This constitutes Legal Proof that Democrats are destroying/tampering with Trump's vote count in North Carolina

[The2ndAmendment]

Abstract: The following links prove with a Benford test on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th digits, that Democrats are disposing, destroying, ignoring, trading away (by hand or machine) or otherwise tampering with Trump's vote count in Democrat run counties in North Carolina.

The most significant tampering occurs on the 4th digit (most often the last digit, representing the 1's place) of each count, suggesting that each precinct is altering Trump's count in the single digits (at minimum), with a Chi squared value of 443, and a p value , 0.001.

Further tampering occurs on the 3rd digit (most often the second to last digit, representing the 10's place) of each count, suggesting that most precincts are altering the counts in the double digits, with a Chi squared value of 39.6, p < 0.001.

The 1st and 2nd digits are also incredibly fraudulent. This occurs due to the order of magnitude differences for Trump and Biden in each precinct, for instance, in the 1400+ precincts in the data, Trump only has 226 precincts with 4 or 5 digit counts, while Biden has 357 precincts with 4 or 5 digit counts (the n values in the 4th digit tallies in the Benford tables). These massive differences in Order of Magnitude (base 10), are a direct result of single and double digit numbers be subtracted from the counts (the 3rd and 4th digits).

-----------------------------------

This is the foundation of this article, detailing Benford distributions on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th digits. https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/othr/papers/0507/0507001.pdf

This is the North Carolina Database from the NC government itself, giving detailed precinct data.

NC SBE Election Contest Details

This is the spreadsheet of the tallies for each precinct based on the above recording Trump's votes.

North Carolina, Democrat Counties, Trump Votes - Google Drive

This is the spreadsheet of the Benford Analysis:

Benford Freq Sheet, Trump, NC, Democrat Counties - Google Drive

This is the program used to verify my manual Chi squared results: GraphPad QuickCalcs: chi square calculator

This is the formula for doing a manual Chi square: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/...t=A chi-square (χ2,from a large enough sample.

 

[OldLady]

No idea whatever what that means, but isn't this the theory so zany they immediately flushed it off twitter and fb?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Who moved it to conspiracy?

We took the numbers straight from the North Carolina government website.
A chi square of 433 constitutes fraud in a court of law.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

No idea whatever what that means, but isn't this the theory so zany they immediately flushed it off twitter and fb?

Benford is used to prove election fraud worldwide.

It is the first test used by accountants to prove financial fraud in a court of law.

And no set of data can escape a 3rd or 4th digit analysis. All sets must rapidly converge to a uniform distribution of 10% on their 3rd and 4th digits.


And no, Twitter and Facebook are simply censoring everything related to 2020 election fraud, including the most well established FREQUENCY FRAUD TEST for the last century.

 

[depotoo]

 

[OldLady]

No idea whatever what that means, but isn't this the theory so zany they immediately flushed it off twitter and fb?

Benford is used to prove election fraud worldwide.

It is the first test used by accountants to prove financial fraud in a court of law.

And no set of data can escape a 3rd or 4th digit analysis. All sets must rapidly converge to a uniform distribution of 10% on their 3rd and 4th digits.


And no, Twitter and Facebook are simply censoring everything related to 2020 election fraud, including the most well established FREQUENCY FRAUD TEST for the last century.

Okay.

No idea whatever what that means, but isn't this the theory so zany they immediately flushed it off twitter and fb?

Benford is used to prove election fraud worldwide.

It is the first test used by accountants to prove financial fraud in a court of law.

And no set of data can escape a 3rd or 4th digit analysis. All sets must rapidly converge to a uniform distribution of 10% on their 3rd and 4th digits.


And no, Twitter and Facebook are simply censoring everything related to 2020 election fraud, including the most well established FREQUENCY FRAUD TEST for the last century.

Okay. But this guy explains why it's not a good indicator of election fraud, though, and that makes sense, too.

 

[OldLady]

No idea whatever what that means, but isn't this the theory so zany they immediately flushed it off twitter and fb?

Benford is used to prove election fraud worldwide.

It is the first test used by accountants to prove financial fraud in a court of law.

