Biden Wins!

[Rich Toscano]

Haha, I know it’s Benford’s Law (not Theory). I’m not denying the mathematical law. I was denying that proves voter fraud in a way that somehow eluded election experts, but was only noticed by a guy with an unhinged Trump-worshipping propaganda site.

I quickly founding a paper questioning the premise, and you have found counters to that. Fair enough. But the fact remains that people who actually have expertise in how elections work are not concerned. I think it’s important not to draw strong conclusions in an area that’s not your area of specialty, when those who do specialize in it say something different.

Meanwhile, there are hyper-partisan propaganda outlets, along with our soon to be ex president, spreading verifiable lies about voter fraud. This is dangerous and harmful and honestly makes me pretty upset. I don’t want anything even adjacent to that on this site…. and this conversation was adjacent enough that I just didn’t want it here. Thanks for taking it in stride.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Rich Toscano]Haha, I know it’s Benford’s Law (not Theory). I’m not denying the mathematical law. I was denying that proves voter fraud in a way that somehow eluded election experts.[/quote]

I thought it would provoke interesting mathematical discussions. My biggest concern would be – did he use the right data or just make it up – which would be voter fraud fraud.

It’s all pretty damn interesting to me. After browsing through some of those papers, it seems that 2BL is a much better test- that is, checking the distributions of the 2nd digit because you get better distribution of the 2nd digit across data that is not spread across multiple orders of magnitude.

I almost didn’t post the conservative commentary link. Shouldn’t have. Should have just posted the data because it is really fascinating.

It doesn’t really prove fraud, but it certainly suggests an anomaly.

[svelte]

Thank you Rich.

I’m honestly quite confused. How did we get here as a society, where we have a significant part of our society buying into conspiracy theories? Do they honestly believe that multiple states were infiltrated? My god, how much damage has this president done?

Can you imagine the pandemonium in this country if the courts invalidated the voters in five states to award the presidency to Trump? Citizens would come unglued. There could possibly be no more United States. There has been no point in my lifetime where I felt I had to stand up and risk all for what is right. If the courts overrule voters on this election – that would be my moment.

[SDNative2]

Wow, I thought TDS would subside now that Biden appears to have it in the can.

BTW and FWIW, the media does not declare a president. It’s a constitutional, statutory process completed in December.

Al Gore litigated for 37 days in 2020.

Biden hasn’t won yet.

Censored in 3…2…

[sdduuuude]

[quote=svelte]Thank you Rich.

I’m honestly quite confused. How did we get here as a society, where we have a significant part of our society buying into conspiracy theories? [/quote]

You mean – how did we get to a point where data and mathematical laws are mistaken for conspiracy theories ? I can’t imagine – but you and Rich need to show more of an interest in math (that’s supposed to be funny and lighten the mood).

I can’t imagine the courts hold up any of Trump’s lawsuits but I can’t imagine he goes away quietly either.

Even Chris Christie gave him a face-palm on his election night speech.

[spdrun]

Benford’s Law depends on the initial data set. Let’s say we have a set of states with 6,000,000 voters that tend to vote close to 50/50. Would their results follow Benford’s Law, or would 2 and 3 be the most common (likely only) first digits, without fraud?

[spdrun]

I shouldn’t be arguing with an asshat blathering being “TDS”, but I’m bored and here goes:

There isn’t one close state that would flip the election like in 2000. Do you really think that multiple (3-4) states threw their elections as to favor Biden, while no fraud occurred to favor Trump?

If this election is handed to Trump, despite the will of the American people that it be otherwise, I hope that it will result in the American people taking matters into their own hands.

Thank God for COVID — it makes developing respiratory symptoms and staying home until a test comes back (in many states it takes 7+ days) very easy. Now imagine this beautiful fact being used to organize a nationwide strike or sickout! You can’t be fired for being too careful, know what I mean?

This should be the first step. If the next step involves the US tearing itself to pieces, so be it. If this country is handed to a scumbag with Fascist tendencies, it’s better off breaking up.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=spdrun]There isn’t one close state that would flip the election like in 2000. Do you really think that multiple (3-4) states threw their elections as to favor Biden, while no fraud occurred to favor Trump?[/quote]

Certainly not. And I don’t think I presented the information in a way that suggests it.

