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,
You can download 2016 MIT election data
Then you can go to my first submitted post and copy the python code
Then you can run it and you will see exactly what i am talking about
I see you've written words making a claim, but do you have a link which shows this data for every state verifying what you just said and weren't making it up?
Because I've only seen it applied to the swing states so far, so if you have a source which did it for every state, enabling you to make this claim, I'd love to see it.
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
what's funny about that?
500 is a number. 5 is the first digit of said number.
people use second digits bro for election analysis
You can download 2016 MIT election data
Then you can go to my first submitted post and copy the python code
Then you can run it and you will see exactly what i am talking about
I see you've written words making a claim, but do you have a link which shows this data for every state verifying what you just said and weren't making it up?
Because I've only seen it applied to the swing states so far, so if you have a source which did it for every state, enabling you to make this claim, I'd love to see it.