1: Detroit: This is where there was a literal cover up of the absentee ballot counting process. Apparently there are 174,000 ballots that cannot be tracked to registered voters. The vote totals from Detroit Precincts fail to conform to Benford’s law. Dominion is used to count the votes in Wayne County (Detroit).
2: Shiawassee: This is where the zero was “accidently” added to Joe Biden’s total resulting in 153,710 votes for Biden. Once people realized this error, the additional 138,339 votes were subtracted from Biden’s total. However the 138,339 votes were added back to Biden’s total in the wee hours of the morning. Dominion is used to count the votes in Shiawassee.
Please for the love of God, let's stop talking about the Benford's Law. It makes us look stupid.
If you spend 5 minutes reading about it, you see that it only applies to quantities with multiple orders of magnitude.
The number of votes in different precincts do not fall into that category.
It's almost as bad as that idiocy of the quadrillion chance that they put in the Texas lawsuit.
It's almost as bad as that idiocy of the quadrillion chance that they put in the Texas lawsuit.
That was a big oof, not sure why they bothered since the claims in that case didn't really require it. I guess they got some good mileage on TV saying "a quadrillion! that's a 1 with 15 zeroes! ain't that a big number!!".
You did not watch the video. He accuses Trump of fraud based on Trump's secondary and tertiary digits following Benford's law, and Biden's not. Take a look at 14:11. Doesn't that seem something odd?
If we don't challenge their bullshit, we accept their bullshit.
Regardless, if your point is that it is balls and courage are needed to win, then I agree.
It's been known since around the time that Benford came up with the law that it doesn't work for things like precinct numbers. They aren't random and they aren't on a large scale.
Think about how they even try to split some precincts up into near equal voting total expectations. How is Benford's Law going to apply when you guess that 50000 votes will be cast and split that into 90 precincts? 100% chance 5 will be the most common number then.
If every ballot had a unique identifying number and they went and created fake ballots... you'd actually probably still get Benford's Law to apply there since no way they would manually create the unique ID for those fake ballots but simply generate it and take their chances of a duplicate.
He claims that because we are not dealing with several orders of magnitudes, Benford's law does not apply.
I see the point. Most results are in the hundreds. A few in the 10 and a few in the thousands. That is the precincts were created to all be of similar size.
But what about the second numbers and following?
But Benfords law applies to the second numbers and following digits as well. He mentions that himself.
And then at 14:11 he totally torches himself. Trumps last two digits are in line with Benford's Laws (I like how he acts like this is evidence of Trump's fraud lol) where are Biden's are similar to the random generated Pi digit pairs.
BUT AGAIN. I REPEAT. HE IS ACCUSING TRUMP OF FRAUD!
So why does your claimed source accuse Trump of election fraud? Do you still stand by this turkey? Or is this just part of some disinformation campaign you are running? I'd really like some answers. Do you think Trump committed election fraud? If so, why not just come out and say it. If not, then why are you linking to such bullshit artists?
Benford's law is a statement about the first digit, not the last two digits. At that point he's talking about a different "law" that has an even distribution given certain conditions.
He doesn't actually say Trump committed fraud, it's an act to showcase that an "anomalous" result given a certain "law" is NOT proof of fraud once you actually take a closer look and figure out the "law" is not applicable. I guess you closed the video before he explained why Trump's result is actually completely expected and not proof of any anomaly... which he did like a minute later.
I knew absolutely nothing of Benford's law before this post. I am just telling you he said subsequent digits followed the law as well. If he is wrong about that, then I retract my claim.
I clearly see the point that Benford's does not apply if you have all numbers only between 100-999. As it would make lotteries impossible. Or give premium to betting on numbers between 100-199.
I can explain it. It is not complicated.
Benfords law just looks at the first digit of the numbers and then we expect to see a certain distribution of first digit numbers. This can be used in almost all situations of naturally occuring numbers.
The problem is that these are not naturally occuring numbers. These are precincts with around 500-1000 votes each.
Biden has an average of 500 votes in the precincts. This means that most votes will have 4, 5 and 6 as the first digit. This is expected when we know how the data looks. But Benfords law predicts that this shouldn't happen. This is because you can't use Benfords law on this dataset.
The reason Trump looks to be following BL is because his votes in these precincts are around 100, so he gets a lot of 1's, etc. as predicted by BL.
We have 10000s instances of fraud but this BL analysis is just not it. Seriously,
Y'all have got to stop posting this stupid data analysis "proof". This is the type of stuff that makes us look idiotic and grasping at straws.
