# Statistical proof of election fraud in the US

Picked this up in a comments thread at Powerline here. Commenter  whose comment is around fifty down if you start with the list set at “Best”. You can also find Benford’s Law discussed at Wikipedia. This was the comment, slightly edited:

For people who are wondering how it is possible to tell when vote counting is fraudulent here is one way. Using Benford’s law, one can tell whether the distribution of numbers from, for example, precinct candidate vote-total reports are random or fraudulent in nature. The way Benford’s law works is you take a bunch of numbers, for example deposit amounts that a business has recorded over the course of year, and for each of those amounts you record the first digit of the deposit.

So if a deposit on a particular day was in the amount of \$1,234.56, you would record the ‘1’. You then do that for every other number in your dataset and Benford’s law holds that if the deposit amounts are truly random, the number ‘1’ will be most common, followed by ‘2’ and then ‘3’ and so on with ‘9’ being the least likely.

You’ll then be able to plot this on a graph so there is a sloping curve to the dataset. On the other hand, if the dataset has fraudulent numbers, you’ll end up with weird results like the number ‘4’ being most common or the number ‘8’.

The IRS uses this mathematical law to detect fraud in tax returns and/or the supporting documents that are filed with them, as well as by accounting firms that are auditing their clients’ books and records.

Take a gander below at what Biden’s vote counts look like in Chicago and Milwaukee and Allegheny, PA. I think the results speak for themselves, but suffice it to say, all the candidates vote counts look normal except for Biden’s:

Of course, even beyond these stats, which is truly astounding, there is this: If No Fraud Is Happening, Why Not Let the Trump Campaign Watch the Counting? It’s Rush Limbaugh:

RUSH: So think about this. We, meaning Trump, Trump has to litigate, he has to go to court to get Republican observers to watch the count. We have to go to court. We have to ask a bunch of judges, “Judges, we need to really observe what’s going on in there. We’re entitled to observe this count. You make them. You make them let us in.”

Okay. So why are the Democrats in Philadelphia fighting it? I mean, if there’s no cheating going on, if everything’s aboveboard and if Trump’s gonna lose and he’s gonna lose legitimately and you just better get your arms around it, why not let the Republicans in and let them see Trump losing legitimately? Why are they afraid of this?

What is more incredible is who is in this fight and who’s not. The integrity of an election you would think would matter, really matter, to everyone and especially on the Republican side. This is a pivotal moment in the West. You would think more people would care.

There is also this which is worth a read:  A Matter of Probabilities.

This entry was posted in American politics, Politics of the Left. Bookmark the permalink.

### 127 Responses to Statistical proof of election fraud in the US

1. tombell says:

they don’t care because they’re in on the fix..

2. 2dogs says:

If No Fraud Is Happening, Why Not Let the Trump Campaign Watch the Counting?

In Australia, scrutineers have the right to observe the counting of ballot papers, and preventing the is grounds for appeal to the court of disputed returns.

What is the law in the US in this regard?

3. Sam Duncan says:

It’s worth pointing out that this exact method is, in fact, used to detect electoral fraud around the world. The first time I ever read about Benford’s law was in an article about elections in Russia. This is very strong evidence, far more so than anecdotal reports, that something fishy is going on.

4. Boris says:

Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, whose state is a key battleground in the presidential election, called the president’s claim of fraud “very disturbing.”

“There’s simply no evidence anyone has shown me of any widespread corruption or fraud,” Toomey told “CBS This Morning.”

“The president’s speech last night was very disturbing to me because he made very, very serious allegations without any evidence to support it,” said Toomey.

He added: “I voted for President Trump. I endorsed President Trump. I want the next president to be the person who legitimately wins the Electoral College and I will accept whoever that is.”

Some never Trumper I guess.

5. notafan says:

Did they do same plotting in all the states?

6. Tezza says:

I see the Wikipedia entry notes:
“ Benford’s law has been invoked as evidence of fraud in the 2009 Iranian elections,[34] and also used to analyze other election results. However, other experts consider Benford’s law problematical or misleading as a statistical indicator of election fraud.[35]”

So, I’d call this promising, but requiring more exploration.

7. mundi says:

Sorry but this is not how Benfords law works.

Benfords law applies to phenomena where a value increases exponentially, such that each time it grows more time is spent at the lower number as it flips up to the next order of magnitude.

It’s doesn’t work in this situation since the rate of counting decreased when they got to the mail in ballots.

8. Dot says:

That’s right Boris, Toomey is a loon just like you.

9. NuThink says:

Was it Stalin who said something like “It is not the votes that count, it is who counts the votes that matters”?

10. NuThink says:

Remember this from 1980.
The lottery draw (The Daily Number) was compromised and came up with the number 666. So you can cheat live on TV and it took the betting patterns to find that a scam had been perpetrated.
https://www.pennlive.com/life/2020/04/convicted-bookie-helped-uncover-triple-six-fix-pa-lottery-scandal-40-years-ago.html
Note: It was Pennsylvania.

11. Bruce of Newcastle says:

Burt Rutan agrees. He knows a bit about what is real and what is fake. Fake aeroplanes crash.

12. Entropy says:

I use a Benford test all the time to help detect what needs to be audited in assistance programs. I am not sure it would work all that well in vote counts. Maybe all this suggests is that Democrat voters tend to be more closely living together in particular districts.

13. Rabbi Putin says:

I have a strange sense of amusement about this. A Biden/Harris clown show is going to be such a disaster that it’s going to embarrass all involved, make sure the lefties in your life truly “own” a Biden/Harris regime. It’s going to be a disaster for us and the world, let the lefties know they own it and this is them and this is what they wanted.

