7005
Comments (361)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
3
EtTuRINOs 3 points ago +4 / -1

Except Benford's Law is a rule that CAN apply but DOESN'T always, particularly when dealing with non-random numbers from the onset.

If you have an average of votes in precincts in, say, the 300s range then ya, 3 will be the guaranteed most common number and not 1. It doesn't need to be "fixed" for that. It is by no means enough to prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt" as OP puts it.

We have more than enough evidence with other instances, the unwillingness for them to allow proper audits and recounts without at least huge delays and court challenges is also damning.

1
UpTrump 1 point ago +2 / -1

Then explain to me why Trump's data follows the pattern everywhere, but Biden's doesn't m this includes Pennsylvania and Georgia

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
1
nenorpg 1 point ago +1 / -0

I literally ran through the statistical data myself comparing Trump to Biden. Not only Trump, but the other 2 candidates. The only candidates that did not match was Biden and write-ins (because most write-ins had literally 1 vote, and in that case if you sum them all together, then they ALSO follow Benford's Law).

Only one candidate did not follow statistics and that was Biden.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
FormerGraveheart 1 point ago +1 / -0

Trolling it is.

If it was such good evidence at least some of it would have made it through a trial

Every single court has refused to see any evidence. Everyone here knows that, except for shills that pretend not to.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
0
FormerGraveheart 0 points ago +1 / -1

If it was such good evidence at least some of it would have made it through a trial

Are you trolling, or just clueless?