And no set of data can escape a 3rd or 4th digit analysis. All sets must rapidly converge to a uniform distribution of 10% on their 3rd and 4th digits.


And no, Twitter and Facebook are simply censoring everything related to 2020 election fraud, including the most well established FREQUENCY FRAUD TEST for the last century.

Is that why this got moved to conspiracy theories? I see a lot of challenges still upstairs...

 

[The2ndAmendment]

No idea whatever what that means, but isn't this the theory so zany they immediately flushed it off twitter and fb?

Benford is used to prove election fraud worldwide.

It is the first test used by accountants to prove financial fraud in a court of law.

And no set of data can escape a 3rd or 4th digit analysis. All sets must rapidly converge to a uniform distribution of 10% on their 3rd and 4th digits.


And no, Twitter and Facebook are simply censoring everything related to 2020 election fraud, including the most well established FREQUENCY FRAUD TEST for the last century.

Okay.

No idea whatever what that means, but isn't this the theory so zany they immediately flushed it off twitter and fb?

Benford is used to prove election fraud worldwide.

It is the first test used by accountants to prove financial fraud in a court of law.

And no set of data can escape a 3rd or 4th digit analysis. All sets must rapidly converge to a uniform distribution of 10% on their 3rd and 4th digits.


And no, Twitter and Facebook are simply censoring everything related to 2020 election fraud, including the most well established FREQUENCY FRAUD TEST for the last century.

Okay. But this guy explains why it's not a good indicator of election fraud, though, and that makes sense, too.

His video discusses the first and second digits.

This is why our analysis used the 3rd and 4th digits as the indicators, instead of the 1st and 2nd. The analysis notes that the 1st and 2nd digits are very suspicious, but the 3rd and 4th digits are totally fraudulent.


Scholars dismiss both the first and second digit analyses if the third and fourth digits are normally distributed.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

All this means is that Trump won the State despite rampant fraud in the Democrat counties.

The Benford tests on 3rd and 4th digits were very smooth in the Republican counties.

 

[ReinyDays]

Just brushing over the top of the material ... 2nd is correct in some assumptions ... but these assumptions can be challenged in court ... the question is whether there's a statistical correlation between precinct and votes ... do we have equal distribution of party voters in all precincts? ...

Obviously not ... BUT ... is it enough to foul up Benford's Law? ... that would be up to the jury ...

It would be nice if 2nd "unpacked" his OP some more ... dumb it down for us ... use the spoiler tags and show us your ciphering ...

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Just brushing over the top of the material ... 2nd is correct in some assumptions ... but these assumptions can be challenged in court ... the question is whether there's a statistical correlation between precinct and votes ... do we have equal distribution of party voters in all precincts? ...

Obviously not ... BUT ... is it enough to foul up Benford's Law? ... that would be up to the jury ...

It would be nice if 2nd "unpacked" his OP some more ... dumb it down for us ... use the spoiler tags and show us your ciphering ...

Benford's law doesn't care if you'rs counting stars in the galaxy, pebbles on the road, or elephants in africa, likewise, it doesn't' care if you're counting Democrat votes or Republican votes on Mars or Pluto.

Benford's law lies at the heart of all statistical frequency analysis, for any purpose, thing or region.


For instance, if I said the following 10 counties casted this many ballots for Jo Jorgenson:

105
145
235
165
745
395
205
675
185
215

You would SUSPECT the data is fake, because all of third digits ended in 5. However with a small sample size of n = 10, it wouldn't be proof.

Now imagine I handed you a list of 100 counties, and 30% of them ended in 5; and 30% ended in a 7, and the remaining digits (0,1,2,3,4,6,8,9) had an near equal distribution of 5%. This would agree scream fraud. Even if Jo Jorg received the least votes in all of these counties and lost absolutely, Jo Jorg having a 3rd digit representation of that magnitude of abnormality would scream there was tampering on her tally.

With a sample size of a 100 counties, and CHI SQUARE in the millions, this would be LEGAL proof of fraud.

Our sample size is 1400 precincts, the CHI Square is over 400, this is LEGAL proof of fraud. This type of distribution only occurs every once in every 10^113 elections (that's a 1 with 113 zeros)..

