If benfords law fits for all the candidates in other districts, and all the candidates except one in certain districts: it is an indicator. Not proof. But indicative that further investigation should be done.
Dems strawmanned this with a a hard push that "there could be rational excuses, it's not proof, it doesn't count for anything". Just because their first two assertions are correct (there could be reasons, it's not proof) doesn't mean their conclusion (therefor it's not worth looking into at all) is correct.
It's like if you feel a lump on your ball/boob: There are plenty of possible explanations. You can't use that to prove cancer. But it does mean it's worth a second look, especially if your other ball/boob doesn't have any lumps. Nobody would say "lumps could be anything so you should ignore them"
If benfords law fits for all the candidates in other districts, and all the candidates except one in certain districts: it is an indicator. Not proof. But indicative that further investigation should be done.
Dems strawmanned this with a a hard push that "there could be rational excuses, it's not proof, it doesn't count for anything". Just because their first two assertions are correct (there could be reasons, it's not proof) doesn't mean their conclusion (therefor it's not worth looking into at all) is correct.
It's like if you feel a lump on your ball/boob: There are plenty of possible explanations. You can't use that to prove cancer. But it does mean it's worth a second look, especially if your other ball/boob doesn't have any lumps. Nobody would say "lumps could be anything so you should ignore them"
When Benford's law was checked on areas where no vote fraud is claimed it also doesn't work. It is a gross misapplication of Benford's law
Link?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aokNwKx7gM8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etx0k1nLn78