Meanwhile, note that Trump didnt drag his feet this last four years, and with good reason as it’s now clear to see: Out of TTP and NAFTA, shredded Iran deal, tax cuts, Jerusalem, the Chinese trade war, 3 Supreme Court judges, a bunch of district judges, the wall under construction, the end of the black/Latino Democrat vote-bloc, the clawing back of culture, the widespread discrediting of lying MSM. And the Reupliblicans hold the Senate.

If the Dems think that a stolen Biden win will erase the last 4 years they’re kidding themselves. If they try then they will win no friends and make a lot of enemies internationally. Leftists cheering this circus on are going to look really stupid. And on top of that the Left have never looked so much like the side of pampered sooky white elites, with a modern SS in the form of Antifa who actively commit violence and intimidation against their critics. This is a time to point and laugh at them, because they’re exposed to the world and history as the violent lying hypocritical thugs that they are. 🙂

14. flyingduk says:

I think it is pretty clear, to anyone who has been following the ‘raw sources’ rather than the mainstream media narrative, that fraud has occurred. The next question is – will the electoral/legal system be able to remedy it?

My suspicion is not, and also that the combined efforts of ‘big media’ to successfully frame this as nothing more than a republican tantrum will be accepted as well. That for me is the most chilling takeaway point, even more than the prospect of (at least) 4 years of Democrat rule. The globalists/leftists appear to have successfully pulled off a coup in the last bastion of freedom, and this was done in plain sight yet the public, for the most part, will fall for the narrative.

What comes next? They arent even trying to hide it anymore. Expect the whole socialist agenda to be rolled out faster than you could ever imagine now.

15. Steve trickler says:
16. egg_ says:

It hasn’t even escaped young Koreans’ attention

17. flyingduk says:

I have a strange sense of amusement about this. A Biden/Harris clown show is going to be such a disaster that it’s going to embarrass all involved, make sure the lefties in your life truly “own” a Biden/Harris regime. It’s going to be a disaster for us and the world, let the lefties know they own it and this is them and this is what they wanted.

That assumes

1) The public actually realise said administration is a disaster – and we have just seen how the MSM and social media can successfully control the public mood by information management
2) The ‘Biden’ Administration doesn’t introduce electoral system changes that make it even easier to game the vote next time.

Sadly, I think the Donald somehow pulling this out of the fire via the legal process is the only hope for the future, and only then provided he also introduces electoral reforms which prevent this ever happening again. I am a great student of military and political history – this is how Hitler (and indeed all dictators) come to power – via ‘legal’ election at first, then they change the system to retain it.

18. egg_ says:

the combined efforts of ‘big media’ to successfully frame this as nothing more than a republican tantrum will be accepted as well.

Our Cth Broadcasting Corporation is certainly spinning it that way.
Nothing to see here!

19. egg_ says:

A Biden/Harris clown show is going to be such a disaster

Aunty already has Oz Economists commenting on Biden’s envisaged diplomatic policy towards China: only a slight softening of Trump’s policy!

20. stackja says:

flyingduk
#3648902, posted on November 7, 2020 at 7:59 am

Senate and ACB spoil the Dems party?

21. Another Ian says:

Something else to contemplate

” Almost 100,000 people who voted for Joe Biden could not be bothered to vote down below.
Compare that with only 2,000 for the Trump down ballot. https://t.co/plGAlXoOSM

— Rising serpent 🇺🇸 (@rising_serpent) November 6, 2020 ”

22. mareeS says:

Australia has a very transparent electoral process, and as a previous scrutineer at our local polling booth, we keep one another honest, because we know where the likely cheats are.

This USA election process is 3rd world standard, Tammany Hall with boots on.

23. stackja says:

flyingduk
#3648910, posted on November 7, 2020 at 8:08 am

Dems in 1850 passed the Fugitive Slave Act. Lincoln was elected. Dems lost the war.
Dan Rather lost out to pjmedia. Trump could start TNN.

24. Ellen of Tasmania says:

the combined efforts of ‘big media’ to successfully frame this as nothing more than a republican tantrum will be accepted as well.

The BBC and ABC were calling it ‘Trump’s unsubstantiated claims’ – which made us wonder why these super-duper-well-paid journalists didn’t go out and do a bit of investigative journalism to find out just how unsubstantiated they were.

Then we saw this by Martin Armstrong (https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/mainstream-media-told-not-allowed-to-investigate-voter-fraud/):

“I was just told by a journalist in one of the top 3 newspapers that they were just told NO STORIES of any voter fraud. This is pretty much confirming that indeed this election was stolen and the mainstream media will not publish or investigate anything that would undermine Biden.”

Of course this, too, is ‘unsubstantiated’, but it might explain the complete lack of interest in investigating the claims.

25. notafan says:

I’m completely unimpressed with us electoral process, election officials wearing Democratic merchandise, caps and shirts to work.

Not even pretending to be neutral.

I read a thread on vote curing where the computer could not scan the ballot. Apparently rewriting is legal.

Again absolutely not if the voter can’t make it clear and legible, bin it, there is just too much handling and time wasting in the US.
Mail in ballots should be deployed armed forces and nobody else.

26. stackja says:

mareeS
#3648920, posted on November 7, 2020 at 8:19 am

50 states make their own rules.
Some states might make new rules after Dems losses.
Not all Dems elected in many states.

27. Albatross says:

mareeS
#3648920, posted on November 7, 2020 at 8:19 am
Australia has a very transparent electoral process,

So far as it goes. I mean, we’ve got no real choice about who governs us. But the process by which we are forced to accept the latest Uniparty regime is well-administered.

28. flyingduk says:

The BBC and ABC were calling it ‘Trump’s unsubstantiated claims’ – which made us wonder why these super-duper-well-paid journalists didn’t go out and do a bit of investigative journalism to find out just how unsubstantiated they were.

Yep, the usually only slightly Left of centre 5AA in Adelaide reported this morning that Trumps claims of election fraud were ‘baseless’ … not ‘unsubstantiated’ … baseless.

Winter is coming – guns, gold n bitcoin.

