ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 9th November 2020, 02:39 PM   #161
bonzombiekitty
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,685
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Just to show how full of crap Tank's claims are.
Washington State,
2016. Hillary 1,742,718 54.3%
2020 Biden 2, 303,430 58.8%
Oregon
2016 Hillary 1,002,106 50.07%
2020 Biden. 1,318,475. 57.00 %
California
2016 Hillary 8,753,788. Percentage 61.73 %
2020 Biden. 9,304,895 * Percentage 64.60 %

*93 percent tallied
Twenty bucks says the claim was created several days ago when states still had huge chunks of votes left to count.
bonzombiekitty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 02:39 PM   #162
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 18,813
Originally Posted by Armitage72 View Post
Arizona.
Obama in 2008 got 1,034,707
Obama in 2012 got 1,025,232
Hillary got 1,161,167
Biden currently has 1,644,260

Of course, Arizona had "them damn Injuns" coming out to vote in droves this year.

Wikipedia says that Arizona had 5,130,632 citizens in 2000 and 7,278,717 in 2020.
__________________
Audiatur et altera pars
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 02:40 PM   #163
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 19,793
Originally Posted by Paul2 View Post
Massachusettes had more votes for Biden in 2020 than Hillary in 2016. 2,236,646 to 1,995,196.
I hate to engage with a racist, but I have to say that, we can clearly conclude, that he was bluffing.

So ST, please explain where you got the information upon which you based your claim?

HINT: It is not a reliable source
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 02:40 PM   #164
Yalius
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 558
FWIW, Oregon:
2016 Clinton, 1,002,106
2020 Biden 1,318,475
Yalius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 02:41 PM   #165
Paul2
Philosopher
 
Paul2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,186
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
However, these allegations are being tossed around by a lot of people, including, especially, POTUS. I thought that by having a thread where talk of this is concentrated, it would make the counterarguments easier to find. ST and others will serve up whatever's being tossed around the internet for us, so we don't have to go looking.
Also, this being a skeptics forum, we value evidence and logic, so when we apply them to the issues of the day, that's of value in and of itself. It's practice doing so, it's modeling, it's providing info for others, as Meadmaker says, it's influencing agnostics and hangers-on, etc.

It's good to be good for the good.
__________________
It's nice to be nice to the nice.

Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive: it was, that some people can do sums. - Bertrand Russell

Last edited by Paul2; 9th November 2020 at 02:42 PM. Reason: typo
Paul2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 02:41 PM   #166
Skeptic Tank
Trigger Warning
 
Skeptic Tank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,971
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
My goal in starting this thread was not to convince Skeptic Tank. It would be kind of foolish to think that was possible, based on history.

However, these allegations are being tossed around by a lot of people, including, especially, POTUS. I thought that by having a thread where talk of this is concentrated, it would make the counterarguments easier to find. ST and others will serve up whatever's being tossed around the internet for us, so we don't have to go looking.


And if I, or anyone else, did convince Skeptic Tank? Well, that would be an awesome bonus, wouldn't it? I'm just not counting on it.
Yeah, TBH I'm just repeating stuff here that I see on Twitter and what not, but it's not like you didn't know that.

I have my preconceived notions and biases, these items sound plausible-ish and feed into my desired view of the situation / biases, so I echo them.

No apologies forthcoming.
Skeptic Tank is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 02:43 PM   #167
Paul2
Philosopher
 
Paul2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,186
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
I hate to engage with a racist, but I have to say that, we can clearly conclude, that he was bluffing.
Bluffing on a skeptic's forum where most are pretty practiced in critical thinking, examining evidence, and the like.

Remind me not to bluff like that.
__________________
It's nice to be nice to the nice.

Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive: it was, that some people can do sums. - Bertrand Russell
Paul2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 02:44 PM   #168
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,733
Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank View Post
It seems odd to me that Biden got fewer votes than Obama or Hillary in every state other than Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
Dude, you have got to stop believing everything you read on twitter. HINT: it's not the best source for facts, especially if coming from a right wing source. I dunno, it might have something to do with Trump literally being a pathological liar.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 02:45 PM   #169
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 27,046
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
My goal in starting this thread was not to convince Skeptic Tank. It would be kind of foolish to think that was possible, based on history.

However, these allegations are being tossed around by a lot of people, including, especially, POTUS. I thought that by having a thread where talk of this is concentrated, it would make the counterarguments easier to find. ST and others will serve up whatever's being tossed around the internet for us, so we don't have to go looking.


And if I, or anyone else, did convince Skeptic Tank? Well, that would be an awesome bonus, wouldn't it? I'm just not counting on it.
I'm not trying to do the impossible. He's desperately throwing crap that is served up to him on Qanon and other nutjob news sources on the wall hoping it sticks.

I find that the facts stick better.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 02:47 PM   #170
Mader Levap
Graduate Poster
 
Mader Levap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,250
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove moderated content
Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove response to same.


Originally Posted by No Other View Post
Apply Benford's Law to the vote total and activity by precincts. Since Benford's Law is empirical, it is recognized as valid for detecting fraud in accounting ledgers. Math doesn't care if you're Republican, Democrat or Independent...
Already debunked.

Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Hey, guys arguing with a Neo Nazi is a exercise in futility....
Oh no, it is interesting. In "know your enemy" way.
__________________
Sanity is overrated. / Voting for Republicans is morally equivalent to voting for Nazis in early 30's.

Last edited by Agatha; 10th November 2020 at 08:08 AM.
Mader Levap is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 02:49 PM   #171
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
I found the third sentence in the Wiki article on Benford's law amusing:



IOW "in sets that obey the law, the values obey the law."

Tautologies are fun.
Sure, but elections are the type of process that generates results that fit Benford's law... that's why it's used as a test for election fraud.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 02:50 PM   #172
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,733
Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank View Post
Yeah, TBH I'm just repeating stuff here that I see on Twitter and what not, but it's not like you didn't know that.

I have my preconceived notions and biases, these items sound plausible-ish and feed into my desired view of the situation / biases, so I echo them.

No apologies forthcoming.
In other words, you'd rather post something you know is likely false than post nothing at all. Fascinating.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 02:50 PM   #173
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 48,780
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
I saw a bunch of 'em yesterday: a crowd of maniacs literally screaming at traffic.
SOme of the footage CNN has shown of the Trumpist post election is scary,very scary.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 02:51 PM   #174
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 19,793
So it looks like the bigger challenge is going to be finding states in which Biden got fewer votes than Clinton.

Talk about a claim falling apart.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 02:53 PM   #175
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 19,793
In regards to the claim "Biden got fewer votes than Obama or Hillary in every state other than Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin," I'll say he got one thing right:

He used "fewer" correctly
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 02:55 PM   #176
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
At the very least, it would mean that great caution must be used when applying Benford's Law to election results. I wouldn't want to say that there are no sets of election related numbers that would be expected to follow Benford's Law, but any time I see such a claim, I would want to know how they picked the numbers to study.

I know that claims of Benford's Law as an analysis of election results, such as famously in Iranian elections, are considered controversial.
You still haven't answered the question about what sample size would be needed. This source:
https://www.isaca.org/resources/isac...g-benfords-law
claims sample sizes below 500 are where you should maybe not use it. They are an international association of auditors, so they presumably should know what they are talking about. I choose them only because they were the first number I found in a search. If we are talking about samples of 1000+ it seems like the law should apply pretty well.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 02:56 PM   #177
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 27,046
Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank View Post
Yeah, TBH I'm just repeating stuff here that I see on Twitter and what not, but it's not like you didn't know that.

I have my preconceived notions and biases, these items sound plausible-ish and feed into my desired view of the situation / biases, so I echo them.

