Is mathematical proof of voter fraud admissible in court?

[MarathonMike]

Here is an interesting article that applies Benford's Law to the 2020 election results. Only Biden's numbers in certain key states fail to conform to Benford's Law. So what do you legal eagles say? Is statistical analysis admissible evidence?

One moment, please...

stillnessinthestorm.com

 

[konradv]

Here is an interesting article that applies Benford's Law to the 2020 election results. Only Biden's numbers in certain key states fail to conform to Benford's Law. So what do you legal eagles say? Is statistical analysis admissible evidence?

One moment, please...

stillnessinthestorm.com

You have to be able to cross examine the statistics. Statistics do lie sometimes.

 

[candycorn]

Here is an interesting article that applies Benford's Law to the 2020 election results. Only Biden's numbers in certain key states fail to conform to Benford's Law. So what do you legal eagles say? Is statistical analysis admissible evidence?

One moment, please...

stillnessinthestorm.com

The court challenges are over; all of the states that were swing states have certified.

 

[Gdjjr]

Proof of guilt has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt- allegedly

 

[Anomalism]

Unless something unimaginable happens Biden will be our next president, cheating or no.

 

[Toro]

Here is an interesting article that applies Benford's Law to the 2020 election results. Only Biden's numbers in certain key states fail to conform to Benford's Law. So what do you legal eagles say? Is statistical analysis admissible evidence?

One moment, please...

stillnessinthestorm.com

No. It's not a mathematical "proof." It is a mathematical theory, and rests upon assumptions about the distribution of data that may not be true. It can be used to detect fraud but it cannot be used to prove fraud.

​

Walter Mebane, Professor at the Department of Political Science and Department of Statistics at the University of Michigan (here) authored a December 2006 article (here) around the application of Benford’s Law to the US presidential election results. The article suggested some limitations of the process, but said in the Abstract: “The test is worth taking seriously as a statistical test for election fraud.”​

​

Nevertheless, Mebane’s article also said, in the Discussion: “In any case, the 2BL test on its own should not be considered proof either that election fraud has occurred or that an election was clean. A significant 2BL test result can be caused by complications other than fraud. Some kinds of fraud the 2BL test cannot detect.”​

​

On Nov. 9, 2020, in response to “several queries” Mebane published a paper called “Inappropriate Applications of Benford’s Law Regularities to Some Data from the 2020 Presidential Election in the United States” (here). His paper says, “The displays shown at those sources using the first digits of precinct vote counts data from Fulton County, GA, Allegheny County, PA, Milwaukee, WI, and Chicago, IL, say nothing about possible frauds” before examining the reasons behind this statement.​

​

“It is widely understood that the first digits of precinct vote counts are not useful for trying to diagnose election frauds,” he writes.​

​

Elsewhere, a study called “Benford’s Law and the Detection of Election Fraud”, published in 2011 by Joseph Deckert, Mikhail Myagkov, Professor of Political Science at the University of Oregon (here) and Peter Ordeshook, Professor of Political Science at Caltech (here), found that Benford’s Law was “problematical at best” when applied to elections: “We find that conformity with and deviations from Benford's Law follow no pattern. […] 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.” (here)​

This explains the problems with the data.

The specific case of the Milwaukee results was also examined by Professor Boud Roukema of Poland’s Nicolaus Copernicus University. Roukema considered the application of Benford’s Law to the 2009 Iranian elections (arxiv.org/abs/0906.2789) . He told Reuters by email: "A major flaw in applying Benford's law to the Milwaukee results is that the logarithmic distribution - how many "powers of tens" there are - in the numbers of votes per ward in Milwaukee is very narrow. In other words, half of all the wards have total votes from about 570 to 1200, and the logarithmic average (mean) is about 800.​

​

“Biden overall got about 70% of the votes in Milwaukee. So the most likely vote for Biden (in the simplest model, assuming no falsification) in a typical Milwaukee ward is something like 0.7 times 800, which is 560 votes. We expect about half the Biden votes to lie between about 400 and 850 in typical Milwaukee wards.​

​

“So the most popular first digit of the votes for Biden should be 5 - the first digit of 560 - and 4s and 6s and 7s should also be reasonably frequent.​

This makes the analysis of Benford's Law inapplicable because the distribution of numbers doesn't apply as Benford's Law postulates.

Fact check: Deviation from Benford’s Law does not prove election fraud

Social media users have been sharing posts that say a mathematical rule called Benford’s Law provides clear proof of fraud in the U.S. presidential election. However, research papers and academics consulted by Reuters consistently say that deviation from Benford’s Law does...

www.reuters.com

Many other links disputing the assertion.

Benford’s Law Does Not Prove Fraud in the 2020 US Presidential Election

You may have seen something going around in the wake of the 2020 US Presidential Election where people are claiming they can prove there…

jengolbeck.medium.com

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/inapB.pdf

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

repository.library.georgetown.edu

Benford’s Law Does Not Prove Fraud in the 2020 US Presidential Election

You may have seen something going around in the wake of the 2020 US Presidential Election where people are claiming they can prove there…

jengolbeck.medium.com

 

[wamose]

Like Democrats like to say regarding the Corona virus. We need to listen to the science. Benford's Law is a hell of a lot more scientific than Fauci's covid theories.