 

[RodISHI]

No idea whatever what that means, but isn't this the theory so zany they immediately flushed it off twitter and fb?

Benford is used to prove election fraud worldwide.

It is the first test used by accountants to prove financial fraud in a court of law.

And no set of data can escape a 3rd or 4th digit analysis. All sets must rapidly converge to a uniform distribution of 10% on their 3rd and 4th digits.


And no, Twitter and Facebook are simply censoring everything related to 2020 election fraud, including the most well established FREQUENCY FRAUD TEST for the last century.

The moment these deniers flag a post it starts a count. If too many bitch about a post that person's post can be censored but it can also be restore if you protest it. Most of that is AI doing it when asshats on't like the info getting out. All my post are still up but flag with bs fact checks that make claims like 'there is no large computer bank cheating voters'. What they are doing is trying to confuse people who are computer illiterate.

 

[ReinyDays]

Just brushing over the top of the material ... 2nd is correct in some assumptions ... but these assumptions can be challenged in court ... the question is whether there's a statistical correlation between precinct and votes ... do we have equal distribution of party voters in all precincts? ...

Obviously not ... BUT ... is it enough to foul up Benford's Law? ... that would be up to the jury ...

It would be nice if 2nd "unpacked" his OP some more ... dumb it down for us ... use the spoiler tags and show us your ciphering ...

Benford's law doesn't care if you'rs counting stars in the galaxy, pebbles on the road, or elephants in africa, likewise, it doesn't' care if you're counting Democrat votes or Republican votes on Mars or Pluto.

Benford's law lies at the heart of all statistical frequency analysis, for any purpose, thing or region.


For instance, if I said the following 10 counties casted this many ballots for Jo Jorgenson:

105
145
235
165
745
395
205
675
185
215

You would SUSPECT the data is fake, because all of third digits ended in 5. However with a small sample size of n = 10, it wouldn't be proof.

Now imagine I handed you a list of 100 counties, and 30% of them ended in 5; and 30% ended in a 7, and the remaining digits (0,1,2,3,4,6,8,9) had an near equal distribution of 5%. This would agree scream fraud. Even if Jo Jorg received the least votes in all of these counties and lost absolutely, Jo Jorg having a 3rd digit representation of that magnitude of abnormality would scream there was tampering on her tally.

With a sample size of a 100 counties, and CHI SQUARE in the millions, this would be LEGAL proof of fraud.

Our sample size is 1400 precincts, the CHI Square is over 400, this is LEGAL proof of fraud. This type of distribution only occurs every once in every 10^113 elections (that's a 1 with 113 zeros)..

Okay ... using the data for "4th digit" in your 3rd spreadsheet ... I calculate chi^2 = 4.32 ... how did you get 443? ...

Spoiler

chi^2 = SUM ((observed -expected)^2/expected)

chi^2 = (1.06^2 + 1.06^2 + 3.34^2 + 0.61^2 + 1.14^2 + 3.34^2 + 0.71^2 + 2.38^2 + 3.27^2 + 0.17^2)/10
chi^2 = 4.31204

chi^2 = 4.31204

Also, I calculated the standard deviation sigma = 1.71 ... which puts all the data within the second deviation ... as a weather kind of guy, that's an amazingly small sigma value ... but that's weather ...

May I see your calculations?

 

[itfitzme]

Abstract: The following links prove with a Benford test on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th digits, that Democrats are disposing, destroying, ignoring, trading away (by hand or machine) or otherwise tampering with Trump's vote count in Democrat run counties in North Carolina.

The most significant tampering occurs on the 4th digit (most often the last digit, representing the 1's place) of each count, suggesting t

I can unequivocally say that your premise is patently false. Unlike you Russians, the people of the United States know how to hold free and fair elections.

The People of The United States of America have been holding elections for over two centuries. The first election was
" The 1788–1789 United States presidential election was the first quadrennial presidential election. It was held from Monday, December 15, 1788 to Saturday, January 10, 1789, under the new Constitution ratified in 1788. "

1788–89 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is the North Carolina Board of Elections

Home Page | NCSBE

www.ncsbe.gov

Audits of the election process can be found

Post-Election Procedures and Audits | NCSBE

Find out about the county canvass and audit process that occurs after every election, and review the reports for previous elections.

www.ncsbe.gov

The State Board Executive Director is Karen Brinson Bell.

