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

[The2ndAmendment]

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 ...

Benford test cannot ascertain which party (or parties) are cheating, it simply says the results are fabricated.

It's not meaningless with higher n values, higher n values demands a stricter conformance.

If you had n = 1 billion, then there should be 100 million of each digit (3rd and 4th digits) with no more than +/- 10,000 spread (a margin of error, by 3rd standard deviation, of 0.01%), because the p-value would approach 0.


If n = 100, and there are 16 sevens in the 4th digit, it's not a big deal, and insufficient for investigation.

If n = 1000, and there are 160 sevens in the 4th digit, it's weird, and worth investigating.

If n = 10,000 and there are 1600 sevens in the 4th digit, it's absolute fraud.

If n = 100,000 and there are 16000 sevens in the 4th digit, the mother fucker should be hung.

As n increases linearly, p decreases exponentially.

 

[Skylar]

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.

No where does the government website say that democrats are destroying or tampering with the vote count in North Carolina.

That would be you.

And thus, the conspiracy board. Where batshit goes to die.

 

[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 ...

Benford test cannot ascertain which party (or parties) are cheating, it simply says the results are fabricated.

It's not meaningless with higher n values, higher n values demands a stricter conformance.

If you had n = 1 billion, then there should be 100 million of each digit (3rd and 4th digits) with no more than +/- 10,000 spread (a margin of error, by 3rd standard deviation, of 0.01%), because the p-value would approach 0.


If n = 100, and there are 16 sevens in the 4th digit, it's not a big deal, and insufficient for investigation.

If n = 1000, and there are 160 sevens in the 4th digit, it's weird, and worth investigating.

If n = 10,000 and there are 1600 sevens in the 4th digit, it's absolute fraud.

If n = 100,000 and there are 16000 sevens in the 4th digit, the mother fucker should be hung.

As n increases linearly, p decreases exponentially.

No ... n = 226 ... period ... why are you "fraudulently" increasing this established fact? ... any proportionality we change n by will change chi^2 the exact same proportion, basic algebra ... but you ain't entering into evidence anything but the n = 226 values ...

And this is all chump change ...

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

I'm the defense attorney ... you're the witness ... either answer or take the 5th ... if the latter, I'm telling the jury you're guessing ... and guessing is reasonable doubt ... they will acquit ... oh, by the way ... who's my client? ... if we don't have a respondent, we don't have a case ... if we don't have a case, then we don't have legal evidence ... this never sees a courtroom ... at best you have NC Sec. of State Elaine Marshall up for negligence ... I'm the defense attorney, I need until Jan 24th to go through discovery ...

ETA: At the rate you're answering my questions ... it will be Jan 24th, 2032 before we can start ...

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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 ...

Benford test cannot ascertain which party (or parties) are cheating, it simply says the results are fabricated.

It's not meaningless with higher n values, higher n values demands a stricter conformance.

If you had n = 1 billion, then there should be 100 million of each digit (3rd and 4th digits) with no more than +/- 10,000 spread (a margin of error, by 3rd standard deviation, of 0.01%), because the p-value would approach 0.


If n = 100, and there are 16 sevens in the 4th digit, it's not a big deal, and insufficient for investigation.

If n = 1000, and there are 160 sevens in the 4th digit, it's weird, and worth investigating.

If n = 10,000 and there are 1600 sevens in the 4th digit, it's absolute fraud.

If n = 100,000 and there are 16000 sevens in the 4th digit, the mother fucker should be hung.

As n increases linearly, p decreases exponentially.

No ... n = 226 ... period ... why are you "fraudulently" increasing this established fact? ... any proportionality we change n by will change chi^2 the exact same proportion, basic algebra ... but you ain't entering into evidence anything but the n = 226 values ...

And this is all chump change ...

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

I'm the defense attorney ... you're the witness ... either answer or take the 5th ... if the latter, I'm telling the jury you're guessing ... and guessing is reasonable doubt ... they will acquit ... oh, by the way ... who's my client? ... if we don't have a respondent, we don't have a case ... if we don't have a case, then we don't have legal evidence ... this never sees a courtroom ... at best you have NC Sec. of State Elaine Marshall up for negligence ... I'm the defense attorney, I need until Jan 24th to go through discovery ...