Data anomalies ARE NOT PROOF, you can not take this stuff to court and say "see, look this math thing says it is highly improbable for this to occur". Either fucking put up or shutup, proof is tangible, real occurrence that can be proven without a shadow of a doubt. Statistical analysis ain't the way.
Y'all need to learn introspection, this is some Bernie-bro level "PHONE BANK MATCH ME!!!!" cringe shit.
The main issue is that this particular dataset (voting results from precincts of very similar size) is not a valid candidate for BL analysis.
Financial data, which will have values over multiple orders of magnitude, is an excellent candidate. But even so, it's not proof. However, it can be a powerful indicator to justify a deeper dive.
Continuing to promote BL for precinct-level data just makes us look dumb and provides clickbait to the left.
Considering I actually have forensic accounting in my background.... no, that's not how it works.
You use anomalies to dig further and find proof. You have something like Benford's that highlights a problem. "Hey, look at this, something screwy". Then you start digging to find the anomalies, and audit from there. Audits are where the discovery comes from, and that is what allows you to find proof.
The key difference here is that, as said before, y'all are grasping at straws saying "LOOK AT THIS PROOF". This isn't proof, it is highlighting the need to do a deep dive and FIND proof. When you present data analysis alone as concrete evidence and it is then (expectedly, I might add) tossed in the garbage at court, y'all get all surprised Pikachu face, even though literally every lawyer with a podcast and YouTube channel knew it was coming.
Couldn't they have leveraged these analyses as probable cause to get subpoenas for further investigation? Always puzzled me why they didn't. Asking for the moon with just "data analyses" that haven't even been cross-examined was always going to go down in flames.
It's utter stupidity to think an anomaly is proof positive enough for court. Insane. Anomalies are and always will be just enough to give cause to further investigate.
Law enforcement get warrants issued based on anomalies... they wouldn't just immediately charge the suspect and go to trial with just that base anomaly (unless they suck at their job).
There is “statistical” and “physical”evidence. It’s usually brought up in court that way as well. Hopefully the statistical let’s you get the physical via warrants.
For instance, say there was an accident. It’s “likely” if there were only two cars on the area in a given time, that one or both were involved. It’s so probable that we can get a warrant or at least reasonably investigate (given resource constraints).
If instead one million cars were on the area, we’d have to narrow the search region. It’s probably most cars were not involved.
In this real case related to voter fraud, the statistical evidence is extremely odd. Making it so unlikely, that everyone should do a manual hand recount of all the ballots
You need to see my other post, and not surprisingly the truth is downvoted to shit because it is a hard truth that nobody wants to hear.
Data analysis points to anomalies, NOBODY is arguing that. However, those anomalies should be taken to the local level and get an immediate injunction/audit approval by whoever the governing body is. Newsflash, that IS NOT the court system, it is city council/aldermen/municipal supervisors/etc.
And there lies the rub..... we don't have a chance in hell going through the system by the book because there isn't a single major municipal city run by Republicans. We have become so fucking complacent and lazy at the local government level over the last 40 years that the enemy has literally taken over every single level of politics in every major city.
Stop thinking the courts are going to solve this, they aren't.
And yet if this data is presented to a court system to show that it points to anomalies, the courts should make those municipalities follow through in the investigation that data is laying the ground for.
And you expect major cities to vote for anything sensible, and not just ratchets offering gimme dats? Why not try to lasso the moon down while you're at it?
I think its simply the burden of proof requirement to show probable cause, but never enough on its own to prove beyond reasonable doubt. I would note that typically data analysis is used to show anomalies worth looking into, and then a proper investigation is conducted on everything involved. In this case, no such accompanying investigation has occurred, and I think we're quickly realizing there really is no proper remedy to find electoral fraud.
What I mean is simple: If there is fraud, who do you report this to? The same authorities that conducted said fraud? The Legislators, with split power and high incentive NOT to vote in favour of an investigation? The Courts? Even better, you have to typically file your lawsuit in the State Capitol, with the judges appointed by the State Legislature & Executive! The whole system is messed up, and we genuinely need to figure out a way to conduct independent verification of electoral results, without having to go through such conflicts of interests at least.
Michigan had two major incidents of voter fraud
1: Detroit: This is where there was a literal cover up of the absentee ballot counting process. Apparently there are 174,000 ballots that cannot be tracked to registered voters. The vote totals from Detroit Precincts fail to conform to Benford’s law. Dominion is used to count the votes in Wayne County (Detroit).