29. Tel says:

Benfords law applies to phenomena where a value increases exponentially, such that each time it grows more time is spent at the lower number as it flips up to the next order of magnitude.

Bank deposits don’t increase exponentially over time … you could get a random mix of big, small and medium deposits throughout the day.

Maybe you are thinking that the random numbers should fall roughly along an exponential distribution … meaning that the big deposits are more unlikely. This would not work for whole electorates in Australia where they are carefully constructed such that each electorate is about the same size as the others. It probably would work for polling stations which include a mix of popular and unpopular locations.

30. egg_ says:

“I was just told by a journalist in one of the top 3 newspapers that they were just told NO STORIES of any voter fraud. This is pretty much confirming that indeed this election was stolen and the mainstream media will not publish or investigate anything that would undermine Biden.”

Itty bitty little stories like a US Mail employee caught with 3 undelivered votes, just to give it an air of realism.

31. Rabbi Putin says:

mareeS
#3648920, posted on November 7, 2020 at 8:19 am
Australia has a very transparent electoral process,

A Daniel Andrews lackey had to resign this year over branch-stacking. And just the Daniel Andrews vibe in general, if you have lived 6 years under this man you can’t say there isn’t some overar Coing sense in the air that dodginess is going on in the electoral process and every other theatre of public life.

We get preferential voting and so can vote for a minor-party candidate without punishing whoever we feel is the less-evil major party. If the Australian public weren’t so dim-witted and parochial toward the majors then we could actually apply some decent leverage within our system. Sadly we also have compulsory voting, so the brainwashed morons are mandated to come out on Election Day and weaken the vote of the people who actually give a crap about where the country is going.

32. egg_ says:

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (Pub.L. 107–252), or HAVA, is a United States federal law which passed in the House 357-48 and 92-2 in the Senate[1] and was signed into law by President Bush on October 29, 2002.[2] The bill was drafted (at least in part) in reaction to the controversy surrounding the 2000 U.S. presidential election, when almost two million ballots were disqualified because they registered multiple votes or none when run through vote-counting machines.[3]

The goals of HAVA are:[4]

– replace punchcard and lever-based voting systems;
– create the Election Assistance Commission to assist in the administration of federal elections; and
– establish minimum election administration standards.

33. Albatross says:

Tel is right. I don’t think this is an accurate description of the mechanism which produces the Benford distribution.

34. egg_ says:

vote curing

Probably a great vehicle for Electoral fraud – along with dead voters.

35. Albatross says:

Rabbi Putin
#3648944, posted on November 7, 2020 at 8:43 am

Our political duopoly set the rules governing the electoral system. It serves its twin purpose of cloaking them in legitimacy, and erecting barriers to entry to maintain their hegemony.

36. egg_ says:

A Biden/Harris clown show is going to be such a disaster

Wasn’t Trump prompted to run due to ’empty chair’ Obama?

What would Putin make of Sleepy Joe anywhere near the big Red Button?

37. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV) says:

I’ve had a closer look at the blockchain patent and it is specifically for mail in voters. Did they roll it out for this election?

38. NuThink says:

flyingduk
#3648910, posted on November 7, 2020 at 8:08 am
I am a great student of military and political history – this is how Hitler (and indeed all dictators) come to power – via ‘legal’ election at first, then they change the system to retain it.

Agreed flyingduk. Heard a long time ago that Hitler vowed to use the “democratic” process to gain power as he was not gaining too much traction with his other methods, then pervert it. Now where have I heard that before “When we get into power we will change everything” or words to that effect.
Recently saw a docco on Winston Churchill saying that at Chartwill (his long time home) he meticulously documented the Nazi pre WW2 armaments industry, but was unable to convince anyone else until it was too late.

1936 March 07
Hitler reoccupies the Rhineland, violating the Treaty of Versailles

I have also seen a report that Hitler actually was surprised that no one contested his move into the demilitarized zone in the Rheinland, and he also made the comment that if UK or France had objected then he would have withdrawn. He was emboldened by having no opposition.
Another docco on Churchill said that the only advisor he trusted during the WW2 was General Jan Smuts who was a Boer general when Churchill was captured by the Boers – Churchill being at the time a war correspondent. So Smuts was the enemy of the UK during the Boer War but a friend and advisor during WW2.

Jan Christiaan Smuts, OM (24 May 1870 – 11 September 1950) was a prominent South African and Commonwealth statesman and military leader. He served as a Boer General during the Boer War, a British General during the First World War and was appointed Field Marshal during the Second World War.

And this

Their association continued in World War I, when Lloyd George appointed Smuts, in 1917, to the war cabinet in which Churchill served as Munitions Minister. … Smuts is the only man who has any influence with the PM; indeed, he is the only ally I have in pressing counsels of common sense on the PM.

https://www.npr.org/2017/09/26/544447697/how-the-boer-war-helped-winston-churchill-become-the-hero-of-the-empire

Unfortunately I see similarities between the pre War 2 and the current dangerous situation – our democracy is an illusion. Rather have direct democracy à la Switzerland as closer to the democracy ideal. The people have the power, not just the people at the top

Biden is too compromised by the allegations of family taking money from China, and Kamala’s understanding of world affairs leave too much to be desired.
.

39. Judge Dredd says:

Without a doubt the election was fraudulent. Anyone with an IQ over 70 knows this election was stolen.
https://monsterhunternation.com/2020/11/05/the-2020-election-fuckery-is-afoot/

40. Infidel Tiger says:

Robby Starbuck
@robbystarbuck
One Michigan county clerk caught a glitch in tabulation software so they hand counted votes and found the glitch caused 6,000 votes to go to Biden + Democrats that were meant for Trump and Republicans. 47 MI counties used this software. All must check now!

Seems significant.

41. Zatara says:

I read a thread on vote curing where the computer could not scan the ballot. Apparently rewriting is legal.