ETA: At the rate you're answering my questions ... it will be Jan 24th, 2032 before we can start ...

There was nothing fraudalent. We left didn't change n from 1300 to 250ish, it's still a very suspect chi value, even with the change. You caught, we adjusted.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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 ...

Benford test cannot ascertain which party (or parties) are cheating, it simply says the results are fabricated.

It's not meaningless with higher n values, higher n values demands a stricter conformance.

If you had n = 1 billion, then there should be 100 million of each digit (3rd and 4th digits) with no more than +/- 10,000 spread (a margin of error, by 3rd standard deviation, of 0.01%), because the p-value would approach 0.


If n = 100, and there are 16 sevens in the 4th digit, it's not a big deal, and insufficient for investigation.

If n = 1000, and there are 160 sevens in the 4th digit, it's weird, and worth investigating.

If n = 10,000 and there are 1600 sevens in the 4th digit, it's absolute fraud.

If n = 100,000 and there are 16000 sevens in the 4th digit, the mother fucker should be hung.

As n increases linearly, p decreases exponentially.

No ... n = 226 ... period ... why are you "fraudulently" increasing this established fact? ... any proportionality we change n by will change chi^2 the exact same proportion, basic algebra ... but you ain't entering into evidence anything but the n = 226 values ...

And this is all chump change ...

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

I'm the defense attorney ... you're the witness ... either answer or take the 5th ... if the latter, I'm telling the jury you're guessing ... and guessing is reasonable doubt ... they will acquit ... oh, by the way ... who's my client? ... if we don't have a respondent, we don't have a case ... if we don't have a case, then we don't have legal evidence ... this never sees a courtroom ... at best you have NC Sec. of State Elaine Marshall up for negligence ... I'm the defense attorney, I need until Jan 24th to go through discovery ...

ETA: At the rate you're answering my questions ... it will be Jan 24th, 2032 before we can start ...

There was nothing fraudulent. We left didn't change n from 1300 to 250ish, it's still a very suspect chi value, even with the change. You caught chi error, we adjusted.


You're aware that in a sample of 100, have 16 of the same digit is ok, but in sample of 1,000,000 having 160,000 of the same digit is fraud, correct?

The numerator grows quadratically (observed - expected)^2 when n grows linearly (with the denominator 1/(expected), and the p value plummets to 0 exponentially.

Long story short the ratio of Mean to Standard Deviation is not linear with n.

Btw, back on the specific topic, the adjusted CHI values still scream fraud relative to p and sigma.

 

[Turtlesoup]

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

Hey, the CHI WAS RIGHT>

 

[ReinyDays]

There was nothing fraudulent. We left didn't change n from 1300 to 250ish, it's still a very suspect chi value, even with the change. You caught chi error, we adjusted.
You're aware that in a sample of 100, have 16 of the same digit is ok, but in sample of 1,000,000 having 160,000 of the same digit is fraud, correct?
The numerator grows quadratically (observed - expected)^2 when n grows linearly (with the denominator 1/(expected), and the p value plummets to 0 exponentially.
Long story short the ratio of Mean to Standard Deviation is not linear with n.
Btw, back on the specific topic, the adjusted CHI values still scream fraud relative to p and sigma.

Right ... for n = 100 and chi^2 = 0.001 ... then for n = 1,000,000 ( = 100 x 10,000 ) we'll have chi^2 = 100 ( = 0.001 x 10,000 ) ... this is true for all chi^2 distributions ... every ... single ... one ... proof of algebra, not of fraud ...

Now you're flat avoiding my question ... yes ... it does bring up our second degree of freedom ... Republicans and Democrats are not evenly spread across the State ... this dramatically changes our "expected" values for our first and second digit calculations ... and our chi^2 values come crashing down ... I'll leave it for you to post the voter registration data that we'll need work with ...

 

[The2ndAmendment]

There was nothing fraudulent. We left didn't change n from 1300 to 250ish, it's still a very suspect chi value, even with the change. You caught chi error, we adjusted.
You're aware that in a sample of 100, have 16 of the same digit is ok, but in sample of 1,000,000 having 160,000 of the same digit is fraud, correct?
The numerator grows quadratically (observed - expected)^2 when n grows linearly (with the denominator 1/(expected), and the p value plummets to 0 exponentially.
Long story short the ratio of Mean to Standard Deviation is not linear with n.
Btw, back on the specific topic, the adjusted CHI values still scream fraud relative to p and sigma.