"Karen Brinson Bell has served as executive director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections since June 1, 2019.

She has worked in elections administration since 2006 in county, state, and national roles. As North Carolina’s chief elections official, she leads the state agency, which is charged with administering elections and campaign finance compliance, overseeing the 100 county boards of elections, and ensuring voting for more than 7 million voters."

There are five other members of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, three Democrats and two Republicans.

About | NCSBE

Find information about the NC State Board of Elections (NCSBE), including responsibilities and board member profiles.

www.ncsbe.gov

You are making false allegations against these citizens of the United States of America. And when you do, you insult every member of thousands of American organizations and the millions of Americans across this country. We know how to hold elections in this country.

If you have something to say, I suggest you stop hiding behind a computer and say it to there face. They can be reached at the number in the link above.

I realize that integrity is a feeling that you have no sense of and there may be none where you come from. I am absolutely certain you don't have have the integrity to back up your b.s. I am just as certain that Karen Bell and the North Carolina Board of Elections does have what you so obviously lack.

So, go crawl back under the rock you crawled out from.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

No idea whatever what that means, but isn't this the theory so zany they immediately flushed it off twitter and fb?

Benford is used to prove election fraud worldwide.

It is the first test used by accountants to prove financial fraud in a court of law.

And no set of data can escape a 3rd or 4th digit analysis. All sets must rapidly converge to a uniform distribution of 10% on their 3rd and 4th digits.


And no, Twitter and Facebook are simply censoring everything related to 2020 election fraud, including the most well established FREQUENCY FRAUD TEST for the last century.

Informative.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Just brushing over the top of the material ... 2nd is correct in some assumptions ... but these assumptions can be challenged in court ... the question is whether there's a statistical correlation between precinct and votes ... do we have equal distribution of party voters in all precincts? ...

Obviously not ... BUT ... is it enough to foul up Benford's Law? ... that would be up to the jury ...

It would be nice if 2nd "unpacked" his OP some more ... dumb it down for us ... use the spoiler tags and show us your ciphering ...

Benford's law doesn't care if you'rs counting stars in the galaxy, pebbles on the road, or elephants in africa, likewise, it doesn't' care if you're counting Democrat votes or Republican votes on Mars or Pluto.

Benford's law lies at the heart of all statistical frequency analysis, for any purpose, thing or region.


For instance, if I said the following 10 counties casted this many ballots for Jo Jorgenson:

105
145
235
165
745
395
205
675
185
215

You would SUSPECT the data is fake, because all of third digits ended in 5. However with a small sample size of n = 10, it wouldn't be proof.

Now imagine I handed you a list of 100 counties, and 30% of them ended in 5; and 30% ended in a 7, and the remaining digits (0,1,2,3,4,6,8,9) had an near equal distribution of 5%. This would agree scream fraud. Even if Jo Jorg received the least votes in all of these counties and lost absolutely, Jo Jorg having a 3rd digit representation of that magnitude of abnormality would scream there was tampering on her tally.

With a sample size of a 100 counties, and CHI SQUARE in the millions, this would be LEGAL proof of fraud.

Our sample size is 1400 precincts, the CHI Square is over 400, this is LEGAL proof of fraud. This type of distribution only occurs every once in every 10^113 elections (that's a 1 with 113 zeros)..

Okay ... using the data for "4th digit" in your 3rd spreadsheet ... I calculate chi^2 = 4.32 ... how did you get 443? ...

Spoiler

chi^2 = SUM ((observed -expected)^2/expected)

chi^2 = (1.06^2 + 1.06^2 + 3.34^2 + 0.61^2 + 1.14^2 + 3.34^2 + 0.71^2 + 2.38^2 + 3.27^2 + 0.17^2)/10
chi^2 = 4.31204

chi^2 = 4.31204

Also, I calculated the standard deviation sigma = 1.71 ... which puts all the data within the second deviation ... as a weather kind of guy, that's an amazingly small sigma value ... but that's weather ...

