Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election

[TahiniBinShawarma]

You keep claiming that the multiple studies presented which show Benfords Law does not apply to elections are somehow not representative of the consensus. Yet you've failed to bring one drop of evidence that vote counts do obey Benfords Law. Why not show us these many more studies that do agree with your take and show how wrong the, according to you, lone crank PhDs who wrote these papers are?

I don't think that it can prove election fraud. It can point to "possible" fraud. It will identify anomalies, but those anomalies could be nothing.

 

[pgwenthold]

Failing Benford's law does not indicate election fraud. At best, it indicates election anomaly.

For voter fraud, you actually have to have evidence of fraud.

As in, show something actually fraudulent. Fraud means someone did something wrong. Who did it and what did they do?

Other than that you have nothing but smoke and mirrors.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm aware of that. It seems to me that one reason to have some confidence here is that this technique has clearly seen quite a bit of use over a long period of time in other elections, hence it isn't something that has been plucked from nowhere just to defend trump. It doesn't really matter though, since I very much doubt that these mathematical arguments, regardless of how off the data is, will in and of themselves be accepted as proof of anything. At most they help open the door for an investigation.

I don't understand how it was used elsewhere and it doesn't sound like you do either. You're just sailing by that fact and the fact that mathematical models in themselves do not prove election fraud.

 

[TahiniBinShawarma]

BS.

The DoJ has a long standing policy of not getting involved in elections, similar to their policy of not indicting sitting presidents.

So what happens today? Esper, who doesn't like the military involvement with protesters and called Trump out on it, is fired. He is replaced by a Trump yes-man, who has no problem with the Insurrection Act.

Then Barr has this memo allowing the federal DoJ to be involved in the election.

I thought the election was over?

 

[slyjoe]

I thought the election was over?

It's not - try to keep up.

 

[TahiniBinShawarma]

Failing Benford's law does not indicate election fraud. At best, it indicates election anomaly.

For voter fraud, you actually have to have evidence of fraud.

As in, show something actually fraudulent. Fraud means someone did something wrong. Who did it and what did they do?

Other than that you have nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Correct, it can show an anomaly, which could be fraud, but the law in itself is only good at finding the anomaly. To prove fraud, you need something more than Benford's law.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Benford's Law is Empirical what more do you require?

So is Ohm's Law. Let's use that too.

 

[shuttlt]

But why would the last digit follow Benford's Law? That makes no sense.....but I didn't want to say anything because I wasn't sure. Well, now I'm sure. The last digit of anything won't follow Benford's Law.

It been a long day and I am saying last when I mean first and first when I mean last. On that note, I happily withdraw for a bit

 

[TahiniBinShawarma]

It's not - try to keep up.

I thought Biden won, and everything else was a conspiracy theory?

 

[shuttlt]

I don't understand how it was used elsewhere and it doesn't sound like you do either. You're just sailing by that fact and the fact that mathematical models in themselves do not prove election fraud.

Meh, what interested my was that you folks have a hair trigger for saying that things that help trump are debunked. I couldn't see what your basis was for saying that this law that I had heard about for years was debunked, I still don't.

 

[acbytesla]

BS.

The DoJ has a long standing policy of not getting involved in elections, similar to their policy of not indicting sitting presidents.

So what happens today? Esper, who doesn't like the military involvement with protesters and called Trump out on it, is fired. He is replaced by a Trump yes-man, who has no problem with the Insurrection Act.

Then Barr has this memo allowing the federal DoJ to be involved in the election.

No, that's not what the memo said. It's about as non-committal a memo as I have ever read. I also think you're reading too much into the Esper firing.

 

[Cain]

David Frum: "It's just bizarre to say, 'We want to count every legal vote' when your primary election strategy is to disenfranchise legal voters."

Can I rant about 2000 for a moment? George W. Bush "won" with 537 more votes. In that election, a few thousand residents in Palm Beach voted for Pat freaking Buchanan. The reason? An illegal butterfly ballot. Yes, the ballot was created by some local Democrat, but the people there had no intention of voting for an anti-immigration, anti-Semitic bigot. Naturally, Republicans didn't give a **** about the will of the people of Florida (or the will of the country for that matter because 500,000 more Americans voted for Gore). Now they care about free and fair elections? No. They care about winning.

 

[Meadmaker]

The DoJ has a long standing policy of not getting involved in elections, similar to their policy of not indicting sitting presidents.

Is that true? Who investigates election fraud charges? Is that normally as state function? is it a state crime or a federal crime?

I'm assuming that if there are allegations of federal crimes, then the FBI would investigate. If I print up a bunch of ballots, mark them for Joe Biden, and drop them in a mailbox, would that not be a federal crime? Maybe not. If it isn't, then the FBI should butt out.

 

[johnny karate]

There is at least as much evidence that something isn't right as there was before the recount in 1960 discovered mass "human frailty". Naturally prior to an investigation, it's circumstantial.

To what specific “circumstantial” evidence are you referring?

 

[wareyin]

I don't think that it can prove election fraud. It can point to "possible" fraud. It will identify anomalies, but those anomalies could be nothing.

That's a simplified version of what the studies presented here say. Unfortunately for shuttlt, he's claiming that these are by lone cranks and not representative of the consensus. He says he's "been aware" of Benfords Law for years, so I guess he's the expert. Certainly not all the people that keep laboring to explain it to him, they're probably lone cranks too.

 

[crescent]

I thought Biden won, and everything else was a conspiracy theory?

Pretty much, its good you understand that

Our current President doesn't understand that. He's an idiot who still has control of a vast security and military apparatus. That's a dangerous situation.

 

[acbytesla]

Meh, what interested my was that you folks have a hair trigger for saying that things that help trump are debunked. I couldn't see what your basis was for saying that this law that I had heard about for years was debunked, I still don't.

Nonsense. You clearly didn't read my earlier post. I'm not going to buy into a mathematical formula as proof that Trump was cheated.

Also given that 4 million more Americans voted for Biden I could give a ****.

Trump lost. Get over it.

 

[Meadmaker]

Benford's Law is Empirical what more do you require?

No it isn't. The definition of "emprical" is

"based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."

That isn't the case with Benford's Law. It is purely number theory. No observation required.

The application of Benford's Law to a specific problem may be empirical.

 

[TahiniBinShawarma]

Is that true? Who investigates election fraud charges? Is that normally as state function? is it a state crime or a federal crime?

I'm assuming that if there are allegations of federal crimes, then the FBI would investigate. If I print up a bunch of ballots, mark them for Joe Biden, and drop them in a mailbox, would that not be a federal crime? Maybe not. If it isn't, then the FBI should butt out.

If it's a federal election it's a federal crime. They try to wait until after, I don't think there are set rules against investigating. They have to walk the line of not getting involved in an election while at the same time taking serious allegations seriously.

 

[TahiniBinShawarma]

Pretty much, its good you understand that

Our current President doesn't understand that. He's an idiot who still has control of a vast security and military apparatus. That's a dangerous situation.

It's not really that dangerous, it's worked till now, it will work from now on.