2: Shiawassee: This is where the zero was “accidently” added to Joe Biden’s total resulting in 153,710 votes for Biden. Once people realized this error, the additional 138,339 votes were subtracted from Biden’s total. However the 138,339 votes were added back to Biden’s total in the wee hours of the morning. Dominion is used to count the votes in Shiawassee.
Please for the love of God, let's stop talking about the Benford's Law. It makes us look stupid.
If you spend 5 minutes reading about it, you see that it only applies to quantities with multiple orders of magnitude. The number of votes in different precincts do not fall into that category.
It's almost as bad as that idiocy of the quadrillion chance that they put in the Texas lawsuit.
That was a big oof, not sure why they bothered since the claims in that case didn't really require it. I guess they got some good mileage on TV saying "a quadrillion! that's a 1 with 15 zeroes! ain't that a big number!!".
You did not watch the video. He accuses Trump of fraud based on Trump's secondary and tertiary digits following Benford's law, and Biden's not. Take a look at 14:11. Doesn't that seem something odd?
If we don't challenge their bullshit, we accept their bullshit.
Regardless, if your point is that it is balls and courage are needed to win, then I agree.
Yes, here is a professor that wrote a paper about why:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/inapB.pdf
It's been known since around the time that Benford came up with the law that it doesn't work for things like precinct numbers. They aren't random and they aren't on a large scale.
Think about how they even try to split some precincts up into near equal voting total expectations. How is Benford's Law going to apply when you guess that 50000 votes will be cast and split that into 90 precincts? 100% chance 5 will be the most common number then.
If every ballot had a unique identifying number and they went and created fake ballots... you'd actually probably still get Benford's Law to apply there since no way they would manually create the unique ID for those fake ballots but simply generate it and take their chances of a duplicate.
Oh boy! I sure trust a liberal professor from umich!
Benford's law is not a viable tool to review the election.
This dude is a regular on Numberphile, same channel shown in the image.
He claims that because we are not dealing with several orders of magnitudes, Benford's law does not apply.
I see the point. Most results are in the hundreds. A few in the 10 and a few in the thousands. That is the precincts were created to all be of similar size.
But what about the second numbers and following?
But Benfords law applies to the second numbers and following digits as well. He mentions that himself.
And then at 14:11 he totally torches himself. Trumps last two digits are in line with Benford's Laws (I like how he acts like this is evidence of Trump's fraud lol) where are Biden's are similar to the random generated Pi digit pairs.
BUT AGAIN. I REPEAT. HE IS ACCUSING TRUMP OF FRAUD!
So why does your claimed source accuse Trump of election fraud? Do you still stand by this turkey? Or is this just part of some disinformation campaign you are running? I'd really like some answers. Do you think Trump committed election fraud? If so, why not just come out and say it. If not, then why are you linking to such bullshit artists?
Benford's law is a statement about the first digit, not the last two digits. At that point he's talking about a different "law" that has an even distribution given certain conditions.
He doesn't actually say Trump committed fraud, it's an act to showcase that an "anomalous" result given a certain "law" is NOT proof of fraud once you actually take a closer look and figure out the "law" is not applicable. I guess you closed the video before he explained why Trump's result is actually completely expected and not proof of any anomaly... which he did like a minute later.
I knew absolutely nothing of Benford's law before this post. I am just telling you he said subsequent digits followed the law as well. If he is wrong about that, then I retract my claim.
I clearly see the point that Benford's does not apply if you have all numbers only between 100-999. As it would make lotteries impossible. Or give premium to betting on numbers between 100-199.
I can explain it. It is not complicated.
Benfords law just looks at the first digit of the numbers and then we expect to see a certain distribution of first digit numbers. This can be used in almost all situations of naturally occuring numbers.
The problem is that these are not naturally occuring numbers. These are precincts with around 500-1000 votes each.
Biden has an average of 500 votes in the precincts. This means that most votes will have 4, 5 and 6 as the first digit. This is expected when we know how the data looks. But Benfords law predicts that this shouldn't happen. This is because you can't use Benfords law on this dataset.
The reason Trump looks to be following BL is because his votes in these precincts are around 100, so he gets a lot of 1's, etc. as predicted by BL.
We have 10000s instances of fraud but this BL analysis is just not it. Seriously,
lol
You're in luck! This video explains it.
Y'all have got to stop posting this stupid data analysis "proof". This is the type of stuff that makes us look idiotic and grasping at straws.
Data anomalies ARE NOT PROOF, you can not take this stuff to court and say "see, look this math thing says it is highly improbable for this to occur". Either fucking put up or shutup, proof is tangible, real occurrence that can be proven without a shadow of a doubt. Statistical analysis ain't the way.
