- This topic has 84 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 4 years ago by
svelte.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 7, 2020 at 9:10 AM #23014November 7, 2020 at 9:34 AM #820120
sdduuuude
ParticipantProbably more than one recount will happen, but yes – we will be getting kicked in the left nut instead of the right nut for a few years.
November 7, 2020 at 9:58 AM #820121svelteParticipantI’m OK with most presidents.
The one who is just wrapping up his term was so so so terrible that anything at all will be better than what we have. Horrendous.
November 7, 2020 at 10:35 AM #820123
CoronitaParticipantuntil trump, I’ve never voted across party lines at the national level. But I’ve been waiting 4 years to be able to say 3 simple words to Mr. Trump.
Mr. Trump,
YOU’RE FIRED, ASSHOLE!
November 7, 2020 at 10:48 AM #820124ParticipantI suspect his inability to lose gracefully is going to end up being worse than anything he has said or done in the past. Although – check out my next post on Benford’s law. Maybe some fraud is going on.
And Biden going to borrow trillions from our children to “save” the country from Covid.
Maybe conservatives are smart to vote for him. It seems he has been set up to fail – handed an economy that can’t possibly stay afloat.
CNN and MSNBC aren’t going to have anything to cover for the next 4 years. I hope their revenue goes in the shitter. They deserve it. FOX, too.
November 7, 2020 at 11:27 AM #820125ParticipantI thought this was very interesting.
The percentage of blacks, latinos and women voting for trump all increased from 2016 to 2020.
The percentage of white males voting for trump went down.
See the “by gender and race” section:
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/11/politics/election-analysis-exit-polls-2016-2020/
November 7, 2020 at 11:44 AM #820126svelteParticipant[quote=sdduuuude]I suspect his inability to lose gracefully is going to end up being worse than anything he has said or done in the past. Although – check out my next post on Benford’s law. Maybe some fraud is going on.
.[/quote]So your theory is what – that a Democrat gave a false total as the result from each precinct and that’s why it doesn’t conform to “Benford’s Law”? Because, you’d think that if they had fed fake ballots through the system, that would have conformed to Benford’s Law and ended up with a 1 in the first digit most of the time.
Not buying it.
Also kinda looks like someone handpicked a small set of precincts to show.
November 7, 2020 at 11:58 AM #820127ParticipantI’m a numbers guy. I’m not saying the Dems did anything. Maybe the republicans somehow shed votes for Biden. Whoever made these charts brought data – and it is quite compelling.
I agree, I would like to see all of them. If all of them do conform to BL and these are the only outliers, then it makes it even more suspect. If they are all over the board, then maybe less. If always for the same candidate, maybe more.
Still, the fact that all the other candidates tallies follow the law and one doesn’t is very very odd.
November 7, 2020 at 12:06 PM #820129ParticipantI replied to your “fake ballots” comment in the other thread.
https://www.piggington.com/benfords_law_and_voter_fraud#comment-292041
November 7, 2020 at 2:04 PM #820134
Rich ToscanoKeymasterI’m shutting down this Benford’s Law nonsense right now, as described here: https://www.piggington.com/benfords_law_and_voter_fraud#comment-292046
November 7, 2020 at 5:11 PM #820135ParticipantAnd if you look even further, you would see that there is a rebuke to that article by Walter Mebane, at the University of Michigan.
““Benford’s Law and the Detection of Election Fraud” raises doubts about whether a test based on the mean of the second significant digit of vote counts equals 4.187 is useful as a test for the occurrence of election fraud. The paper mistakenly associates such a test with Benford’s Law, considers a simulation exercise that has no apparent relevance for any actual election, applies the test to inappropriate levels of aggregation, and ignores existing analysis of recent elections in Russia. If tests based on the second significant digit of precinct-level vote counts are diagnostic of election fraud, the tests need to use expectations that take into account the features of ordinary elections, such as strategic actions. Whether the tests are useful for detecting fraud remains an open question, but approaching this question requires an approach more nuanced and tied to careful analysis of real election data than one sees in the discussed paper.”
I agree with your “luinatic” edit, though.
Since the Michigan guy says it is an “open question” I’ll change my statement from “proof positive” to “worth looking at.”
It’s data. Someone brought data. I don’t think it should be ignored and I don’t think you should have closed the thread.
November 7, 2020 at 5:12 PM #820136TeCKis300
ParticipantTrumps actions in the last week epitomizes why he is unworthy and a failure.
No matter if I believed in any of his policies.
Lies, deceit, treachery. Qualities unbecoming of any leader let alone a sitting President. It’s been a sad time for the people of this nation, particularly the children, to witness such behavior. Even worse with many reflecting it in their own conduct.
Good riddance.
November 7, 2020 at 5:29 PM #820137Participant[quote=Rich Toscano]I’m shutting down this Benford’s Law nonsense right now, as described here: https://www.piggington.com/benfords_law_and_voter_fraud#comment-292046%5B/quote%5D
It isn’t “Benford’s Theory.”
It is “Benford’s Law”
Dismissing it outright as a conspiracy theory is not right.By the way, here is a syllabus to mebane’s class at Michigan:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/ps485/ps485_syl/ps485_syl.html
And that includes references to several studies, papers and lectures regarding the application of Benford’s Law to elections. Admittedly, I haven’t read them all, but they are every much academic papers as the one you cited:
Pericchi, Luis Raúl and David Torres. 2011. “Quick Anomaly Detection by the Newcomb-Benford Law, with Applications to Electoral Processes Data from the USA, Puerto Rico and Venezuela.” Statistical Science 26 (Nov, 4): 502-516. (in file STS0703-006R4A0.pdf).
Mebane, Walter R., Jr. 2014. “Can Votes Counts’ Digits and Benford’s Law Diagnose Elections?” In Steven J. Miller, The Theory and Applications of Benford’s Law, Princeton UP, 206-216. (in file miller13.pdf).
Mebane, Walter R., Jr. 2013. Election Forensics, chapters 9, 10 and 12. (in files Chapter9.pdf, Chapter10.pdf and Chapter12.pdf).
Mebane. 2007. “Election Forensics: Statistics, Recounts and Fraud,” Presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 12-16. http://www.umich.edu/~wmebane/mw07.pdf
Wendy K. Tam Cho and Brian J. Gaines. 2007. “Breaking the (Benford) Law: Statistical Fraud Detection in Campaign Finance.” The American Statistician, 61 (August): 218-223.
Mebane. 2008. “Election Forensics: The Second-digit Benford’s Law Test and Recent American Presidential Elections.” In R. Michael Alvarez, Thad E. Hall and Susan D. Hyde, eds., Election Fraud: Detecting and Deterring Electoral Manipulation. Washington, DC: Brookings Press, 2008, pp. 162-181.
http://www.umich.edu/~wmebane/fraud06.pdfMebane. 2006. “Election Forensics: Vote Counts and Benford’s Law,” Presented at at the 2006 Summer Meeting of the Political Methodology Society, UC-Davis, July 20-22.
http://www.umich.edu/~wmebane/pm06.pdfNovember 7, 2020 at 6:44 PM #820138sunny88
ParticipantBoth parties are corrupt and Biden is not better than Trump. We need more parties so that the power is more balanced by forming coalitions. Most people are are somewhere in between and not being represented.
November 7, 2020 at 8:26 PM #820139ParticipantI agree. We need a functional government. The parties are self serving rather than having the better interest of the country.
That point is distinct and different however – there is a better man between the two. My vote was strictly on character this time as it has to start with that. Before we can address anything else.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.