May I see your calculations?

Assuming you're looking at this:

Benford Freq Sheet, GA, DeKalb - Google Drive

docs.google.com

The expected value of each digit is 10.00%, the observed values from digit 0 to 9 are:

11.06%, 11.06%, 6.63%, 10.61%, 8.84%, 6.63%, 9.29%, 12.38%, 13.27%, 10.17%.

So chi^2 = SUM ((observed -expected)^2/expected)

((11.06% - 10.00%)^2)/10.00% + ((11.06% - 10.00%)^2)/10.00% + ((6.63% - 10.00%)^2)/10.00%....etc...((10.17% - 10.00%)^2)/10.00%

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Just brushing over the top of the material ... 2nd is correct in some assumptions ... but these assumptions can be challenged in court ... the question is whether there's a statistical correlation between precinct and votes ... do we have equal distribution of party voters in all precincts? ...

Obviously not ... BUT ... is it enough to foul up Benford's Law? ... that would be up to the jury ...

It would be nice if 2nd "unpacked" his OP some more ... dumb it down for us ... use the spoiler tags and show us your ciphering ...

Benford's law doesn't care if you'rs counting stars in the galaxy, pebbles on the road, or elephants in africa, likewise, it doesn't' care if you're counting Democrat votes or Republican votes on Mars or Pluto.

Benford's law lies at the heart of all statistical frequency analysis, for any purpose, thing or region.


For instance, if I said the following 10 counties casted this many ballots for Jo Jorgenson:

105
145
235
165
745
395
205
675
185
215

You would SUSPECT the data is fake, because all of third digits ended in 5. However with a small sample size of n = 10, it wouldn't be proof.

Now imagine I handed you a list of 100 counties, and 30% of them ended in 5; and 30% ended in a 7, and the remaining digits (0,1,2,3,4,6,8,9) had an near equal distribution of 5%. This would agree scream fraud. Even if Jo Jorg received the least votes in all of these counties and lost absolutely, Jo Jorg having a 3rd digit representation of that magnitude of abnormality would scream there was tampering on her tally.

With a sample size of a 100 counties, and CHI SQUARE in the millions, this would be LEGAL proof of fraud.

Our sample size is 1400 precincts, the CHI Square is over 400, this is LEGAL proof of fraud. This type of distribution only occurs every once in every 10^113 elections (that's a 1 with 113 zeros)..

Okay ... using the data for "4th digit" in your 3rd spreadsheet ... I calculate chi^2 = 4.32 ... how did you get 443? ...

Spoiler

chi^2 = SUM ((observed -expected)^2/expected)

chi^2 = (1.06^2 + 1.06^2 + 3.34^2 + 0.61^2 + 1.14^2 + 3.34^2 + 0.71^2 + 2.38^2 + 3.27^2 + 0.17^2)/10
chi^2 = 4.31204

chi^2 = 4.31204

Also, I calculated the standard deviation sigma = 1.71 ... which puts all the data within the second deviation ... as a weather kind of guy, that's an amazingly small sigma value ... but that's weather ...

May I see your calculations?

We entered direct inputs in the calculator, instead of the percentages, the results are as follows:

1st digit is fraud, 2nd digit is shaky, 3rd digit is plausible, 4th digit is fraud (4th digit has same chi value as second digit, with 1/5th the sample the size).

Benford Freq Sheet, GA, DeKalb - Google Drive

docs.google.com

The first digit remains in the "legal fraud category" after the update (less than 10^-50 chance), the 4th digit is knocked down to highly suspect (as in less than 1/1,000 chance of a real life occurrence).

 

[ReinyDays]

Whoa ... the data has changed significantly between your OP and post #17 ... what happened to the chi^2 = 443? ...

Next question is what are you assuming is the log base in the chi^2 distributions in both first and second digits, and what is the basis for this assumption? ...

I think your characterization of the 4th digit data is overblown ... have you compared it to the other 49 States? ... as I pointed out above, the 4th digit is also a normal distribution and a standard deviation can be calculated ... and from this we see all the data is within the second deviation ... a nice tight grouping we should expect from this data ... and thank you for posting the correct chi^2 value of 9.84 ...