Right ... for n = 100 and chi^2 = 0.001 ... then for n = 1,000,000 ( = 100 x 10,000 ) we'll have chi^2 = 100 ( = 0.001 x 10,000 ) ... this is true for all chi^2 distributions ... every ... single ... one ... proof of algebra, not of fraud ...

Now you're flat avoiding my question ... yes ... it does bring up our second degree of freedom ... Republicans and Democrats are not evenly spread across the State ... this dramatically changes our "expected" values for our first and second digit calculations ... and our chi^2 values come crashing down ... I'll leave it for you to post the voter registration data that we'll need work with ...

Ok I'll make this as simple as possible.

I you had n= 1 million data entries, and you checked the frequency of the 4th digit, the mean would be 100,000, and the standard deviation would around 500, so you'd be looking at a spread of 100,000,000 +/- 3(500), so somewhere between 101,500 and 998,500 for all the digits. This restricts the percentage of observed vs expected to less than 2% (which is 0.2% of the all ten digits combined).

If you had multiple digits at +/- 2000 or more, something would be VERY WRONG, and the CHI value would be through the roof, and the p value virtually 0.


Now let's scale down to n=100 data entries, we check the freq of the 4th digit, a mean of 10 and standard deviation of about 2, now the spread is 10 +/- 3(3), so between 4 and 16 for each digit. The percentage of observed vs expected can now fluctuate up to 60% (which is 6% of all ten digits combined).

Do you agree with what I just wrote here?

In both of the above (assuming it's within the 3 standard deviation bound), CHI will be much larger for the n = 1 million example, but not relative to it's respective n value.

In our actual data concerning North Carolina, the CHI values were too high relative to the standard deviations for each digit.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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

Hey, the CHI WAS RIGHT>

It's correct now, and all the data is still well outside the 4 standard deviation range on many digits.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Now you're flat avoiding my question ... yes ... it does bring up our second degree of freedom ... Republicans and Democrats are not evenly spread across the State ... this dramatically changes our "expected" values for our first and second digit calculations ... and our chi^2 values come crashing down ... I'll leave it for you to post the voter registration data that we'll need work with ...

???

If the Klingons from the Andromeda Galaxy handed me the exact same numbers concerning their elections on the Planet Galafrey, I would tell them their results were fabricated, due to the abnormal distribution of the digits.

(the spread of Democrats and Republicans is irrelevant).

Btw, for someone who is smart enough to catch a bad chi value I very much doubt you're ignorant of what I just said.

 

[ReinyDays]

Ok I'll make this as simple as possible.

I you had n= 1 million data entries, and you checked the frequency of the 4th digit, the mean would be 100,000, and the standard deviation would around 500, so you'd be looking at a spread of 100,000,000 +/- 3(500), so somewhere between 101,500 and 998,500 for all the digits. This restricts the percentage of observed vs expected to less than 2% (which is 0.2% of the all ten digits combined).

If you had multiple digits at +/- 2000 or more, something would be VERY WRONG, and the CHI value would be through the roof, and the p value virtually 0.


Now let's scale down to n=100 data entries, we check the freq of the 4th digit, a mean of 10 and standard deviation of about 2, now the spread is 10 +/- 3(3), so between 4 and 16 for each digit. The percentage of observed vs expected can now fluctuate up to 60% (which is 6% of all ten digits combined).

Do you agree with what I just wrote here?

In both of the above (assuming it's within the 3 standard deviation bound), CHI will be much larger for the n = 1 million example, but not relative to it's respective n value.

In our actual data concerning North Carolina, the CHI values were too high relative to the standard deviations for each digit.

Why do you keep presenting fraudulent data? ... no where on the data table in your post #17 do we see n = 1,000,000 ...

We have n = 226 ... chi^2 = 9.85 ... mean = 22.6 ... SD = 3.9 ... none of the data exceeds two deviations ... well within your "3 standard deviation bound" ...