No apologies forthcoming.
That's a problem for you. You believe what you want to believe, not what is necessarily true. It's exactly like the arguments of religious believers. Not a one of them are based on demonstrable facts. Just indoctrination and wishful thinking.

Real skeptics don't do that. They in contrast, challenge their beliefs and ask themselves how they can be wrong.

But you don't do that. Instead, over and over, you post CT after CT and wild claims without merit which are quickly dismantled. And instead of questioning your sources and your beliefs, you just run back to your dubious sources for more. That's a sad and disturbing approach.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 9th November 2020 at 02:59 PM.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 02:58 PM   #178
Paul2
Philosopher
 
Paul2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,186
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
You still haven't answered the question about what sample size would be needed. This source:
https://www.isaca.org/resources/isac...g-benfords-law
claims sample sizes below 500 are where you should maybe not use it. They are an international association of auditors, so they presumably should know what they are talking about. I choose them only because they were the first number I found in a search. If we are talking about samples of 1000+ it seems like the law should apply pretty well.
Didn't someone say it's not a question of sample size, but of the range of values? If all the values lie between 100 and 1000, that's not big enough. It has to be multiple orders of magnitude.
__________________
It's nice to be nice to the nice.

Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive: it was, that some people can do sums. - Bertrand Russell
Paul2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 02:58 PM   #179
Mader Levap
Graduate Poster
 
Mader Levap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,250
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Sure, but elections are the type of process that generates results that fit Benford's law... that's why it's used as a test for election fraud.
Where?
__________________
Sanity is overrated. / Voting for Republicans is morally equivalent to voting for Nazis in early 30's.
Mader Levap is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 03:03 PM   #180
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 9,842
What is interesting is that there seems to have been a lot of ticket splitting. The Dems lost some HOR seats, and will not take control of the Senate unless they win both runoff elections in Georgia. If the Dems rigged the election, they did a pretty crappy job of it. I think the real motive is to generate a narrative for a Trump run in 2024. Also, the Trump campaign is in debt. By refusing to concede, the Trump campaign can keep rasing money, and use it to pay off some of that debt.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 03:03 PM   #181
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 17,030
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
Elaborate. For me it sounds like the person who analysed that data found that a lot of BIDEN voters in Pennsylvania didn't vote for any local politicians (98,000-57,795). Is that what is meant, and backed by data? Or am I misreading something?

That is what the person concluded. But in the following Tweet, the same person, claiming to use the same statistical methods, concluded that negative numbers of TRUMP voters (in the tens of thousands) in three states didn't vote for any local politicians.

That means that whatever statistical methods he used are invalid, because it is not possible that negative numbers of voters voted for Trump only. Whatever calculation he performed on whatever data cannot be trusted if it yields impossible conclusions.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 03:06 PM   #182
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 19,793
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
That is what the person concluded. But in the following Tweet, the same person, claiming to use the same statistical methods, concluded that negative numbers of TRUMP voters (in the tens of thousands) in three states didn't vote for any local politicians.

That means that whatever statistical methods he used are invalid, because it is not possible that negative numbers of voters voted for Trump only. Whatever calculation he performed on whatever data cannot be trusted if it yields impossible conclusions.
Exactly. Either the source is reliable, and there were a negative number of Trump voters who didn't vote for anyone else, or there were a non-negative number of Trump voters who didn't vote for anyone else which means the source is unreliable.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 03:08 PM   #183
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by Olmstead View Post
The fun thing about this sort of investigation is that it makes just as much sense for the other side until actual evidence is found. It's SchrŲdinger's evidence. Until you find it, you won't know whether it was Trump or Biden who cheated.
So we do the same thing as in 2016 and recount and look into it.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 03:08 PM   #184
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 18,813
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
That is what the person concluded. But in the following Tweet, the same person, claiming to use the same statistical methods, concluded that negative numbers of TRUMP voters (in the tens of thousands) in three states didn't vote for any local politicians.

That means that [...]

