Benford's law requires datasets without structure that spans orders of magnitude.
Voter precincts are set to a range of sizes based on geography, population density, and logistics. This fails both of these criteria for Benford's law to be valid.
It is so non-credible I think it was likely intentional disinformation put out early to discredit other claims of voter fraud.
I have a mathematics background. I understand the potential for dataset sizes to set frequency of leading digits. I just haven't seen anyone offer evidence that that actually happened.
Lots of people saying "well if every district was exactly 1000 people then that would give a different benford curve" with nobody saying "Here is the list of district sizes"
Do you not think that based on geography, population density, and logistics that election planning commissions try to set up voter precincts to service a certain range of voters?
do you think that in cities some voter precincts are made to service 10 voters and others 1 million voters?
or perhaps within a region an election planning commission would plan and design them to be certain sizes say to cover 1000-10,000 people in the city, 500-5000 people outside of cities, and 200-2000 people in rural areas.
Obviously in cities you can have precincts that serve more people, and in rural areas drive distance and population density.
PLANNING, demographics, geography, logistics...all these things add structure to the dataset, whether a first digit vote counts do or don't follow Benford's law can therefore be due to a range of things besides fraud or no fraud.
Link?
Benford's law requires datasets without structure that spans orders of magnitude.
Voter precincts are set to a range of sizes based on geography, population density, and logistics. This fails both of these criteria for Benford's law to be valid.
It is so non-credible I think it was likely intentional disinformation put out early to discredit other claims of voter fraud.
I have a mathematics background. I understand the potential for dataset sizes to set frequency of leading digits. I just haven't seen anyone offer evidence that that actually happened.
Lots of people saying "well if every district was exactly 1000 people then that would give a different benford curve" with nobody saying "Here is the list of district sizes"
Do you not think that based on geography, population density, and logistics that election planning commissions try to set up voter precincts to service a certain range of voters?
do you think that in cities some voter precincts are made to service 10 voters and others 1 million voters?
or perhaps within a region an election planning commission would plan and design them to be certain sizes say to cover 1000-10,000 people in the city, 500-5000 people outside of cities, and 200-2000 people in rural areas.
Obviously in cities you can have precincts that serve more people, and in rural areas drive distance and population density.
PLANNING, demographics, geography, logistics...all these things add structure to the dataset, whether a first digit vote counts do or don't follow Benford's law can therefore be due to a range of things besides fraud or no fraud.