I put the probability that there is zero material (i.e. changes the outcome) election fraud in the US at 0 and I wouldn’t suggest either party to be more likely the cause of it than the other.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=spdrun]Benford’s Law depends on the initial data set. Let’s say we have a set of states with 6,000,000 voters that tend to vote close to 50/50. Would their results follow Benford’s Law, or would 2 and 3 be the most common (likely only) first digits, without fraud?[/quote]

Yes, but you don’t have that. The data seemed to come in low level within a county. And, as presented, Trump and the third and fourth and even fifth place followed Benford’s Law.

So the race was close and Trump’s numbers followed Benford’s law but Biden’s didn’t, in the data I saw.

After some reading, it seems that using the second digit avoids the problem you mention.

See – it is interesting, ya ?

[spdrun]

I was replying to “SDNative2”, not you, unless you have a sockpuppet account.

Anyway, we have WI, PA, NV, AZ, and GA, all of which have much larger margins of votes than Florida did in 2000 … a recount only changed Florida by about 1200 votes! The chances of Trump flipping 3-4 states are basically nil, unless the courts engage in outright manipulation — in which case, “by any means necessary” becomes the order of the day.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=spdrun]I was replying to “SDNative2”, not you, unless you have a sockpuppet account.
[/quote]

I had to look that up. No, I don’t.

[spdrun]

This explains it better than I can … basically, it’s an extension of the size issue that I mentioned previously:

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

Looking at the actual Chicago data at https://www.chicagoelections.gov/en/election-results-specifics.asp by precinct as of late November 7, the charts for Chicago look credible but the assumption that Benford’s law should apply do not, at least for Biden/Harris or the minor candidates.

Of the 2069 precincts (most of which are of broadly similar size), Biden/Harris won fewer than 100 votes in 12 precincts, and more than 999 votes in 4 precincts. All the rest (more than 99%) had three digits for their votes, violating the requirement that natural data satisfying Benford’s law should span several orders of magnitude. More than half the precincts (1100) gave Biden/Harris from 300 through to 499 votes, making 3 and 4 the most common first digits (the chart reflects this and is close to showing the actual frequencies by hudreds of votes, so 300-399 was the most common).

For Trump/Pence, votes were more widely dispersed: 99 precincts with 1-9 votes, 1339 precincts with 10-99, and 633 precincts with 100 or more votes. This dispersion over orders of magnitude allowed a greater chance of coming closer to matching Benford’s law.

For the minor candidates, they only reached double digits in a very small number of precincts (and got 0 votes in hundreds of precincts – not shown on the charts) so the charts are close to showing their actual vote distribution with censoring of 0 and 10+; again you would not expect Benford’s law to apply.

Chicago was an odd choice to investigate for suspected cheating in 2020 where the gap in Illinois was 12 percentage points (1960 when it was 0.2 percentage points might have been more interesting). I suspect it was chosen simply because the data is publicly available and the distortions caused by similar precinct size led to this non-Benford law result. You will see this elsewhere for similar reasons: in 2019 very few British MPs won a number of votes starting with 5-9, as their constituencies are of broadly similar sizes and the winners usually got in the range from 10,000 to 49,999 votes, again failing the spanning several orders of magnitude requirement.

[svelte]

[quote=sdduuuude]
Yes, but you don’t have that. The data seemed to come in low level within a county. And, as presented, Trump and the third and fourth and even fifth place followed Benford’s Law.

So the race was close and Trump’s numbers followed Benford’s law but Biden’s didn’t, in the data I saw.

After some reading, it seems that using the second digit avoids the problem you mention.

See – it is interesting, ya ?[/quote]

You’re cruisin’ for a bannin’.

As I said, this is my moment. This is where I choose to make a stand.

If the lifted 4×4 crowd decides to overrule the American people, we’ll take it to the limit. You lost. Put on your big boy pants.

[spdrun]

For what it’s worth, SDNative2 was the one who posted the troll about TDS yip-yap-yip-yap, not sdduuuude. sdduuuude appears ready to listen to reason — why Benford’s Law is useless in this instance.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=spdrun]This explains it better than I can … basically, it’s an extension of the size issue that I mentioned previously … [/quote]

Very good, spdrun. Very good.

See, now if Rich had just posted that in the Benford’s Law thread I started specifically to discuss that set of data instead of closing the thread down we wouldn’t have to have all these posts in the Biden Wins thread.

I’d love to see the 2nd digit analysis on these numbers. I bet they clean right up.

[Author]

Posts