That means that according to you I understood the data correctly - Base data minus people who did not vote for any local politician. Almost two thirds in Pennsylvania that voted for BIDEN didn't vote for any local politician, according to your data. Source still not disclosed, meaning open.
__________________
Audiatur et altera pars

Last edited by Childlike Empress; 9th November 2020 at 03:10 PM.
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 03:12 PM   #185
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 23,790
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Sure, but elections are the type of process that generates results that fit Benford's law... that's why it's used as a test for election fraud.
<sigh>


Oh, well. You do what you can.
__________________
Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 03:15 PM   #186
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,843
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Sure, but elections are the type of process that generates results that fit Benford's law... that's why it's used as a test for election fraud.
Depends on which data set you use. As has been mentioned, precincts tend to be pretty similar in size. That data won't be expected to conform to Benford's law.

I think an important point is that Benford's law deviations tend to suggest human manipulation. Made up numbers in ledgers is the classic example. People aren't good at making up strings of random numbers. If indeed vote tallies violate Benford's law, then what that suggests is that the vote totals were made up by a person. But no one is actually alleging that. What is being alleged is that a certain batch of ballots is illegal or that ballots were being changed. This is a very different thing and I don't think the resultant tallies would be much different from a random distribution. IOW, the numbers wouldn't be made up by a human.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 03:16 PM   #187
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 23,790
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
You still haven't answered the question about what sample size would be needed. This source:
https://www.isaca.org/resources/isac...g-benfords-law
claims sample sizes below 500 are where you should maybe not use it. They are an international association of auditors, so they presumably should know what they are talking about. I choose them only because they were the first number I found in a search. If we are talking about samples of 1000+ it seems like the law should apply pretty well.
Yes, I did.

Sample size is completely and utterly irrelevant. It's not part of the considerations.


To elaborate, it is true that you need enough data to make a distribution meaningful, but that is always the case with every analysis that relies on sampled data. I don't know how much is "enough", but I would guess that the number of precincts in Allegheny County would be enough.


But I wouldn't expect the results from those precincts to follow Benford's Law. There's no reason they should, and sample size is not part of the discussion.
__________________
Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?

Last edited by Meadmaker; 9th November 2020 at 03:21 PM.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 03:18 PM   #188
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
2) It's counter-evidence for fraud. A fraudster is highly likely to be partisan, and vote in down-ballot races as well.
Wouldn't this greatly depend on the type of fraud being committed and the organization/resource/time constraints around committing it?
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 03:20 PM   #189
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 17,030
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
That means that according to you I understood the data correctly - Base data minus people who did not vote for any local politician. Almost two thirds in Pennsylvania that voted for BIDEN didn't vote for any local politician. Source still not disclosed, meaning open.

The highlighted calculation performed with correct figures for people who voted for Trump and Biden and did not vote for any local politician, could not yield a negative result for either Presidential candidate. So either that was not the calculation actually performed, or the data was inaccurate, or both.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 03:23 PM   #190
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
But I wouldn't expect the results from those precincts to follow Bedford's Law. There's no reason they should, and sample size is not part of the discussion.
Why not. You said something about the precincts being similarly sized being the issue. Why would that impact the last or 2nd to last digits of the votes?
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 03:26 PM   #191
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 18,813
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
The highlighted calculation performed with correct figures for people who voted for Trump and Biden and did not vote for any local politician, could not yield a negative result for either Presidential candidate. So either that was not the calculation actually performed, or the data was inaccurate, or both.

LOL. Myriad, this sounds like a bit of "I roll over", just like what Meadmaker just posted. There is no calculation, there are numbers I challenged and you didn't qualify. You gave up before I even was convinced that there was voting fraud.
__________________
Audiatur et altera pars

Last edited by Childlike Empress; 9th November 2020 at 03:27 PM.
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 03:26 PM   #192
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 23,790
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Wouldn't this greatly depend on the type of fraud being committed and the organization/resource/time constraints around committing it?
Sure, but it's hard to understand what sort of real people in the real world would be the type of people who would be both willing and able to commit fraud that was adequate to elect a president, but not sufficiently interested to care about other races in the same party.