It depends on the State. One of the States where it is specifically forbidden by law is Pennsylvania, where as many as 100,000 may have been ‘cured’ or corrected because the voter was too stupid (or in too much of a hurry) follow the procedures properly… like not signing it.

42. NuThink says:

Rabbi Putin

Sadly we also have compulsory voting, so the brainwashed morons are mandated to come out on Election Day and weaken the vote of the people who actually give a crap about where the country is going.

Also the party gets money for every vote that it gets. So the system is never likely to change to non compulsory voting.

Tony Blair also made a remark about poor turnouts to elections in the UK, to the effect that the politicians need to get their act together as people are disinterested in politics and so if the turnout is too low the government cannot really claim legitimacy. And I agree, if you don’t care who gets in, why should you have to vote. But then follow the money as mentioned above explains a lot to me. Also a statement made under duress is not AFAIK is not allowed in a court of law. Some people consider compulsory voting a form of duress.

43. egg_ says:

as many as 100,000 may have been ‘cured’ or corrected because the voter was too stupid (or in too much of a hurry) follow the procedures properly… like not signing it.

Yup.

ARIZONA

Absentee ballots include an affidavit that must be signed by the voter under penalty of perjury. Upon receipt, the signature on the affidavit is compared to the signature on the voter’s registration form. The vote is counted only if the affidavit is found sufficient.

44. Baa Humbug says:

Sadly we also have compulsory voting, so the brainwashed morons are mandated to come out on Election Day and weaken the vote of the people who actually give a crap about where the country is going.

The reason why a jurisdiction like Michigan can dump 100,000+ votes in the middle of the night is because in the USA, nobody knows how many people turned out to vote.
In Australia, at no time and at no place can any significant numbers of ballots be “dumped” by crooked election workers or postal workers. It just can’t happen.

45. mareeS says:

Rabbi Putin,, at least we know here in Oz who the cheats tend to be. Lots of cynical voters out here in the real world stick with economics rather than ideology front and centre to apply our votes.

46. mareeS says:

Baa Humbug, +++

47. cuckoo says:

When I was a kid the movie musical L’il Abner (1956) would show up on tv periodically. As a kid, I never understood that line in the song The country’s in the very best of hands when Marryin’ Sam sings:
Dem bones, dem bones gonna
rise again
gonna exercise the fran
-chise again

Now I do.

(And I also understand the movie would now be cancelled for language like “dem bones”)

48. Zatara says:

nobody knows how many people turned out to vote.

As long as you blast out ballots via the mail system along with 3rd class junk mailers about tyre sales or \$5 off pizza coupons you will never have any idea how many you are going to get back.

But you can guarantee that a huge percentage of them will be fraudulent.

49. kae says:

mareeS
#3648920, posted on November 7, 2020 at 8:19 am
Australia has a very transparent electoral process,

This is true. I have worked at polling places as a clerk over the years. People who say that ballots are filled in/pencil is erased and changed at the polling place are clueless.

There is no time for this type of thing to happen, scrutineers watch and can see if this is happening.

Because many voters have no idea how preferential voting works they don’t use it. They don’t understand that they can choose their own preferences – it is time this was taught in high school.

50. WolfmanOz says:

Judge Dredd
#3648979, posted on November 7, 2020 at 9:05 am
Without a doubt the election was fraudulent. Anyone with an IQ over 70 knows this election was stolen.
https://monsterhunternation.com/2020/11/05/the-2020-election-fuckery-is-afoot/

That’s an excellent analysis, but the problem is in actually proving the fraud to the general populace, in that your average Joe in the street is simply not willing to take it in unless it is in a 10 second sound bit.

Still there’s going to enough hardcore Trump supporters (say 40-45%+) who are going to rage on about the illegitimacy of Biden’s presidency.

After the shenanigans after 2016 where the Democrats refused to accept the result, we are going to see it all over again in 2020 but this time there will actually be a case for it.

51. Dr Faustus says:

Perhaps I’m just being dim, but it’s not clear what “Leading Digit” means in these plots.
Fairly critical to understanding whether Benford applies.

52. Albatross says:

Dr Faustus
#3649131, posted on November 7, 2020 at 11:03 am
Perhaps I’m just being dim, but it’s not clear what “Leading Digit” means in these plots.
Fairly critical to understanding whether Benford applies.

First digit of the number (in this case, of votes).

53. Nighthawk the Elder says:

kae
#3649108, posted on November 7, 2020 at 10:49 am

They don’t understand that they can choose their own preferences – it is time this was taught in high school.

It was taught when I went to school over 40 years ago. In fact I was first introduced to it in Primary School as our very intelligent teacher (they were back then) gave us a detailed breakdown of the dismissal in 1975, the subsequent election and how voting works and votes are counted in both houses. She used these not only in the old social science subject, she also used it to teach percentages in our maths lessons. Really smart lady and well regarded.

54. Dr Faustus says:

WolfmanOz at 10:53 am

Indeed.
The statistics are deeply improbable. However the real hurdle will be pulling sufficient legal proof of malfeasance out of thousands of individual possible fraud events – some of which will benefit Trump – to cause a court to intervene.

I expect the apparent result will be allowed to stand because of the technical and legal difficulties in proving ‘definitively who’, rather than ‘statistically possible whether’ – and the US polity will be weakened accordingly.

55. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha says:

It was taught when I went to school over 40 years ago

It was taught when I was in High School, fifty years ago.

56. mem says:

It has been suggested that the bulk drops were a result of public servants being instructed to vote and votes being sent in bulk lots. Is this feasible? It sounds a bit iffy to me.

57. Dr Faustus says:

First digit of the number (in this case, of votes).

Yes, I understand the maths.
But what basis for the dataset? In each case there appears to be a few thousand data – so, my question is what quantity does the first digit represent?