Do you know the difference between normal distribution and chi^2 distribution? ... because these mean values and SD's have far less meaning in the first two digits ... who cares about single votes in that 4th digit ... what about these 1,000's of votes represented in the first digit? ... this is your table, explain where you got 30.1% expected value in the top left ...

Please use the data we have ... and stop making stuff up as you go along ... your table, your numbers, you should use them instead ... or withdraw your claims if you can't back them up ...

 

[ReinyDays]

???

If the Klingons from the Andromeda Galaxy handed me the exact same numbers concerning their elections on the Planet Galafrey, I would tell them their results were fabricated, due to the abnormal distribution of the digits.

(the spread of Democrats and Republicans is irrelevant).

Btw, for someone who is smart enough to catch a bad chi value I very much doubt you're ignorant of what I just said.

The place I found that showed the incorrect chi^2 value also said all other considerations must be evenly distributed ... and went on about "degrees of freedom" ... this is clearly a chi^2 distribution with two degrees of freedom ... and this significantly effects your expected values for the 1st digit ...

You won't even tell me where you got these expected values ... a tall tale not worth telling? ...

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.

My BS meter is pegging out here ... for the fourth (and final) time :

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

 

[candycorn]

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/c/chi-square-statistic.asp#:~:text=A chi-square (χ2,from a large enough sample.

I know if I had legal proof....I would post it on an obscure message board instead of notifying the authorities.

 

[Crepitus]

Befords

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/c/chi-square-statistic.asp#:~:text=A chi-square (χ2,from a large enough sample.

Law has been discounted as a means of detecting election fraud. The results are about 50/50, or equal to flipping a coin.

“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)

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Befords

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/c/chi-square-statistic.asp#:~:text=A chi-square (χ2,from a large enough sample.

Law has been discounted as a means of detecting election fraud. The results are about 50/50, or equal to flipping a coin.

“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)

That paper only concerns the first digit, and it's not accepted by the mainstream, I could link you plenty of papers that argue that opposite, but you'll only find a few that agree with that paper.

Also, it seems like you pulled this off a political hack website, because morons like you don't eve know where to look for such research papers (the journals and specific journal names by MAT category).

 

[ReinyDays]

That paper only concerns the first digit, and it's not accepted by the mainstream, I could link you plenty of papers that argue that opposite, but you'll only find a few that agree with that paper.

Also, it seems like you pulled this off a political hack website, because morons like you don't eve know where to look for such research papers (the journals and specific journal names by MAT category).

Wait wait wait ... you, sir, are in no position to be calling others a moron in this thread ... you've refused to answer the fundamental questions I've asked concerning Benford's Law ... as though you didn't understand these questions as fundamental to the principles you're espousing ...

"Also, it seems like you pulled this off a political hack website" ... this is obviously what you did ... I was truthful at the beginning when I said my knowledge of these matters is weak, then I spent a single evening in front of the fire reading ... that's all it takes to learn about this ... what you've done is copied a very simplified example from a student's worksheet, without the knowledge of what the worksheet was trying to teach about chi^2 distributions ... thus the tiniest of inquires into your gross simplifications exposes your complete lack of understanding of this material ... Benford's Law has been around a long time ... if it was effective detecting election fraud, it would be being used all the time ... not just when President Butthurt loses an election ...

Since you will never answer my questions ... I must assume that your reasoning is based on you only understanding that one key on your calculator ... thus the reason to use base 10 logs, you're unaware of any other kind of logarithm ...

=====

For anyone else following this discourse ... let me be quick to point out that 2nd is absolutely on the right track ... and as far as he's taken this logic, it's spot-on correct ... I'm in no position to judge if these values for chi^2 are cause for concern ... but let's assume they are ... now we take the next step by refining our chi^2 distribution, and re-calculating our chi^2 values ...

Or just skip the statistical testing and recount the ballots ... as this most certainly would prove fraud AND get the vote tallies correct ... beware statistical gymnastics from political hack sites when empirical data is readily available ...

 

[The2ndAmendment]

That paper only concerns the first digit, and it's not accepted by the mainstream, I could link you plenty of papers that argue that opposite, but you'll only find a few that agree with that paper.