 

[Chuz Life]

Wait: Biden Won 200 Fewer Counties Than Obama ... but Still Got 13 Million More Votes?

The disparity between counties won by Biden in 2020 and Obama in 2012 is one of many irregularities pointing to fraud in the election.

thenewamerican.com

Seems fitting for this thread.

 

[konradv]

Like Democrats like to say regarding the Corona virus. We need to listen to the science. Benford's Law is a hell of a lot more scientific than Fauci's covid theories.

LOL!!! Just let someone use it to prove AGW, then we'd find out how unscientific it is.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Here is an interesting article that applies Benford's Law to the 2020 election results. Only Biden's numbers in certain key states fail to conform to Benford's Law. So what do you legal eagles say? Is statistical analysis admissible evidence?

One moment, please...

stillnessinthestorm.com

be careful

you cons are bad at math

you think 60 million is MORE than 63 million

 

[MarathonMike]

Here is the best explanation of Benford's Law I've seen as it applies to the 2020 election. This is a forensic accountant who is apolitical, just analyzing the Pennsylvania county by county results. His conclusion is that BOTH Biden and Trump's vote counts were manipulated.

 

[progressive hunter]

Proof of guilt has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt- allegedly

thats criminal law not civil law,,, and this is a civil issue,

 

[wamose]

Here is an interesting article that applies Benford's Law to the 2020 election results. Only Biden's numbers in certain key states fail to conform to Benford's Law. So what do you legal eagles say? Is statistical analysis admissible evidence?

One moment, please...

stillnessinthestorm.com

be careful

you cons are bad at math

you think 60 million is MORE than 63 million

That would depend, Qdog.

 

[MarathonMike]

Here is an interesting article that applies Benford's Law to the 2020 election results. Only Biden's numbers in certain key states fail to conform to Benford's Law. So what do you legal eagles say? Is statistical analysis admissible evidence?

One moment, please...

stillnessinthestorm.com

You have to be able to cross examine the statistics. Statistics do lie sometimes.

I doubt that statistical analysis via Benford's law (or whatever) would be sufficient evidence in and of itself. I could see the statistical analysis along with witness testimony, sworn statements, problems with Dominion systems etc. all together building a strong case to overturn state election results.

 

[Gdjjr]

thats criminal law not civil law,,, and this is a civil issue

Doesn't that depend on what happens being a criminal action?

 

[progressive hunter]

thats criminal law not civil law,,, and this is a civil issue

Doesn't that depend on what happens being a criminal action?

only when you have someone youre going to prosecute,,,

 

[Gdjjr]

There are some numerical considerations that could be taken into account


Consider that Joe Biden’s Facebook account has 7.78 million followers. Trump’s Facebook account has 34.72 million followers.


How likely is it that a person with four to five times the following of his rival lost the election?


Consider that Joe Biden, declared by the biased presstitutes to be president by landslide, gave a Thanksgiving Day message and only 1,000 people watched his live statement. Where is the enthusiasm?


Consider that Trump’s campaign appearances were heavily attended and that Biden’s were avoided. Somehow a candidate who could not draw supporters to his campaign appearances won the presidency.


Consider that despite Biden’s total failure to animate voters during the presidential campaign, he received 15 million more votes than Barack Obama did in his 2012 re-election.


Consider that Biden won despite underperforming Hillary Clinton’s 2016 vote in every urban US county, but outperformed Clinton in Democrat-controlled Detroit, Milwaukee, Atlanta, and Philadelphia, the precise cities where the most obvious and most blatant electoral fraud was committed.


Consider that Biden won despite receiving a record low share of the Democrat primary vote compared to Trump’s share of the Republican primary vote.


Consider that Biden won despite Trump bettering his 2016 vote by ten million votes and Trump’s record support from minority voters.


Consider that Biden won despite losing the bellwether counties that have always predicted the election outcome and the bellwether states of Ohio and Florida.


Consider that Biden won in Georgia, a completely red state with a red governor and legislature both House and Senate. Somehow a red state voted for a blue president.


Consider that Biden won despite the Democrats losing representation in the House.


Consider that in Pennsylvania 47 memory cards containing more than 50,000 votes are missing.


Consider that in Pennsylvania 1.8 million ballots were mailed out to voters, but 2.5 million mail-in ballots were counted.


Consider that the presstitutes have zero interest in this massive list of improbables.

The Proof Is In: the Election Was Stolen

 

[d0gbreath]

There's no way trump could've lost with five times as many facebook followers as Joe.

The stupid; it hurts.

 

[konradv]

There's no way trump could've lost with five times as many facebook followers as Joe. The stupid; it hurts.

They must not have gone out and voted, besides most people know Facebook is passe and many of the so-called "followers" are phony. I don't care how many Trump has, he's not going to steal the election from Joe.