58. PB says:

Dr Faustus 11:16

“expect the apparent result will be allowed to stand because of the technical and legal difficulties in proving ‘definitively who’, rather than ‘statistically possible whether’…”

I think this is now the standard given that credible accusations of election fraud over many years has hardly ever led to any investigations let alone convictions. Any accusation fails for the lack of evidence because firstly, its not something that is done with the aim of it being caught out, so it requires a forensic approach to discovery that no-one seems to have the will, time and resources to devote, even with such high stakes. I guess, having not done anything about this since the “hanging chad” era, no-one will start now because it would prove the corruption of American democracy beyond talk and rumour, and talk of bringing “democracy” to China or Venezuela et al would be shown to be the manipulative hot-air that it always was.

59. Zatara says:

However the real hurdle will be pulling sufficient legal proof of malfeasance out of thousands of individual possible fraud events

If you were trying to track down individual fraudsters yes. But when the fraud event is the election authorities of states directly violating state law regarding handling and counting of ballots it’s much easier.

No Court, no judge, no minister, no chief of voting etc. can make those changes, only the legislature can, and they didn’t.

The cure? ALL ballots not handled in accordance with the law get thrown out.

Next major problem? The reason the Reps wanted counting stopped immediately is that once the envelopes containing the ballots are opened they are often discarded, so no date/time proof. Which is why the Dems did it anyway.

60. Steve trickler says:
61. Zatara says:

Here are some stats.

The Wisconsin 4AM vote dump was 98.4% for Biden. That sound reasonable to anyone?
How about a Pennsylvania dump of 28,000 votes that was 100% for Biden?

Amazingly, the only places those devastating ratios were found during this election were in the midnight ballot dumps in known battleground states with decent amounts of electoral college votes.

Things that should make you go hmmmmm.

62. Chris M says:

my question is what quantity does the first digit represent?

Exactly what I’m wondering. It’s batch quantities of votes? But what size batches etc? It would be good to learn more detail about how this analysis works with ballot numbers.

63. Rob MW says:

If Obama was the left’s god then criminally corrupt Biden is the left’s god of gods, so far he has beaten Obama’s popular vote by 4,000,000 (mil) votes. Poor ole’ hag-bag the criminally corrupt Hilderbeast doesn’t even rate.

What a corrupt fucking show the most powerful nation on Earth has turned out to be, they’d even rig a fucking chook raffle if it meant securing socialist globalism as the normal function of the West.

I’ve got a feeling in my waters that this is going to end badly.

64. Tezza says:

Further to my cautionary comment at 7.02 about the power of Benford’s law applied to voting, here is a thoughtful analysis of how well it works:
Deckert, Joseph, et al. “Benford’s Law and the Detection of Election Fraud.” Political Analysis, vol. 19, no. 3, 2011, pp. 245–268. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23011436. Accessed 7 Nov. 2020.

The key take-out is
“Benford’s Law is problematical at best as a forensic tool when applied to elections. Looking at simulations designed to model both fair and fraudulent contests as well as data drawn from elections we know, on the basis of other investigations, were either permeated by fraud or unlikely to have experienced any measurable malfeasance, we find that conformity with and deviations from Benford’s Law follow no pattern. 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.”

65. LBLoveday says:

mareeS
#3648920, posted on November 7, 2020 at 8:19 am
Australia has a very transparent electoral process,
.
Apart from the well-published rorts such as voting multiple times and, or, under another’s name – one can go to a polling booth at opening time, give one’s neighbour’s name and address and vote under his name, with or without his knowledge, before he arrives; one can go to each polling booth in one’s electorate, voting at each, up to 60, under one’s name, one’s neighbour’s, or someone else’s, provided one is prepared to answer “no” to the inane question “Have you voted elsewhere today?” – and enrolling under multiple names prior to the 16 April 2007 requirement to provide ID on enrollment, the events in the 1980 Norwood, SA, by-election made me determined to not take part in such a corrupt system no matter what the cost.
.
The Norwood, SA, 1979 state election result (won by Frank Webster, Liberal) was overturned by a court decision, and a by-election held 16/2/1980. In the few months between the general election and the by-election, the Norwood electoral roll numbers increased by 10%. The vast majority were not newly turned 18yos, new residents, or people who had omitted to enroll by the previous cut-off date, they were election riggers – people from outside Norwood, typically Left-wing UofA students, who had voted in another electorate in the general election and who changed their enrolled, but not physical, address to vote again.
.
There were up to 22 people enrolled at the one addres, but the Electoral Commission did nothing. So my neighbour, Greg Crafter, ALP, romped in, and I was shortly after removed from the electoral roll, never to return.
.
More recently, as reported in “The Advertiser”, a SA family claimed to have voted 159 times, including 31 times by a 17 year old, in a recent election. Even the AEC, which in the past has buried its head in the sand conceded it is possible, and if it’s possible, it is done, with only the extent being in question.

66. mundi says:

LBLoveday… yes its possible to vote more than once in Australia. But for each ballot a name is marked off the roll. The roll is later checked for how many double counts it had (And also how many who didn’t vote – to get fined).

If the double count is greater than the deciding margin, the AEC itself disputes the election, and if the judge agrees with their evidence, the law requires the judge to declare it invalid – and the seat gets run again.

The question is…. how many double votes really exist. The AEC don’t publish this. Its up to the parties to ask when the margin is close. The reason no one wants to talk about this is that if people know they can get away with it – it will eventually add up and start triggering invalid elections.

67. Vicki says:

Interesting article by one time auditor on the question of statistical improbabilities.

https://monsterhunternation.com/2020/11/05/the-2020-election-fuckery-is-afoot/

68. mundi says:

The obvious red flags are the turn-out. Some areas have got higher turnout than Australia gets with mandatory voting.

69. Bruce of Newcastle says:

The problem is that Trump-Pence ballots follow Benford’s Law.
The third party candidate ballots follow Benford’s Law.
But Biden-Harris ballots do not.

