- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Mathematician- election numbers could not have occurred naturally
Posted on 1/28/21 at 10:57 pm to prplngldtigr
Posted on 1/28/21 at 10:57 pm to prplngldtigr
DEBUNKED
Reuters sought comment from experts regarding these claims.
Reuters
Reuters sought comment from experts regarding these claims.
quote:
Theodore P. Hill, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at Georgia Tech, Atlanta, cautioned that regardless of the distribution uncovered, the application of Benford’s Law would not provide definitive evidence that fraud took place.
“First, I’d like to stress that Benford’s Law can NOT be used to “prove fraud”,” he told Reuters by email. “It is only a Red Flag test, that can raise doubts. E.g., the IRS has been using it for decades to ferret out fraudsters, but only by identifying suspicious entries, at which time they put the auditors to work on the hard evidence. Whether or not a dataset follows BL proves nothing.”
Walter Mebane, Professor at the Department of Political Science and Department of Statistics at the University of Michigan (here) authored a December 2006 article (here) around the application of Benford’s Law to the US presidential election results.
On Nov. 9, 2020, in response to “several queries” Mebane published a paper called “Inappropriate Applications of Benford’s Law Regularities to Some Data from the 2020 Presidential Election in the United States” (here). His paper says, “The displays shown at those sources using the first digits of precinct vote counts data from Fulton County, GA, Allegheny County, PA, Milwaukee, WI, and Chicago, IL, say nothing about possible frauds” before examining the reasons behind this statement.
“It is widely understood that the first digits of precinct vote counts are not useful for trying to diagnose election frauds,” he writes.
Reuters
Posted on 1/28/21 at 11:02 pm to TigersOfGeauxld
What this mathematician alleges has nothing to do with Benfords law dumbass.
Did you watch the video?
I don't know who the guy making the claim is or if his claim is true.
I can tell you it has nothing to do with Benfords law because I watched it.
Did you watch the video?
I don't know who the guy making the claim is or if his claim is true.
I can tell you it has nothing to do with Benfords law because I watched it.
Posted on 1/28/21 at 11:36 pm to TigersOfGeauxld
quote:
First, I’d like to stress that Benford’s Law can NOT be used to “prove fraud”
This video had nothing to do with Benford's law - is this a response to the video in the OP or is it an old response to claims of Benford's law application from months ago.
quote:???
Reuters sought comment from experts regarding these claims.
Benford's law is not as rigorous when applied to small numbers of potential voters, such as when there are many precincts with fewer than 500 votes in them. It is meant to analyze group patterns for much larger sample size. But even then, it has some applicability.
Posted on 1/29/21 at 7:26 am to TigersOfGeauxld
quote:
but only by identifying suspicious entries, at which time they put the auditors to work on the hard evidence.
Ahh, so did you read your own post?
This is exactly what didn't happen. And what wasn't allowed to happen.
Posted on 1/29/21 at 7:41 am to TigersOfGeauxld
quote:
DEBUNKED
Reuters sought comment from experts regarding these claims.
quote:
Theodore P. Hill, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at Georgia Tech, Atlanta, cautioned that regardless of the distribution uncovered, the application of Benford’s Law would not provide definitive evidence that fraud took place.
This has nothing to do with Benford's law. This is an analysis of election data.
Posted on 1/29/21 at 9:05 am to TigersOfGeauxld
quote:
First, I’d like to stress that Benford’s Law can NOT be used to “prove fraud”,” he told Reuters by email. “It is only a Red Flag test, that can raise doubts. E.g., the IRS has been using it for decades to ferret out fraudsters, but only by identifying suspicious entries, at which time they put the auditors to work on the hard evidence. Whether or not a dataset follows BL proves nothing.”
This is not accurate and I’m sure if we dig a little deeper, we will find the esteemed professor is a democrat hack.
Posted on 4/7/21 at 1:36 pm to TigersOfGeauxld
quote:
Walter Mebane, Professor at the Department of Political Science and Department of Statistics at the University of Michigan (here) authored a December 2006 article (here) around the application of Benford’s Law to the US presidential election results.
But in that article he says its used to detect fraud.
quote:
Note that our results are by no means direct proof of electoral fraud-they signal that the election data is compatible with the widespread occurrence of such types of fraud and that the data does not allow us to rule out ballot stuffing and voter rigging
Boom
This post was edited on 4/7/21 at 1:37 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News