=====

I'll broach the legal matters here quickly ... we're using The Donald's numbers ... are we trying to prove that The Donald is cheating in North Carolina? ...

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Whoa ... the data has changed significantly between your OP and post #17 ... what happened to the chi^2 = 443? ...

Next question is what are you assuming is the log base in the chi^2 distributions in both first and second digits, and what is the basis for this assumption? ...

I think your characterization of the 4th digit data is overblown ... have you compared it to the other 49 States? ... as I pointed out above, the 4th digit is also a normal distribution and a standard deviation can be calculated ... and from this we see all the data is within the second deviation ... a nice tight grouping we should expect from this data ... and thank you for posting the correct chi^2 value of 9.84 ...

=====

I'll broach the legal matters here quickly ... we're using The Donald's numbers ... are we trying to prove that The Donald is cheating in North Carolina? ...

We used n = 226 on the fourth digit, the previous n value being used was at 1384, the number of active precincts (overall), where n =226 for the active precints with 4 or 5 digits tallies.

That being said, it's still a suspect number. and the first digit at chi = 26, at p = 0.0008still constitutes legal proof of fraud, which coincides that the respective n = 350 for Biden's count on the 4th digit (that means Trump has 100 less precincts than Biden where he received a 4 or 5 digit tally).

The only thing saving Democrats is the lower n value for Trump vs Biden. Adjust those expected and total counts proportionally from n = 226 to n = 350 and tell me what the chi value is.

And Chi = 9.84 is an insane number on the fourth digit, Chi = 9.7 on the second digit is even worse since n = 1367.

If the proportion of 4th digit counts remains the same (observed vs expected) at n = 1384 (number of active precincts), you get a 400+ chi.

You are the one that pointed it out though. gj.

This is why we DISCUSS these things, even if its in court.

That being said, I can't go back and edit (time expiration), but I edited on the original messageboard I posted on.

 

[ReinyDays]

We used n = 226 on the fourth digit, the previous n value being used was at 1384, the number of active precincts (overall), where n =226 for the active precints with 4 or 5 digits tallies.

That being said, it's still a suspect number. and the first digit at chi = 26, at p = 0.0008still constitutes legal proof of fraud, which coincides that the respective n = 350 for Biden's count on the 4th digit (that means Trump has 100 less precincts than Biden where he received a 4 or 5 digit tally).

The only thing saving Democrats is the lower n value for Trump vs Biden. Adjust those expected and total counts proportionally from n = 226 to n = 350 and tell me what the chi value is.

And Chi = 9.84 is an insane number on the fourth digit, Chi = 9.7 on the second digit is even worse since n = 1367.

If the proportion of 4th digit counts remains the same (observed vs expected) at n = 1384 (number of active precincts), you get a 400+ chi.

You are the one that pointed it out though. gj.

This is why we DISCUSS these things, even if its in court.

That being said, I can't go back and edit (time expiration), but I edited on the original messageboard I posted on.

What are we comparing these chi^2 values to? ... is it a "suspect number" or "legal proof"? ... have you calculated the other 49 States and found much lower values? ...

I ask again: What log bases are you using for the first and second digits and why are you using these bases? ...

Not sure why you're asking about higher n values ... if we raise these number proportionally, then our chi^2 value will increase by the same proportion ... for n = 226 to n = 350, we multiply all the data by 1.55 ... ( O x 1.55 - E x 1.55 )^2 / E x 1.55 --> ( 1.55 ( O - E ))^2 / E x 1.55 --> 1.55^2/1.55 x ( O - E )^2 / E --> 1.55 x "chi^2" ... doing the summation yields 15.25, as expected ... and is meaningless in this discussion ... we know chi^2 = 9.84 ... what you're asking is statistical gymnastics and bears no relevance to the actual data ... I don't know of any court that would allow this as evidence ...

I ask again: Are we trying to prove The Donald is cheating in NC? ... the chi^2 data is unsigned, it doesn't say which side is benefiting ...