Joe Biden’s votes violate Benford’s Law (Mathematics)
As the vote counting for the 2020 Presidential Election continues, various facts suggest rampant frauds in Joe Biden’s votes. So does mathematics in terms of the votes from precincts.
Benford’s law or the first-digit law, is used to check if a set of numbers are naturally occurring or manually fabricated. It has been applied to detect the voting frauds in Iranian 2009 election and various other applications including forensic investigations.
This is what described by Wikipedia:
“Benford’s law, or the first-digit law, is an observation about the frequency distribution of leading digits in many real-life sets of numerical data. The law states that in many naturally occurring collections of numbers, the leading digit is likely to be small.
For example, in sets that obey the law, the number 1 appears as the leading significant digit about 30% of the time, while 9 appears as the leading significant digit less than 5% of the time. If the digits were distributed uniformly, they would each occur about 11.1% of the time. Benford’s law also makes predictions about the distribution of second digits, third digits, digit combinations, and so on.”
One of the examples is the population of the world, which are naturally occurring numbers.
Source: wikipedia.org
A number of people on the internet have checked the votes (precinct by precinct) of Joe Biden, Donald Trump as well as other candidates for their legitimacy in terms of the Benford’s Law.
According a Reddit user, r/dataisbeautiful’s calculation, the ‘normal’ distribution of first digits for the different candidates based on Benford’s law is illustrated below.
Youtuber Nyar has shared the observations on a number of counties, concluding that Trump and others’ votes have natural distribution but not for Joe Biden’s.
In Fulton County, Georgia, which overlaps with the Atlantic metropolitan where Joe Biden is expected to win, all of the three candidates have normal distributions for their votes. (Joe Biden 72.6%, Donald Trump 26.2%, Jo Jorgensen 1.2%. Source: .theguardian.com)
In Miami-Dade County of Florida, which includes the Miami metropolitan where Joe Biden is expected to win, all candidates’ votes obey Benford’s Law. (Joe Biden 53.4%, Donald Trump 46.1%, Jo Jorgensen 0.3%. Source: theguardian.com)
However, in the Milwaukee County of Wisconsin, which is in one of the key swing states, Joe Biden’s votes violate Benford’s Law while other candidates’ don’t. (Joe Biden 69.4%, Donald Trump 29.4%, Jo Jorgensen 0.9%. Source: theguardian.com)
And in Chicago of Illinois, Joe Biden’s votes are abnormal.
So does that of Allegheny of Pennsylvania which includes Pittsburg. (Joe Biden 59.0%, Donald Trump 39.9%, Jo Jorgensen 1.2%. Source: theguardian.com)
It looks like maybe Biden had lost big cities like Chicago and Pittsburgh, which is why the fraudulent votes need to be brought in, which skew his curve away from a normal looking one.
For those who are interested to reproduce the analysis, you can follow the instructions here and give it a go.
Read more at gnews.org
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
J Cuttance
| #
The cumulative proof of fraud in this election points to a leftist coup. The new government will behave exactly like an occupying power, and there will be no possibility of liberation from without.
Reply
Denis Pierce
| #
There is no proof of fraud yet, so far we have mostly weak allegations.
Reply
RT
| #
They wanted to win at all costs. And stopped counting in the middle of the count, and votes appeared out of thin air, to be counted the next day. And none of the down-ticket appeared to gain like biden.
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
Every voting machine on the planet today is rigged using fractional tabulation, see > BlackBoxVoting.org
“Interview on Electronic Vote Fraud” by CD Media with Russ Ramsland, 2020 update
science of election theft > https://youtu.be/ficae6x1Q5A
Reply
RT
| #
Have to love the software used in all the swing states. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/huge-corrupted-software-used-michigan-county-stole-6000-votes-trump-also-used-swing-states-pa-ga-nv-mi-wi-az-mn/ An Honest election NOT!!!.
Reply
RT
| #
Have to love the software used in all the swing states. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/huge-corrupted-software-used-michigan-county-stole-6000-votes-trump-also-used-swing-states-pa-ga-nv-mi-wi-az-mn/
Reply
BoKnowMath
| #
This stuff is pretty elaborately done. Do you think anyone believes it?
Because Benford’s law is completely hilarious nonsense that doesn’t prove anything about your cherry picked data sets.
Reply
Alger Washington
| #
Complete hogwash.
Reply
Alger Washington
| #
Complete hogwash.