Also, it seems like you pulled this off a political hack website, because morons like you don't eve know where to look for such research papers (the journals and specific journal names by MAT category).

Wait wait wait ... you, sir, are in no position to be calling others a moron in this thread ... you've refused to answer the fundamental questions I've asked concerning Benford's Law ... as though you didn't understand these questions as fundamental to the principles you're espousing ...

"Also, it seems like you pulled this off a political hack website" ... this is obviously what you did ... I was truthful at the beginning when I said my knowledge of these matters is weak, then I spent a single evening in front of the fire reading ... that's all it takes to learn about this ... what you've done is copied a very simplified example from a student's worksheet, without the knowledge of what the worksheet was trying to teach about chi^2 distributions ... thus the tiniest of inquires into your gross simplifications exposes your complete lack of understanding of this material ... Benford's Law has been around a long time ... if it was effective detecting election fraud, it would be being used all the time ... not just when President Butthurt loses an election ...

Since you will never answer my questions ... I must assume that your reasoning is based on you only understanding that one key on your calculator ... thus the reason to use base 10 logs, you're unaware of any other kind of logarithm ...

=====

For anyone else following this discourse ... let me be quick to point out that 2nd is absolutely on the right track ... and as far as he's taken this logic, it's spot-on correct ... I'm in no position to judge if these values for chi^2 are cause for concern ... but let's assume they are ... now we take the next step by refining our chi^2 distribution, and re-calculating our chi^2 values ...

Or just skip the statistical testing and recount the ballots ... as this most certainly would prove fraud AND get the vote tallies correct ... beware statistical gymnastics from political hack sites when empirical data is readily available ...

Post a link that asserts that Benford's law is influenced by political parties.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

That paper only concerns the first digit, and it's not accepted by the mainstream, I could link you plenty of papers that argue that opposite, but you'll only find a few that agree with that paper.

Also, it seems like you pulled this off a political hack website, because morons like you don't eve know where to look for such research papers (the journals and specific journal names by MAT category).

Wait wait wait ... you, sir, are in no position to be calling others a moron in this thread ... you've refused to answer the fundamental questions I've asked concerning Benford's Law ... as though you didn't understand these questions as fundamental to the principles you're espousing ...

"Also, it seems like you pulled this off a political hack website" ... this is obviously what you did ... I was truthful at the beginning when I said my knowledge of these matters is weak, then I spent a single evening in front of the fire reading ... that's all it takes to learn about this ... what you've done is copied a very simplified example from a student's worksheet, without the knowledge of what the worksheet was trying to teach about chi^2 distributions ... thus the tiniest of inquires into your gross simplifications exposes your complete lack of understanding of this material ... Benford's Law has been around a long time ... if it was effective detecting election fraud, it would be being used all the time ... not just when President Butthurt loses an election ...

Since you will never answer my questions ... I must assume that your reasoning is based on you only understanding that one key on your calculator ... thus the reason to use base 10 logs, you're unaware of any other kind of logarithm ...

=====

For anyone else following this discourse ... let me be quick to point out that 2nd is absolutely on the right track ... and as far as he's taken this logic, it's spot-on correct ... I'm in no position to judge if these values for chi^2 are cause for concern ... but let's assume they are ... now we take the next step by refining our chi^2 distribution, and re-calculating our chi^2 values ...

Or just skip the statistical testing and recount the ballots ... as this most certainly would prove fraud AND get the vote tallies correct ... beware statistical gymnastics from political hack sites when empirical data is readily available ...

You're aware that you can use any base numeral system correct?

On page 3 and 4 of the linked document, replace the number "10" in the base (and summation coefficient) with with any base you want.

https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/othr/papers/0507/0507001.pdf

 

[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/c/chi-square-statistic.asp#:~:text=A chi-square (χ2,from a large enough sample.

I know if I had legal proof....I would post it on an obscure message board instead of notifying the authorities.

We sent it to the DoJ and the FBI and SoS of NC, what else do you want us to do?

 

[candycorn]

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/c/chi-square-statistic.asp#:~:text=A chi-square (χ2,from a large enough sample.

I know if I had legal proof....I would post it on an obscure message board instead of notifying the authorities.

We sent it to the DoJ and the FBI and SoS of NC, what else do you want us to do?

"We" Did?