Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

Here's some response to the whole "Benford's Law" stuff and if it's really applicable for elections. Also, the article above uses deceptive charts to make Biden's distribution more uneven and Trump's smoother (by using different vertical scales on the charts)

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/49782/do-vote-counts-for-joe-biden-in-the-2020-election-violate-benfords-law

[Dr. Strangelove]

It's been driven from the collective memory of Trumpworld, but Trump lost the Iowa caucus in 2016. He immediately screamed fraud and that it had been rigged and stolen by Ted Cruz. He repeatedly badgered the Iowa Republican Party to throw out the results and hold a do-over.

[Hannibal]

Here's some response to the whole "Benford's Law" stuff and if it's really applicable for elections. Also, the article above uses deceptive charts to make Biden's distribution more uneven and Trump's smoother (by using different vertical scales on the charts)

This is not true. The article that I posted shows Allegheny County, and Milwaukee at least on more or less the exact same scale. Chicago's scale is only slightly different. The graphs are supposedly using the first digit data. I haven't checked them myself because I don't have autism.

I have never heard of Benford's Law, so I'll have to defer to the math experts on whether precinct vote totals provide large enough statistical samples to obey Benford's law. I have seen the argument that this is a misapplication of the concept. But the wikipedia article mentions directly the use of the rules to detect fraud. (I expect that to be scrubbed soon LOL)

[Dr. Strangelove]

One of the posts further down on the skeptics site. I don't know about any other states, but in Ohio the majority of precincts have less than 1,000 registered voters, usually around 1200 max. So obviously it's rare to find a precinct where over 1000 votes were actually cast.

************************************************** **

In general, the biggest problem with applying Benford's law to district level election data is, that precincts are usually small and similar in size. For example, if all the precincts have around 800 voters and one candidate consistently takes 40-50% of votes, then it is expected, that the most frequent first digits will be 3 and 4.

Benford's law works better in cases where the values span multiple orders of magnitude, which is not the case here.

For concrete examples, it is worth looking at the several Github issues on the source of the analysis:

The disappearance of Benford's law in Milwaukee is a function of voter preference alone. If one candidate has between 60% and 80% average chance of receiving a vote, then the sizes of the wards in Milwaukee are too small to accommodate Benford's law.

More generally, several papers question the usefulness of Benford's law applied to election data:

Does the Application of Benford's Law Reliably Identify Fraud on Election Day?

Unfortunately, my analysis shows that Benford's Law is an unreliable tool. And, as one applies more sophisticated methods of estimation, the results become increasingly inconsistent. Worse still, when compared with observational data, the application of Benford's Law frequently predicts fraud where none has occurred.

Benford's Law and the Detection of Election Fraud

It is not simply that the Law occasionally judges a fraudulent election fair or a fair election fraudulent. Its “success rate” either way is essentially equivalent to a toss of a coin, thereby rendering it problematical at best as a forensic tool and wholly misleading at worst.

[CGVT]

It's Voter Fraud!

triggered-trumpsters-triggered-trumpsters-everywhere.jpg

[Hannibal]

DSL --

That's a reasonable-sounding rebuttal. Not many trustworthy experts in many topics nowadays though.

I'm looking forward to either seeing all of this evidence presented in court and either upheld or debunked in the daylight. Either mass fraud will be exposed or we can feel good about the result and move on. Either way, if we seek the truth with intellectual honesty, we win.

Pravda-style suppression of these arguments by Big Tech and Big Media because they don't come from "approved" sources isn't going to sway me.

[Tom W]

Yeah, I would be a lot more accepting of the supposed results if the Dems weren't running around like spoiled rotten children in Wonka's factory over the last 4 years.

[CGVT]

Man, I am wearing this meme out lately....

0g4lw2bzpzt11.jpg

[Dr. Strangelove]

So Mark Meadows, Ben Carson, and David Bossie, who is leading Trump's post-election legal battle, all test positive and all were at Trump's Election Night Gala at the White House. How many more?

[THE_WIZARD_]

Damn head colds...and this time of year...the horror...

[iam416]

So Mark Meadows, Ben Carson, and David Bossie, who is leading Trump's post-election legal battle, all test positive and all were at Trump's Election Night Gala at the White House. How many more?

Who in the living fuck cares? It ain't fucking ebola.

[lineygoblue]

And I doubt anyone is contact tracing the Biden celebrations over the weekend.

[iam416]

Yeah, I would be a lot more accepting of the supposed results if the Dems weren't running around like spoiled rotten children in Wonka's factory over the last 4 years.

That's the thing. The Ds still don't accept that PDJT was elected. They spent the better part of 3 years chasing total nonsense and still remain convinced of their idiocy.

Listening to the Ds lecture anyone on "accepting the results of an election" is high motherfucking comedy.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Tough crowd.

[THE_WIZARD_]

STFU