Y'all need to learn introspection, this is some Bernie-bro level "PHONE BANK MATCH ME!!!!" cringe shit.
If this were true then there wouldn't be people sitting in white collar prison for financial crimes you fucking moron.
Except anomalies are cause for further investigation, not the actual end proof of something nefarious -_-
The main issue is that this particular dataset (voting results from precincts of very similar size) is not a valid candidate for BL analysis. Financial data, which will have values over multiple orders of magnitude, is an excellent candidate. But even so, it's not proof. However, it can be a powerful indicator to justify a deeper dive.
Continuing to promote BL for precinct-level data just makes us look dumb and provides clickbait to the left.
Considering I actually have forensic accounting in my background.... no, that's not how it works.
You use anomalies to dig further and find proof. You have something like Benford's that highlights a problem. "Hey, look at this, something screwy". Then you start digging to find the anomalies, and audit from there. Audits are where the discovery comes from, and that is what allows you to find proof.
The key difference here is that, as said before, y'all are grasping at straws saying "LOOK AT THIS PROOF". This isn't proof, it is highlighting the need to do a deep dive and FIND proof. When you present data analysis alone as concrete evidence and it is then (expectedly, I might add) tossed in the garbage at court, y'all get all surprised Pikachu face, even though literally every lawyer with a podcast and YouTube channel knew it was coming.
Couldn't they have leveraged these analyses as probable cause to get subpoenas for further investigation? Always puzzled me why they didn't. Asking for the moon with just "data analyses" that haven't even been cross-examined was always going to go down in flames.
You're getting downvotes for being right.
It's utter stupidity to think an anomaly is proof positive enough for court. Insane. Anomalies are and always will be just enough to give cause to further investigate.
Law enforcement get warrants issued based on anomalies... they wouldn't just immediately charge the suspect and go to trial with just that base anomaly (unless they suck at their job).
Expert witnesses are used in virtually every court case in America.
I'm certain most will agree that any court would gain more knowledge from an expert witness, along with their analysis vs your evidentiary spaz fest.
There is “statistical” and “physical”evidence. It’s usually brought up in court that way as well. Hopefully the statistical let’s you get the physical via warrants.
For instance, say there was an accident. It’s “likely” if there were only two cars on the area in a given time, that one or both were involved. It’s so probable that we can get a warrant or at least reasonably investigate (given resource constraints).
If instead one million cars were on the area, we’d have to narrow the search region. It’s probably most cars were not involved.
In this real case related to voter fraud, the statistical evidence is extremely odd. Making it so unlikely, that everyone should do a manual hand recount of all the ballots
You need to see my other post, and not surprisingly the truth is downvoted to shit because it is a hard truth that nobody wants to hear.
Data analysis points to anomalies, NOBODY is arguing that. However, those anomalies should be taken to the local level and get an immediate injunction/audit approval by whoever the governing body is. Newsflash, that IS NOT the court system, it is city council/aldermen/municipal supervisors/etc.
And there lies the rub..... we don't have a chance in hell going through the system by the book because there isn't a single major municipal city run by Republicans. We have become so fucking complacent and lazy at the local government level over the last 40 years that the enemy has literally taken over every single level of politics in every major city.
Stop thinking the courts are going to solve this, they aren't.
Fucking THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And yet if this data is presented to a court system to show that it points to anomalies, the courts should make those municipalities follow through in the investigation that data is laying the ground for.
And you expect major cities to vote for anything sensible, and not just ratchets offering gimme dats? Why not try to lasso the moon down while you're at it?
I think its simply the burden of proof requirement to show probable cause, but never enough on its own to prove beyond reasonable doubt. I would note that typically data analysis is used to show anomalies worth looking into, and then a proper investigation is conducted on everything involved. In this case, no such accompanying investigation has occurred, and I think we're quickly realizing there really is no proper remedy to find electoral fraud.
What I mean is simple: If there is fraud, who do you report this to? The same authorities that conducted said fraud? The Legislators, with split power and high incentive NOT to vote in favour of an investigation? The Courts? Even better, you have to typically file your lawsuit in the State Capitol, with the judges appointed by the State Legislature & Executive! The whole system is messed up, and we genuinely need to figure out a way to conduct independent verification of electoral results, without having to go through such conflicts of interests at least.
Data is the proof. Anomalies is descriptor.
So when you say data anomalies are not proof do you realize how completely retarded you sound?
Georgia did 3 hand recounts. How do you correlate the data which you allege proves the fraud, with the data from the recounts?
Livonia looks bad
They wernt even going to certify the vote till those threats were made