On the other hand, it's pretty easy to imaging a voter who doesn't know anything about elections other than the one about the president. Furthermore, as someone else pointed out earlier, the voter roll-off phenomenon is common and well understood from previous elections. It is not surprising in the least that it would be more prevalent in this election. Donald Trump inspires strong emotions, and there was a massive turnout for this election. I'm fairly confident that massive voter turnout compared to usual elections was inspired by Donald Trump. Some people who usually don't vote came out to vote for him. More people who usually don't vote came out to vote against him.
__________________
Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 03:29 PM   #193
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,843
Here is a paper that warns agains the use of Benford's law in elections:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...F3C61CE91AAF6D
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 03:29 PM   #194
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by Mader Levap View Post
Originally Posted by No Other
Apply Benford's Law to the vote total and activity by precincts. Since Benford's Law is empirical, it is recognized as valid for detecting fraud in accounting ledgers. Math doesn't care if you're Republican, Democrat or Independent..
Already debunked.
When and how?
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 03:30 PM   #195
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 17,030
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
LOL. Myriad, this sounds like a bit of "I roll over", just like what Meadmaker just posted. There is no calculation, there are numbers I challenged and you didn't qualify. You gave up before I even was convinced that there was voter fraud.

It's two Tweets. Five hundred sixty characters max. There are numbers in them. Some of those numbers are negative. The text in the same Tweets attributes meanings to those numbers, which are impossible given that the assigned meanings (quantities of voters) does not logically permit negative quantities. I don't know what else you expect me to clarify or explain.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 03:33 PM   #196
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 23,790
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Why not. You said something about the precincts being similarly sized being the issue. Why would that impact the last or 2nd to last digits of the votes?
To understand that, you have to understand why the phenomenon exists at all.

I'm not going to try to explain that, because I don't think I could do a great job. On the other hand, we could just look at the Wikipedia article on Benford's law.

"Distributions that do not span several orders of magnitude will not follow Benford's law."
__________________
Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 03:34 PM   #197
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by Paul2 View Post
Didn't someone say it's not a question of sample size, but of the range of values? If all the values lie between 100 and 1000, that's not big enough. It has to be multiple orders of magnitude.
They said something like that, but I'm not sure what they are basing the statement on. I don't see in your example why it wouldn't apply to the case you describe, so long as the underlying process was one where the odds decreased as the number increased in the appropriate way. If pages of a log table work here, where we are presumably talking about numbers not wildly greater than the ones you are talking about, I don't see what the objection is.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 03:34 PM   #198
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 18,813
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
It's two Tweets. Five hundred sixty characters max. There are numbers in them. Some of those numbers are negative. The text in the same Tweets attributes meanings to those numbers, which are impossible given that the assigned meanings (quantities of voters) does not logically permit negative quantities. I don't know what else you expect me to clarify or explain.

You do. It's obvious.
__________________
Audiatur et altera pars
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 03:34 PM   #199
No Other
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
They're addressed further down the page. Benford's Law only really works with datasets spanning many orders of magnitude, and doesn't work at all well with the sort of data being looked at.
Benford's Law is perfect for this type of forensics. All you need to use Benford's Law is that your universe has a range across it of at least an order of magnitude.


Quote:
Add in the cherry picking effect and the fact that an over-representation of leading 1's is no less a violation of Benford's Law than an under-representation - which the source strongly suggests it doesn't - and it becomes seriously unconvincing. And did you see the bit where the source that supposedly states Benford's Law is useful to detect election fraud actually says it isn't?

Dave
I find this interesting; what was his basis for making the comment regarding election fraud? Can you provide a link? thx
No Other is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th November 2020, 03:37 PM   #200
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 11,808
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
In other words, you'd rather post something you know is likely false than post nothing at all. Fascinating.
It amazes me that so many people don't mind being wrong. I hate being wrong.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:06 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.