If Benford’s Law does not apply to elections then it should not apply to Trump-Pence or to the third parties (and three different third parties at that in Chicago, Allegheny and Milwaukee).

70. Glynn says:

Sidney Powell, Michael Flynn lawyer said on Lou Dobbs Fox Business that they believe the Democrats have used the Hammer and Scorecard software program to reverse votes from Trump to Biden. Montgomery originally developed this software for Intelligence purposes and has been a whistleblower about it. I heard an ex military brass talking about Scorecard just before the election. Look it up. It seems that it may have been used to tank Sanders for Biden plus in other elections.

71. Leo G says:

If Benford’s Law does not apply to elections then it should not apply to Trump-Pence or to the third parties (and three different third parties at that in Chicago, Allegheny and Milwaukee).

There are other more conventional statistical analyses that can be applied.
Ranged collection district participation rate and the ranged candidate vote share are both discrete random variables. Comparing the frequency distributions for samples of collection districts should be binomial.
Are there abnormalities in the distributions.
Do the outliers in one distribution match the outliers in the other?

Benford’s Law can be used in a vast array of situations. You simply need roughly >1,000 whole numbers and to test the relationship against various statistical measures of the significance. In my experience at work, even highly summarized or totaled transaction, statistical and engineering numbers seem to comply with the Law – both first and second digits. Hell, even numbers on a map seem to comply with the law.

73. Pat Heuvel says:

Folks, what is the relationship of the votes currently being counted to the electoral college? If one candidate wins here, could he not lose when the electoral college votes are cast?

Fair dinkum question!

74. Didn’t know for a long time that it had a name. Benford’s law works. It is used (in a simplistic version) at my place to track for theft/fraud/error in cash handling & in kitchen management. (principally error is what we’re looking for)
It works, to the point where I’m well known (& somewhat unpopular coz of) for the 3am phone call telling someone they’ve got some recounting & balancing to be done rightaway, coz I know there’s an error that can be found.

Rather surprised to learn it can be used to scan for vote fraud. Don’t doubt it works, at least to reveal red flags that should trigger deeper investigation.

75. Astatine Jones says:

No it’s not statistical ‘proof’ of electoral fraud:
https://www.eipartnership.net/rapid-response/what-the-election-results-dont-tell-us

76. Zatara says:

Folks, what is the relationship of the votes currently being counted to the electoral college? If one candidate wins here, could he not lose when the electoral college votes are cast?

Yes, see the 2016 election. Clinton won the popular, Trump won the electoral.

The difference this time is that the Dems focused their fraud on states with high numbers of electoral college votes. Does the winner of the state automatically get the electoral college votes? No.

The state legislatures pick the Electors who do the voting in the EC. In the states in question (Arizona, Georgia, Penn, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina) the majority party in the legislature are Republican.

This is far from over.

77. Zatara says:

World Champion Boxer Joe Frazier voted for Biden this in Pennsylvania.

But he skipped campaigning for Joe. His excuse? He’s been dead since 2011.

Not kidding.

78. Matt says:

The state legislatures pick the Electors who do the voting in the EC.

Not true

Who selects the electors?

Choosing each State’s electors is a two-part process. First, the political parties in each State choose slates of potential electors sometime before the general election. Second, during the general election, the voters in each State select their State’s electors by casting their ballots.

The first part of the process is controlled by the political parties in each State and varies from State to State. Generally, the parties either nominate slates of potential electors at their State party conventions or they chose them by a vote of the party’s central committee. This happens in each State for each party by whatever rules the State party and (sometimes) the national party have for the process. This first part of the process results in each Presidential candidate having their own unique slate of potential electors.

Political parties often choose individuals for the slate to recognize their service and dedication to that political party. They may be State elected officials, State party leaders, or people in the State who have a personal or political affiliation with their party’s Presidential candidate.

The second part of the process happens during the general election. When the voters in each State cast votes for the Presidential candidate of their choice they are voting to select their State’s electors. The potential electors’ names may or may not appear on the ballot below the name of the Presidential candidates, depending on election procedures and ballot formats in each State.

The winning Presidential candidate’s slate of potential electors are appointed as the State’s electors—except in Nebraska and Maine, which have proportional distribution of the electors. In Nebraska and Maine, the State winner receives two electors and the winner of each congressional district (who may be the same as the overall winner or a different candidate) receives one elector. This system permits Nebraska and Maine to award electors to more than one candidate.

79. D says:

mundi, the application of Benford’s Law is not limited to things that grow exponentially.

It applies to anything that is counted, or accumulated. As you count, when you first encounter a number starting with 1, you need to double the count (100% increase) to get out of the 1’s. Once you hit a number starting with 9, you only need to increase the count by 11%. Note – this is true, ever after the first number (1) and the first encounter with 9. It has nothing to do with how quickly it grows.

I think this is a clear case of voter fraud but you can’t really tell if the Dems were pushing the numbers up or the Reps pushing the numbers down.

80. Josh says:

As commented by others no one claims that using Benford’s Law proves anything and already the Election Integrity Project has ‘debunked’ the analyses being circulated by creating this straw man and pointing out this fact. It merely highlights anomalies for investigation. Will there be time to do that? Probably not unfortunately unless the other statistical tools mentioned in the comments can be applied.

However as commented the salient point is that the Trump and Independents DO approximate the Benford distribution but Biden’s DO NOT. Moreover Biden’s DO in Miami-Dade where it was obvious early on that FL with a Republican administration was clearly retained by Trump whereas the DO NOT counties were in Democrat controlled rust belt states.

81. Zatara says:

The winning Presidential candidate’s slate of potential electors are appointed as the State’s electors

Yep, and who appoints the electors?

I know it’s confusing but it is in fact true for a very simple reason, if the legislature doesn’t appoint you as an elector you aren’t one. If the popular vote is in question the legislature isn’t going to appoint you.