Reply
yetre napso
| #
I checked the Chicago data and was able to reproduce the plots presented here. The deviation from Benford’s law results from the size of the precincts in Chicago. The precinct size is based on the population size of the area, such that most precincts had 200-800 votes cast (mean ~500). Since Biden won over 80% of the vote, his vote number per precinct is in that same range. Very few precincts had < 100 votes or > 1000 votes, so there are very few numbers that start with 1. This is a deviation from Benford’s law, not due to fraud, but rather due to how the precincts are set up. I didn’t check the other states, but I would assume the same type of thing is going on.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Yetre,
First, read: :”Citywide, Trump got 16.15%, according to unofficial tallies. That’s better than the 12.4% of the vote he landed against Hillary Clinton in 2016.” (Chicago Tribune)
You wrote: ” The precinct size is based on the population size of the area, such that most precincts had 200-800 votes cast (mean ~500).”
16.15% of 200 is 32; of 500 is 81; of 800 is 129.
83.85% of 200 is 168; of 500 is 419, of. 800 is 671
Maybe 200 was the minimum number of votes from a Chicago precinct and maybe 800 was the maximum number of votes from a Chicago precinct; but was the number of precincts with votes less than 500 the same as the number of precincts with votes more than 500?
You need tp give the reader the number of precincts with votes between say 200-300, 300-400, 400-500, 500-600, 600-700, and 700-800 so we may properly analyze what the first digit of the votes for either candidate stistcically might have been. For if the number of voles was less than 613, the number of Trump’s votes should not have begun with the digit ‘one’.
So relative to your comment, something doesn’t compute.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
David
| #
Here’s a fuller description of what’s going on, which I found useful.
Reply
Abir Barua
| #
Hey just maybe consider that it is not a natural distribution given the unnatural nature of the man. Also seems kind of strange that they are disputing the presidential votes but not the senate and lower house votes.
Reply
Abir Barua
| #
https://www.eipartnership.net/rapid-response/what-the-election-results-dont-tell-us
Reply
Abir Barua
| #
Here is another point of view. It’s a time to heal and it starts with acceptance. The people have spoken. And the use of the Benford’s law to prove it doesn’t prove anything.
https://www.eipartnership.net/rapid-response/what-the-election-results-dont-tell-us
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
This is a science blog, not a repository for democrat denial. Spreading the Russia Hoax and now asking for healing? And you wonder why half the country thinks you’re vermin.
Reply
Moffin
| #
Pestilence and plague.
Reply
Denis Pierce
| #
If you read the link it is a science response. And as you said this is a science blog, not a repository for republican denial.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
If it’s a science response, why does the link only apply benford’s law to the total count and not partisan counts? And then we learn …
“First, the example above is a simulation based on a computer script, rather than one based on real voter data. ”
So they are trying to refute some strawman.
Typical demonrat tactics …
Reply
Denis Pierce
| #
So it can’t be a science response unless it answers every possible question and looks at the data every possible way. The point is its a science article, but when he posted it you read his line about healing and acceptance and didn’t read further.
Denis Pierce
| #
To follow up on what Yetre Napso said, 26% of the wards had first digits that started with 4 and since Biden won 82% of Chicago’s vote, most of the first digit results will start with 3. Looking at the Benford chart 3 is the most common number. 18.5% of the wards started with 3 and 19% started with 5 and again Bidens 82% will lead to the next most common numbers being 2 and 4. And again looking at the Benford chart they are the next most common numbers. 15% of the wards started with 6, which will mostly lead Bidens vote to be 5 and 5 is the 4th most common on the Benford chart. The rest of the numbers are smaller, 1.8% for 1, 6.5% for 2, 8% for 7, 3.5% for 8 and 1.5% for 9, and looking at the Benford chart those are the smallest numbers. I also ran a Benford chart for 2016 for Clinton’s votes and the distribution was as uneven as Bidens is.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Now explain why Trump’s and others’ follow Benford’s Law.
“I also ran a Benford chart for 2016 for Clinton’s votes and the distribution was as uneven as Bidens is.”
LOL. What’s another explanation for that? Don’t be afraid to go there.
Reply
David
| #
Here’s the explanation:
Reply
Denis Pierce
| #
Trump didn’t follow Benfords law either, it looked closer because he had such a large number of 1s, but he was 11% higher then Benford for 1s and 5% low for both 3s and 4s. The only graph that really fits is Jo Jorgensen, the other small candidates don’t fit either. You come here talking about science and you don’t seem to understand the science. And everyone of your responses has a partisan attack mixed in which is definitely not science.
I mentioned 2016 because no one questioned those results. Is it possible that its only fraudulent because trump lost? That’s the real explanation, so don’t be afraid to go there.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Benford’s law is not a law of physics hat cannot be violated and must always be followed. It is an mathematic pattern that describes generalities and like averages, means, and other parts of mathematics it has no basis in reality but is just an attempt to deal with the variability of reality.
Reply
Pinchas Rubnitz
| #
Benford’s Law, as you stated, applies to “naturally occurring” number sets. Precinct sizes are not naturally occurring. They are instead artificially set to be more or less uniform in size. As a result, Benford’s Law does not apply.
Reply