Remember, according to Wikipedia, Benford's law applies to election data in every country except the United States, where the laws of statistics are totally different.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
For elections, the test should be with the second digit, not the first.
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford's_law
> Benford's law has also been misapplied to claim election fraud. When applying the law to Joe Biden's election returns for Chicago, Milwaukee, and other localities in the 2020 United States presidential election, the distribution of the first digit did not follow Benford's law. The misapplication was a result of looking at data that was tightly bound in range, which violates the assumption inherent in Benford's law that the range of the data be large. The first digit test was applied to precinct-level data, but because precincts rarely receive more than a few thousand votes or fewer than several dozen, Benford's law cannot be expected to apply. According to Mebane, "It is widely understood that the first digits of precinct vote counts are not useful for trying to diagnose election frauds."
The other examples on this page used the second digit for their election analysis.
Matt Parker did a good video with lots of visuals to explain why Benford's Law works in general, but why it cannot always be simply applied to election results.
dang|2 years ago
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
peepeepoopoo3|2 years ago
ano-ther|2 years ago
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford's_law > Benford's law has also been misapplied to claim election fraud. When applying the law to Joe Biden's election returns for Chicago, Milwaukee, and other localities in the 2020 United States presidential election, the distribution of the first digit did not follow Benford's law. The misapplication was a result of looking at data that was tightly bound in range, which violates the assumption inherent in Benford's law that the range of the data be large. The first digit test was applied to precinct-level data, but because precincts rarely receive more than a few thousand votes or fewer than several dozen, Benford's law cannot be expected to apply. According to Mebane, "It is widely understood that the first digits of precinct vote counts are not useful for trying to diagnose election frauds."
The other examples on this page used the second digit for their election analysis.
MrJohz|2 years ago
https://youtu.be/etx0k1nLn78
peepeepoopoo3|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]