In this case, it is extremely well known that the Democrat party cheated its ass off. So what do you think the Republican majority legislature is going to do if pressed for an answer?

US Constituion – Article II, Section 1, Clause 2:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

82. Peter says:

Benford doesn’t really apply to elections (even if people try to use for it). It shows matches in about 50% of the cases, so everybody can pick a sample to demonstrate that it’s OK or that it isn’t, just as they please. Simply put, Benford applies to different kind of statistical data than election numbers (with some oversimplification, to some naturally occuring, random data sets and elections results are not random data sets). Even Wikipedia has a rather decent description of where it can be used and where not. So, sorry, no, Benford is not a proof at all.

83. Matt says:

Yes, but most States have now enacted statutes to guarantee to prohibit so-called faithless voting and ensure that the electors vote for the candidate who got the most statewide votes in the presidential election. State legislatures could certainly try this approach, but it would be legally (and politically) problematic.

84. Zatara says:

Yes, but most States have now enacted statutes to guarantee to prohibit so-called faithless voting and ensure that the electors vote for the candidate who got the most statewide votes in the presidential election.

I don’t think you are getting my point. If one side is known to have cheated their asses off then you don’t have a “candidate who got the most statewide vote”.

So if the legislature is forced to make a call, who do you think is going to get it? The party who controls the legislature or the other?

As I pointed out, this leads past the EC issue and into the possibility that the US Congress (the House) is going to have to vote on it. One state – one vote. Who decides who that one vote is for?

85. Zatara says:

Yes, but most States have now enacted statutes to guarantee to prohibit so-called faithless voting and ensure that the electors vote for the candidate who got the most statewide votes in the presidential election.

And you are right in that SCOTUS recently ruled that states can punish faithless electors.

But without a legitimate popular vote….

86. Matt says:

Well – if voter fraud is proven, then that would actually change the outcome, no? So the electors would switch to Trump. I thought you were referring to changing based on the current result.

87. Dot says:

Matt
#3650261, posted on November 8, 2020 at 7:51 am

Well – if voter fraud is proven, then that would actually change the outcome, no?

Yes it would, you moron.

88. Matt says:

Emphasis on ‘if’

89. Dot says:

Zatara
#3650179, posted on November 8, 2020 at 6:27 am

World Champion Boxer Joe Frazier voted for Biden this in Pennsylvania.

But he skipped campaigning for Joe. His excuse? He’s been dead since 2011.

Not kidding.

But…THERE’S NO EVIDENCE! It has been fact checked by the totally-not-Orwellian “BBC Reality Check”!

90. Dot says:

Great, prepare for an asinine lecture on what if means.

91. Zatara says:

I thought you were referring to changing based on the current result.

I am. There is no current result. And that’s the point. IF forced to make a call, the legislatures sure as hell aren’t going to support the opposition candidate.

92. Matt says:

I have no doubt you understand what ‘if’ mean.
Allegations of fraud have been made. They have not yet been proven. So we can speculate to our hearts content about which way this will play out. But it’s just speculation.
Doesn’t change the point about how the electoral college system works.

93. Dot says:

Doesn’t change the point about how the electoral college system works.

Yeah, I also like kittens and ice cream, you doofus.

94. duncanm says:

Astatine Jones
#3650133, posted on November 8, 2020 at 1:16 am

No it’s not statistical ‘proof’ of electoral fraud:
https://www.eipartnership.net/rapid-response/what-the-election-results-dont-tell-us

I notice they don’t actually public the analysis (plots) the argument is based on.. just a whole bunch of ‘doesn’t prove’, ‘can possibly get results like this’ rah rah.

Statistics doesn’t work they way, guys.

95. Matt says:

Horse before the cart though Zatara.
There is no result now, but there will be. And it will be challenged in court (at least that’s what Trump is saying). And at the end of that, there will be a result. Are you then saying that in the case where the courts uphold the result in (say) Arizona, that the legislature will still try and appoint pro-Trump electors?

96. Zatara says:

Doesn’t change the point about how the electoral college system works.

State legislatures are responsible for electing electors.

I linked to the US Consitution to prove that. You didn’t link to where your interpretation of “how it works” came from.

97. Matt says:

SCOTUS
CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON

98. Zatara says:

There is no result now, but there will be.

Really? When?

Because the Electoral College report is due by 14 Dec. They are then tabulated by Congress in the 1st week of January. If no answer by then a contingent election takes place in Congress as I’ve already described.

99. Major Elvis Newton says:

Stupid, stupid Americans.

You deserve your Venezuelan fate with President Harris.

Enjoy socialism, you stupid fools.

100. Matt says:

From Utah Code
Title 20A – Election Code
Chapter 13 – Elections to Federal Offices
Part 3 – Presidential Electors
Section 304 – Meeting to ballot — Casting ballot for person not nominated by elector’s party.

(3) Any elector who casts an electoral ballot for a person not nominated by the party of which he is an elector, except in the cases of death or felony conviction of a candidate, is considered to have resigned from the office of elector, his vote may not be recorded, and the remaining electors shall appoint another person to fill the vacancy.

101. Matt says:

A contingent election is different to the electoral college voting.

102. Dot says:

From Utah Code

58.6% for Trump

How is this relevant?

You have to apply the case law to the relevant state legislation.

Hmmmmm

Held: A State may enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee—and the state voters’ choice—for President. Pp. 8–18. (a) Article II, §1 gives the States the authority to appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” This Court has described that clause as “conveying the broadest power of determination” over who becomes an elector.

How is this relevant to any contested state?

103. Zatara says:

No.

… is about faithless electors. As is your Utah Code cite. A completely different topic.

Where did your #3650185 come from?

A contingent election is different to the electoral college voting.

Well no shit Sherlock. I give up. Dot’s right.

