comments (8)
sorted by:
6
MAGA1775 6 points ago +6 / -0
4
colonial113 4 points ago +4 / -0

I really liked his channel, was subbed. He uploads rarely, but when I saw he jumped on the deboonk bandwagon so quickly (twice, since!) I knew she's shilling. Bit sad, really like Matt.

2
JOHN-PIZZA-PEDOSTA 2 points ago +2 / -0

Checking in to get educated. I've seen some really great arguments for and against this.

3
colonial113 3 points ago +3 / -0

It's because this law is just an indicator. It is not proof, but tells you where to look for fraud first with a high degree of accuracy. Good enough!

2
zerocooltx 2 points ago +2 / -0

youtube keeps promoting those videos to me and i've never seen hi before. I watched the video Even if he is right in that it doesn't apply in some cases that's just an indicator. You would use that law to look into possible fraud. It doesn't necessarily PROVE fraud. There would possibly be some other explanation to explain anomalies.

1
cybertoke [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

i keep getting suggested it even after i finally gave in and watched it

1
IronSpector 1 point ago +1 / -0

Better indication: take all precincts that have over 100 votes and apply benfords law to the second digit of voter turnout.

1
cybertoke [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

not here for hate, but its good to understand why in some cases we can't just rely on local data. For Benfords law, we need larger sample sizes, small districts between 100 and 1000 aprox votes each distribute differently than what is normally expected.

Just so we are aware of this argument against us, and are prepared when some smartass pulls this out, and arent just left with our dick in our hands.