104. Dot says:

A contingent election is different to the electoral college voting.

Well no shit. Maybe you can explain what the Congress is next.

105. Matt says:

I just linked to the first one I could find, but as noted in the the Supreme Court link above, most states have these statutes.

106. Dot says:

I just linked to the first one I could find

That’s not how law works, Matt.

107. Matt says:

Zatara’s original post on this didn’t make the distinction it was a discussion on contingent elections, that only came into the discussion later on.
On the issue of state statutes – sure, I could go and link to the 32 that the Supreme Court referenced, but I’m not going to. I’m going to trust them on that one.

108. Mak Siccar says:

Over at American Thinker, …..

In 30 states, a computer system known to be defective is tallying votes
By Andrea Widburg

When Kyle Becker heard about the “glitchy” computer program in Antrim County, Michigan, the one that tried to give 6,000 Trump votes to Biden, he started doing research into the system. He ended up finding an amazing amount of highly disturbing information. The Dominion system has been known for some time to be defective, yet 28 states use it. This post is a compilation of Becker’s information, both in his own tweets and in one other person’s tweet, about what’s going on with that system:

(Snip)

What I find most disturbing is the impunity with which Democrats are gaming the system. They’re not even trying to cover their tracks. They are 100% certain that there will be no consequences for their actions. They know that the media, which should be a watchdog on behalf of American citizens, is actually an arm of the Democrat party that will do everything necessary to cover for Democrat election …

When Kyle Becker heard about the “glitchy” computer program in Antrim County, Michigan, the one that tried to give 6,000 Trump votes to Biden, he started doing research into the system. He ended up finding an amazing amount of highly disturbing information. The Dominion system has been known for some time to be defective, yet 28 states use it.
/blockquote>

109. Dot says:

Never say the following in court:

1. “Your honour, it seemed like a good idea at the time”.
2. “I just linked/referenced (to) the first one I could find”.
3. “I could (produce documentation), but I’m not going to”.

110. Matt says:

Wouldn’t dream of it Dot. But last I checked, we’re not in court.

111. Dot says:

You’re trying to disprove a statistical argument with US legal precedent, you mong!

112. Matt says:

I’m not commenting on the statistical argument of voter fraud – I was only responding to Zatara’s post re how the electoral college works.

113. DaveM says:

@Astatine Jones

“Armchair investigators during the election have already begun to argue that too many of the submitted vote totals begin with larger single digit numbers (7 or 8 for example)”

Incorrect. The test is not necessarily performed on the first digit (nor the last). The example those charts were based on used the second digit.

“Mebane 2nd digit test with Trump vs Biden”

https://theredelephants.com/there-is-undeniable-mathematical-evidence-the-election-is-being-stolen/

From my thinking the law rests on the starter’s advantage of early digits when incremental counting is at play. However the distribution of the last digit should become more uniform when the counting increases to large numbers. For large counts we can drop back to the digit which we still expect be bias effected e.g. if counts range from 100-200 should see 11x appear more (but we still need to ask questions about the source of the underlying – what if there was natural clustering in the middle say?)

114. FR says:

Austin 3:16 says Trump Lost. Suck it up.

115. Tailgunner says:

Excellent,Steve.
I’ve been busy in the Election Thread.
Benford will save the world.
I’m no maths- talkin guy, but I know Real when I see it.
Trump better give the guy the Presidential Medal or whatever.
#Benfordlyfe

116. Tailgunner says:

Zatara, although a thoroughly deplorable guy, is The authority around here on US electoral issues.
Debate him at your peril, homies

117. Tailgunner says:

Matt, you’re doing good around here though.

118. Matt says:

Happy to stick my head up above the parapet every now and then Gunner.

119. Tom Heller says:

The problem with this first-digit Benford proof of fraud is that leading digits of 2, 3 ,4, 5, even 6 can be genuine in precincts like in Chicago, Milwaukee and Pittsburgh containing a thousand or more voters. In that case, a high turnout and lopsided vote for one candidate can easily produce 200-, 300-, 400-, 500-, 600-something vote totals. Thus leading digits of 2, 3, 4 , 5, 6 result.

Although Benford type analysis can be quite powerful, one of its CENTRAL assumptions, required before drawing any conclusions, is that every number is as likely to appear in any given spot as any other. When that condition is violated (as with the instance I sketched above), Benford analysis cannot discern non-random patterns.

120. Dot says:

When that condition is violated

You just assumed that wasn’t true.

121. Martin says:

Yeah I know the law.

A few problems

1
It isn’t actually a law, it’s tends to happen but it doesn’t have to. So the IRS will use it to identify possible fraud, but your return having more 3s than 1s doesn’t mean you committed fraud. You can get sets where the law doesn’t fit by pure chance.

2
It only applies to massively large sets. Some of the vote counts are way to small to see this law in effect

3
BIdens vote does follow the law in most of the cases. I see only one where it significantly diverges.

This is just grasping at straws.

122. Spider says:

Michael Rowland says there is no evidence of fraud. Not one shred of evidence apparently. Well that’s good enough for me.

Maybe Trump should never have used the word “fraud”, as such, but instead “irregularities” might have allowed more folk to come along with him.

I seriously doubt that the irregularities that will be highlighted in the next few weeks will rise to the level which will change the course of the election but to deny the possibility of fraud in a US election is just ridiculous. How many postal service drivers have they got now? Observers at polling booths witnessing inexplicable behaviour? Software glitches?

Once again the media just cannot tread that line between objectivity and cheer leading.

123. Dot says:

Martin

2.5 mn post ballots in PA don’t count?

Massively large sets? As in n = 1000, 10,000 or 1,000,000?

124. William Herold says:

Benfords Law does not apply when you have known percentages of votes coming out of relatively uniform buckets. Professor Mebane at University of Michigan explains:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/inapB.pdf

125. AndresCo says: