## Benford’s Law: Evidence of Fraud in Reporting of Voter Precinct Totals?

November 9th, 2020 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

You might have seen reports in the last several days regarding evidence of fraud in ballot totals reported in the presidential election. There is a statistical relationship known as “Benford’s Law” which states that for many real-world distributions of numbers, the frequency distribution of the first digit of those numbers follows a regular pattern. It has been used by the IRS and financial institutions to detect fraud.

It should be emphasized that such statistical analysis cannot prove fraud. But given careful analysis including the probability of getting results substantially different from what is theoretically-expected, I think it is a useful tool. Its utility is especially increased if there is little or no evidence of fraud for one candidate, but strong evidence of fraud from another candidate, across multiple cities or multiple states.

From Wikipedia:

“Benford’s law, also called the Newcomb-Benford law, the law of anomalous numbers, 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.”

For example, here’s one widely circulating plot (from Github) of results from Milwaukee’s precincts, showing the Benford-type plots for Trump versus Biden vote totals.

Fig. 1. Benford-type analysis of Milwaukee precinct voting data, showing a large departure of the voting data (blue bars) from the expected relationship (red line) for Biden votes, but agreement for the Trump votes. This is for 475 voting precincts. (This is not my analysis, and I do not have access to the underlying data to check it).

The departure from statistical expectations in the Biden vote counts is what is expected when some semi-arbitrary numbers, presumably small enough to not be easily noticed, are added to some of the precinct totals. (I verified this with simulations using 100,000 random but log-normally distributed numbers, where I then added 1,2,3, etc. votes to individual precinct totals). The frequency of low digit values are reduced, while the frequency of the higher digit values are raised.

Since I like the analysis of large amounts of data, I thought I would look into this issue with some voting data. Unfortunately, I cannot find any precinct-level data for the general election. So, I instead looked at some 2020 presidential primary data, since those are posted at state government websites. So far I have only looked at the data from Philadelphia, which has a LOT (6,812) of precincts (actually, “wards” and “divisions” within those wards). I did not follow the primary election results from Philadelphia, and I have no preconceived notions of what the results might look like; these were just the first data I found on the web.

Results for the Presidential Primary in Philadelphia

I analyzed the results for 4 candidates with the most primary votes in Philadelphia: Biden, Sanders, Trump, and Gabbard (data available here).

Benford’s Law only applies well to data that that covers at least 2-3 orders of magnitude (say, from 0 to in the hundreds or thousands). In the case of a candidate who received very few votes, an adjustment to Benford’s relationship is needed.

The most logical way to do this (for me) was to generate a synthetic set of 100,000 random, but log-normally distributed numbers ranging from zero and up, but adjusted until the mean and standard deviation of the data matched the voting data for each candidate separately. (The importance of using a log-normal distribution was suggested to me by a statistician, Mathew Crawford, who works in this area). Then, you can do the Benford analysis (frequency of the 1st digits of those numbers) to see what is theoretically-expected, and then compare to the actual voting data.

Donald Trump Results

First, let’s look at the analysis for Donald Trump during the 2020 presidential primary in Philadelphia (Fig. 2). Note that the Trump votes agree very well with the theoretically-expected frequencies (purple line). The classical Benford Law values (green line) are quite different because the range of votes for Trump only went up to 124 votes, with an average of only 3.1 votes for Trump per precinct.

So, in the case of Donald Trump primary votes in Philadelphia, the results are extremely close to what is expected for log-normally distributed vote totals.

Fig. 2. Benford-type analysis of the number of Trump votes across 6,812 Philadelphia precincts. The classical Benford Law expected distribution of the 1st digits in the vote total is in green. The adjusted Benford Law results based upon 100,000 random but log-normally distributed vote values having the same mean and standard deviation as the vote data in in purple. The actual results from the vote data are in black.

Tulsi Gabbard Results

Next, let’s look at what happens when even fewer votes are cast for a candidate, in this case Tulsi Gabbard (Fig. 3). In this case the number of votes was so small that I could not even get the synthetic log-normal distribution to match the observed precinct mean (0.65 votes) and standard deviation (1.29 votes). So, I do not have high confidence that the purple line is a good expectation of the Gabbard results. (This, of course, will not be a problem with major candidates).

Fig. 3. As in Fig. 2, but for Tulsi Gabbard.

Joe Biden Results

The results for Joe Biden in the Philadelphia primary vote show some evidence for a departure of the reported votes (black line) from theory (purple line) in the direction of inflated votes, but I would need to launch into an analysis of the confidence limits; it could be the observed departure is within what is expected given random variations in this number of data (N=6,812).

Fig. 4. As in Fig. 2, but for Joe Biden.

Bernie Sanders Results

The most interesting results are for Bernie Sanders (Fig. 5.), where we see the largest departure of the voting data (black line) from theoretical expectations (purple line). But instead of reduced frequency of low digits, and increased frequency of higher digits, we see just the opposite.

Is this evidence of fraud in the form of votes subtracted from Sanders’ totals? I don’t know… I’m just presenting the results.

Fig. 5. As in Fig 2, but for Bernie Sanders.

Conclusions

It appears that a Benford’s Law- type of analysis would be useful for finding evidence of fraudulently inflated (or maybe reduced?) voter totals. Careful confidence level calculations would need to be performed, however, so one could say whether the departures from what is theoretically expected are larger than, say, 95% or 99% of what would be expected from just random variations in the reported totals.

I must emphasize that my conclusions are based upon analysis of these data over only a single weekend. There are people who do this stuff for a living. I’d be glad to be corrected on any points I have made. Part of my reason for this post is to introduce people to what is involved in these calculations, after understanding it myself, since it is now part of the public debate over the 2020 presidential election results.

### 191 Responses to “Benford’s Law: Evidence of Fraud in Reporting of Voter Precinct Totals?”

1. Steve CASE says:

Great post (I think) at least I have a better idea of what Benford’s Law is. And of course the first thing I did after reading was to see when Wikipedia that you referenced was updated. Wikipedia says:

“This page was last edited on 9 November 2020, at 16:08 (UTC).”

Or about ten minutes before my post, It might be interesting to see how many times over the next few days the Wikipedia site is edited.

• Tom Coughlin says:

posted 11-29-2020
Copied from Wikipedia
This page was last edited on 27 November 2020, at 16:46 (UTC).

2. Steve Case says:

Over at Wikipedia I’m still trying to wrap my mind around Benford’s law and I find this interesting factoid:

“Legal status
In the United States, evidence based on Benford’s law has been admitted in criminal cases at the federal, state, and local levels.[33]”

I wonder how many times that’s going to be removed & replaced in the near future.

• Derek says:

For the record, I was looking into this a little bit yesterday and found this essay whose abstract claims “This essay, however, argues that, despite its apparent utility in looking at other phenomena, Benford’s Law is problematical at best as a forensic tool when applied to elections….we find that conformity with and deviations from Benford’s Law follow no pattern. It is not simply that the Law occasionally judges a fraudulent election fair or a fair election fraudulent. 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.”

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/political-analysis/article/benfords-law-and-the-detection-of-election-fraud/3B1D64E822371C461AF3C61CE91AAF6D

• Derek says:

Oh, and that article is dated Summer 2011.

3. Dear Roy,

Early this morning I downloaded the ward-by-ward unofficial vote tallies from the Milwaukee Election Commissioners webpage, here:

https://elections.wi.gov/node/7234

I have archived my text file here:

I plotted the frequency of first digits for the six candidates (including Write-In, who does not seem to be doing very well, but his tallies are legit), and I get this graph:

Biden’s tallies stand out as being greatly deviant from Benford’s Law in a uniform manner.

But I note that the total vote tally for each precinct varies from around 300 to 3000, which is only one order of magnitude. Benford’s law applies to naturally-occurring numbers that vary over many orders of magnitude.

The above plot matches the ones on display at the GitHub repository I believe you showed in your post, so I am inclined to trust those GitHub plots.

https://github.com/cjph8914/2020_benfords

Looking at those GitHub plots, we see significant deviation from Benford’s Law only in a few places, like Milwaukee, Allegheny, and Chicago. I want to look at this more before I draw any conclusions.

Best, Kevan

• Kevan, people should NOT be using the raw Benford’s Law distribution values. If you look at my 4 plots, you will see that the theory approaches the Benford’s Law values with only a couple orders of magnitude range in the vote totals. But as I showed, all you need to do is compute a new Benford-like distribution with the same mean and standard deviation as the vote counts, and you get very close agreement. So, low vote counts are not necessary to apply these tests.

• Got it. So, a friend of mine simulated the Milwaukee City election by generating the votes for each ward randomly from the known number of people who voted and the overall fraction of people who are reported to have voted for the various candidates in Milwaukee. Each time we run the simulation, the result is a first-digit distribution significantly deviant from the Benford Distribution, and reasonably similar to the distribution presented by the actual election.

• Cris Streetzel says:

That makes sense. The wiki for Benford’s Law specifically states ‘Benford’s law is violated by the populations of all places with a population of at least 2500 individuals’. Registered voters are a subset of population (as are voters for a particular candidate), so it will not follow the distribution either.

Benford assumes a somewhat random distribution over many orders of magnitude. Precinct sizes are not random. They are chosen by election officials when they draw precinct borders and it’s logical to make them similarly sized…. it tends toward a gaussian distribution, so subsets will also tend have a gaussian distribution.

• Nate says:

“Precinct sizes are not random. They are chos”

You’ve put your finger on it.

This is a big red herring!

• Nate says:

I used Kevan’s vote counts for Biden, Trump and Total, and took the Log of each.

The standard deviation of these for B, T, Tot are

0.27, 0.47, 0.26.

Thus the range of vote counts for Total Votes and Biden Votes is narrow, much less than one decade.

This really fails to meet the criteria for Benfords Law to apply.

Tim is correct, if the average Vote count is in the Middle of a decade range, and the distribution is narrow, then the most common first digit could easily be > 1.

The average total vote is 660, for Biden 595 and for Trump 148. So Biden will get a lot of first digits 4-7, Trump will get a lot of 1’s.

• Steve CASE says:

I pretty much got what Dr. Spencer shows in Figure 1 using Kevan’s archived data:

https://i.postimg.cc/pX3qST4b/image.png

• Nate says:

Yes, but as discussed it should not follow Benfords law.

4. Bri says:

Numberphle has a video explaining Benford’s law.
https://youtu.be/XXjlR2OK1kM

5. Marty says:

Great post. There was a similar article after the 2008 New Hampshire primary. A follow up article showed the anomaly only occurred with certain voting machines.

6. Entropic man says:

“Careful confidence level calculations would need to be performed, however, so one could say whether the departures from what is theoretically expected are larger than, say, 95% or 99% of what would be expected from just random variations in the reported totals. ”

Now that’s the question.

7. Scott says:

We just need to look at all of the election data for the entire US and see if Trump’s data ever deviates significantly from Benford’s law. If not, there would be some explanation necessary.

8. Nate says:

Interesting. Ive see in applied to elections in 3rd world.

Looks like nothing to see here.

Philadelphia apparently had higher vote for Trump than 2016, while most other Pa counties showed improvements for Biden over Hillary

Thus any fraud in Philly seems to have failed.

Also if there was widespread fraud in this election by the DEMS, it is strange that they failed to get back the Senate and lost seats in the House.

• Steve CASE says:

Nate says: November 9, 2020 at 4:57 PM
Also if there was widespread fraud in this election by the DEMS, it is strange that they failed to get back the Senate and lost seats in the House.

People filling in hundreds or thousands of stolen ballots don’t have time to fill in the local elections.

• Nate says:

Yes, a brilliant theory.

When it comes to climate, you guys are very skeptical that there is sufficient evidence.

But in this instance..

9. Tim Folkerts says:

Roy, you are missing one key factor.

Here is some raw data I found for the City of Milwaukee:
https://city.milwaukee.gov/election/ElectionInformation/ElectionResults
PRECINCTS COUNTED (OF 327). . . . . 327 100.00
REGISTERED VOTERS – TOTAL . . . . . 315,483
BALLOTS CAST – TOTAL. . . . . . . 247,695
BALLOTS CAST – BLANK. . . . . . . 67 .03
VOTER TURNOUT – TOTAL . . . . . . 78.51
VOTER TURNOUT – BLANK . . . . . . .02
Joseph R. Biden / Kamala D. Harris (DEM) 194,661 78.83
Donald J. Trump / Michael R. Pence (REP) 48,414 19.60

So … 247,695 ballots cast/327 precincts = ~ 750 voters per precinct on average. And since overall there were 78.83% for Biden, that makes ~ 600 votes for Biden per precinct on average. This would make numbers near “6” much more likely in this scenario than in a random, Benford’s Law type situation.

And that is exactly what you saw!

Similarly, getting a “2” as a leading digit for Biden would only happen if either there was
* a huge precinct with 2000+ voters who almost all went for Biden
* a typical-size precinct that was a Republican enclave.
Thus we could expect “2” to be exceptionally rare. Again, as observed.

This simply is not random data that would be expected to follow Benford’s Law. As you note, “Benford’s Law only applies well to data that that covers at least 2-3 orders of magnitude” and the size of the precincts does NOT cover even 1 order of magnitude.

• Tim Folkerts says:

I just saw Kevan Hashemi’s post, which comes to the same conclusion for similar reasons. The one error I see is that the 2’s for Biden mostly come from small districts (around 300-400 votes) where Biden got most of the votes (200-299). Not not from normal-sized districts where Trump won most of the votes. Trump was never much above 50% in any district.

• Nate says:

Clearly the Milwaukee data do not fit the requirement that they be “log-normally distributed numbers”.

Roy, you really should retract this piece, since it has failed to pass peer review.

And if it is simply spreading misinformation, that can actually do harm.

• Dave S says:

Wait, wait, wait, Dr Roy Spencer, spreading misinformation that can actually do harm and that cannot pass the rigours of scientific peer review?
Do you expect anything less?

10. Nick says:

Roy,

I recommend using the Philly ward data and apply Benford’s Law to it. Here’s what I got by doing it, but I am not a statistician, just decent Excel user.

• Tim Folkerts says:

Nick, for the reasons that I and Kevan noted above, Benford’s Law does NOT well predict the results in precincts that all have similar populations. Calling Benford’s Law a “prediction” is a gross mischaracterization of what is happening with elections.

PS where did you find the Philly data?

11. ALLAN MACRAE says:

MORE ANOMALIES IN LATE VOTE ADDITIONS IN PENNSYLVANIA
By W. Matt Briggs, November 9, 2020
https://wmbriggs.com/post/33400/?fbclid=IwAR01ohqtxR0ncbCSDgbCKsBrUAMN_jJ83jasUqGLRHgpSwBpyKORVYJcXF4

Matt Briggs is a highly competent statistician – he reviewed my January2008 paper that proved atmospheric CO2 changes LAG temperature changes in the modern data record by ~9 months.
“The future cannot cause the past.”

I believe there is ample evidence of large-scale fraud by the Dems in this election. Not only were there many blatant voting irregularities, but Biden could not draw any crowds and Trump drew many thousands. My guess is there were upwards of one million or more fraudulent ballots cast for Biden/Harris. Why bother to campaign when you know “the fix is in”?

• Blaz says:

Biden didn’t draw big crowds because he was actively discouraging people to come if they didn’t feel safe covid wise. Why would they come if they knew the message was that a crowd was a super spreader event? Trump supporters didn’t get this message or ignored it because they didn’t believe it to be serious. It has no reflection on how many will vote for you. But the polls DO give you an indication, and the polls were mostly correct.. predicting a Biden win.

• Marisa says:

Oh, Blaz. I feel so sorry for you. How do you even make it to the mailbox to pick up the welfare check?. Biden didn’t draw a crowd because his handlers kept him in his basement. When they did let him see daylight there were NO crowds. The press and SS agents were the crowds. And what is with the “he was actively discouraging people to come if they didnt feel safe covid wise?” You cannot really be that stupid. Biden is a TOOL. The audits will show Trump won. Already there are indications of huge voter fraud. Covid is being shown for the scam it is and also the vaccine. Not the actual vaccine per se but that the Marxist are mandating it.

12. Hkan says:

What is a first digit in this case? First digit in what number? Please, help me understand this post.

• Tim Folkerts says:

It’s the first (leftmost) digit of the total votes for a candidate in a precinct. So if there was a precinct with 2000 total votes, where Biden got 1234 and Trump got 764 (and Mickey Mouse got 2), we would record “1” for Biden, “7” for Trump, and “2” for Mickey Mouse.

13. Gio says:

To be credibile as climatologist you need to leave to spoke of covid or politic or so on…

14. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

So it seems the Democrats have perpetrated this massive fraud to elect Biden but in their incompetence they did not arrange to win control of the Senate or a super majority in the House. Not very smart.

• Gordon Robertson says:

snape…”So it seems the Democrats have perpetrated this massive fraud to elect Biden but in their incompetence they did not arrange to win control of the Senate or a super majority in the House. Not very smart”.

That would have been too obvious.

15. Entropic man says:

“It tends to be most accurate when values are distributed across multiple orders of magnitude, especially if the process generating the numbers is described by a power law (which is common in nature). ”

By design, precincts are of similar size. No multiple orders of magnitude, no power law.

Are you sure Benford’s curve is even useful in the context of election analysis?

16. Entropic man says:

May I recommend the chi-squared test of Kolomogoroff-Smirnoff test as tools for statistically comparing observed and expected data like Benford curves.

Graphs have been put up and the faithful invited to say “Oh,look, the expected and observed curves are different. It must be fraud.

Some indication that they are significantly different would be welcome.

17. Entropic man says:

Tried a chi-squared test on the Fig1 data.

Both sets of data show p<0.001 goodness-of-fit between observed and expected figures.

Probably best to abandon the idea of using Benford curves to analyse this election.

18. Bindidon says:

It is amazing for us Europeans to hear from Senator Mitch McConnell in US newspapers that

– on the one hand, he is pleased that the Republicans have held their own in the Senate and in the House alltogether,

but

– on the other hand, fully supports Trump in his lawsuits against alleged fraud by the Democrats in the presidential election.

How does that work?

– Why should mail ballot fraud solely concern the presidential election?

– Why did Democrats not manage to have many more of them elected in the Senate and the House?

It’s so stupid… some people – not only here of course – really should start to keep away from Trump’s paranoia.

J.-P. D.

• Gordon Robertson says:

binny…” Why should mail ballot fraud solely concern the presidential election?”

One example. In Pennsylvania, Trump was up by 500,000 votes till the mail-in ballots were counted. The Democratic governor claimed vehemently that Trump would not win in Pennsylvania. They extended the count for a long time and irregularities were reported.

In the US, if the totals are within a certain percentage a recount can be called. In the current case, with the irregularities surrounding covid, and the sudden change in rules re mail-in votes, I think Trump has a good case for appealing.

Don’t see what your problem is with McConnell. He is a Republican and so is Trump. As a Senator, he runs in a separate election from the President.

• Bindidon says:

Robertson

As usual: you behave totally incompetent.

It was absolutely clear that when mail-in ballots would come in, then a vast majority of them would be pro-Dem, exactly as it was clear that a vast majority of persons coming to the vote corners would be pro-Trump.

You call others idiots, but are yourself not able to understand their comments.

*
” How does that work?

– Why should mail ballot fraud solely concern the presidential election?

– Why did Democrats not manage to have many more of them elected in the Senate and the House? ”

*

J.-P. D.

• Peter C says:

Some arguments about fraud are specifically about a few particular cities. Because of the electoral college and the distribution of US major cities a few different votes in certain cities can sometime have a considerable impact on presidential elections.

If massive fraud did occur it might have impacted the GA Senate Races and/or the MI one. But it is quite possible based on the structure of the US body politic that if massive fraud occurred one could have fraud impacting the presidential election and having less impact on the US House and US Senate elections.

• mittens2012 says:

Every Democrat I ask about this tells me that democrats just decided to have divided government and wanted to give Bidedn the win but not allow him to do anything by granting republican the house/senate wins… Which I respond with by LOL. I don’t know ANY democrats who would vote GOP on any election period… It was voter fraud and its slowly being uncovered. Issue is time and trump is running out of it.

19. William Herold says:

Benfords Law does not apply when you have known percentages of votes coming out of relatively uniform buckets. Professor Mebane at University of Michigan explains:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/inapB.pdf

• Bindidon says:

William Herold

Thx for this link to a comprehensive evaluation.

J.-P. D.

20. Brent A. says:

Nate, you ass, this is a damn blog, and the good Dr. went far beyond what should be required with his caveats. Go away.

• Nate says:

“The departure from statistical expectations in the Biden vote counts is what is expected when some semi-arbitrary numbers, presumably small enough to not be easily noticed, are added to some of the precinct totals. (I verified this with simulations using 100,000 random but log-normally distributed numbers,”

This is patently False, as shown by several posters here.

As a well know scientist, who gets interviewed on Fox News, etc, he should not be lending scientific credence to this flawed analysis, IMO.

21. Tim S says:

I think the appearance of fraud is related to the very large number of mail ballots. More Republicans voted in person and more Democrats voted by mail. Mail ballots were counted last, so as the numbers shifted to the Democrats, it appeared fraudulent. It is worth investigating, but probably will not lead anywhere. In the future, if mail voting becomes a trend, we need a way to count them faster so the election result does not take so long.

• Gordon Robertson says:

tim s…”Mail ballots were counted last, so as the numbers shifted to the Democrats, it appeared fraudulent”.

There’s no proof that the mail-in ballots favoured Democrats to the degree they did. The situation needs to be investigated due to the degree of mail-in votes due to covid.

I watched the returns closely for the last 6 states and they all took an abnormally long time to count the votes. Trump was well ahead before the mail-ins were counted and he got stuck at that count. There’s no way all those ballots should have favoured Democrats.

• Bindidon says:

Robertson

” Theres no proof that the mail-in ballots favoured Democrats to the degree they did. ”

Here again you prove, like in every discussion (Moon, Einstein, viruses etc) that you are a pure Contrarian. You doubt about everything just in order to show us all you are one who doubts.

You always write the contrary of evidence, of what makes sense.

J.-P. D.

• Nate says:

“There’s no proof that the mail-in ballots favoured Democrats to the degree they did.”

Sure.

There is no proof that 11 > 9, either.

• Svante says:

I sense an logical inconsistency here:
“There’s no proof that the mail-in ballots favoured Democrats to the degree they did.”

Perhaps Gordon has a sense of humour.

22. Rune Valaker says:

Like Bandidon, I find it disgusting that large sections of the American electorate are devouring Trump’s nonsense, you appear to be idiots. It is now a week after the election and all this evidence of electoral fraud is missing, evidence is not worth five cents before it is presented to a court, and take a look what has been presented so far:

To the extent that the lawsuits have not already been dropped, these are technically legal issues without a hint of dumping of votes, deliberate miscalculation or anything close to what Trump, Hanety et al. claims. And in more than half of the cases, they been thrown out of court as baseless.

And I reckon Biden is at the center of this operation? In that case, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the American people for an excellent choice. You have chosen a president who is able to plan and carry out an extremely complicated operation, and that without a trace of evidence that this even has occured. Such an administrative genius is exactly what the United States needs now. And it is particularly impressive that the whole operation was implemented and carried out by a supposedly senile person.

• Tim S says:

I can help you with that impression. There are 50 states. Most if not all of the states where ballots were mailed to every registered voter, whether they asked for one or not, were run by Democrat governors. That is the basis of the suspicion. There were a lot ballots floating around, and that fact alone provides the possibility of fraud.

The fact is that Democrats tend to do better with a high turnout, and they know that. Although it legal so long as they use laws and rules in place before the election, it does seem that they very cleverly took advantage of the COVID-19 situation by claiming it was too dangerous to vote in person.

• Gordon Robertson says:

Tim S…”Most if not all of the states where ballots were mailed to every registered voter, whether they asked for one or not, were run by Democrat governors”.

I think the fix was in. Trump got screwed and I hope he takes it to the Supreme Court. The fake news outlets are screaming that everything was done fairly but how do they know? I think there is enough evidence of hijinx in the last 6 states counted to require a heavily scrutinized, judicial recount.

From what you say, what was stopping voters voting twice?

• Nate says:

Gordon never met a conspiracy theory he couldnt latch on to.

• davidgmillsatty says:

New Internet Rule: Anybody who uses the term conspiracy theory in a post should lose posting privileges.

• Nate says:

You mean they are all true???

• Gordon Robertson says:

rune…”I find it disgusting that large sections of the American electorate are devouring Trumps nonsense, you appear to be idiots”.

You’re another kind of idiot, a naive, gullible type. The Democrats have been whining since 2016 and they have tried everything to get rid of Trump. I think they are so desperate they would stoop to fraud and there is evidence of that.

23. Philadelphia does not have 6,812 voting divisions (precincts), but 1,703. The number that is 4 times 1,703 seems to come from the linked data having four lines for each candidate for each precinct, one each of these four for four different voting methods.

24. Cris Streetzel says:

There’s a good video explaining the issues with using Bedford on election data. He analyzes Chicago instead of Milwaukee, but the distributions look nearly identical.

25. Bruce Kay says:

“Is this evidence of fraud in the form of votes subtracted from Sanders’ totals? I don’t know… I’m just presenting the results.”

Surely you have heard the famous Lyndon Johnson story of he and his campaign manager plotting to spread the rumour that his political rival was fond of carnal knowledge with his barnyard pigs. The manager protested at the implications….. “We can’t accuse him of fucking his own pigs. No one is going to believe that!”

Johnson wryly responds ” We don’t have to prove anything. We just need to make him deny it”

and you call yourself a scientist

• Nate says:

Well put..

26. Gordon Robertson says:

Here’s my take on it from following the results all night:

-It came down to 6 states, and all of them were really late tallying the mail-in votes: Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Nevada. Trump did not win one of them, being stuck at 214.

-One of the states, Pennsylvania had a Democratic governor who claimed Trump WILL NOT win in Pennsylvania. Trump was up by 500,000 votes till the mail-in ballots were counted and he lost that state.

The fake-news media were claiming beforehand that the mail-in votes were largely for the Democrats. How did they know? Normally, mail-in votes follow fairly closely with the walk-in votes. I think Sleazy Joe and Co. found a way to manipulate the mail-in vote.

-In the same state, a judge ruled they could have an extra week to count the votes. A federal Supreme Court justice claimed that was unconstitutional but did nothing because it was too close to the election.

-Michigan, also with a weird Democratic governor, had a situation where a block of votes for Republicans mysteriously got counted as Democrat votes. A representative called it a computer glitch. Computers don’t glitch in that manner, humans do.

In the same state, witnesses were barred from viewing the vote count which is against state law. When they were finally forced to allow witnesses, they forced them to view from 6 feet back.

-In another one of the six states, Georgia, there were several Democrat votes cast for people who were dead.

In another one of the states, a postmaster was overhead to say he would stamp late votes as being on time.

I feel strongly that Trump has a case to have the votes in those six states recounted with a judicial recount. The Democrats have been hysterical about getting rid of Trump and I feel strongly that they would stoop to cheating to get it done.

• Nate says:

Georgia, Arizona are run by Republicans. Oh well. They must be corrupt!

Trump will win in N Carolina with a Dem governor.

The late counted votes are helping Trump catch up in Arizona.

Biden was way ahead in Ohio in the early count, then Trump caught up when later votes were counted and passed him by a lot.

Why isnt that fraud?

27. Tim S says:

I will play the devil’s advocate: Democrats have executed a carefully crafted plan to steal the election. There are no emails or text messages because everything is done with personal conversations. The fix is in. Vote harvesting is accomplished by taking advantage of the large number of ballots mailed out into the population, and concealed by kicking the Republican monitors out of the vote counting rooms. Mail ballot are commingled with in-person ballots in defiance of court orders. Mail ballot envelopes with signatures that can be verified are “accidentally” discarded.

The clock is ticking. The states have to send their slate of delegates to vote in the Electoral College by December 14th. Without strong evidence to overturn the state’s decisions, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will be very reluctant to take action against any state. Chief Justice Roberts has already shown a tendency to side with the liberals on political cases and the kids (Amy and Brett) will be aware of their legacy as Trump appointees.

I predict that Joe Biden will be elected on December 14th and sworn-in by Chief Justice Roberts on January 20th.

• Nate says:

“I will play the devils advocate: Democrats have executed a carefully crafted plan to steal the election.’

Except they blew it with the Senate and the House! They blew it by having DT gain votes in Philadelphia, but lose votes in every other county.

Its a carefully crafted conspiracy theory when not a trace of evidence is found but people buy it anyway!

• Tim S says:

I think you just made the case for why an investigation is needed. It is the evidence, or lack of evidence that will prove that the election result is valid.

• Nate says:

????

• Dave S says:

Come on Nate, catch up mate. Lack of evidence is obviously the clearest evidence of fraud that exists. I mean not even republican sugar daddies like Dan Patrick offering \$1M (points little finger to corner of mouth) to wannabe 15min celebrities could drum up any substantial evidence, which can only mean the election was completely rigged on such a colossal scale that there actually is ZERO evidence. The thing I think that has been most overlooked is that Trump didn’t actually win the election – I WON THE ELECTION!

• Nate says:

See eg

“Allegations are not enough, and everybody knows this,” said Mick Mulvaney, former acting White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget, in an interview with Yahoo Finance Live. Lawyers “have to put up or shut up on the evidence for the lawsuits. You cant go out on TV and say, ‘theyre stealing the election,’ and not back that up with facts.”

28. Rune Valaker says:

>>>You’re another kind of idiot, a naive, gullible type. The Democrats have been whining since 2016 and they have tried everything to get rid of Trump. I think they are so desperate they would stoop to fraud and there is evidence of that.

I do not care what extreme clowns believe or claim, nor what Eric Trump produces from blatantly falsified evidence. The President of the United States, whose main task is to uphold, preserve and defend the Constitution, shall not make allegations of widespread electoral fraud and that the election has been stolen without solid evidence. There have been a series of allegations from crap sources like Breibart and Newsmax which in turn have been refuted as nonsense, but that also seems to be all.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judges-evidence-trump-campaign-election-cases-tossed/story?id=74071460

All I care about is the evidence, and so far Trump has not presented anything, and this while he has been whining for over a week. And when one considers the quality of the helpless attempts that has been made so far, there is reason to believe that this is also all they have. No one is against all votes being counted and illegal votes being excluded. What Americans should be concerned about is that you seem to have a president who systematically ignores the facts and seems willing to burn down the house to maintain his narcissistic self-image. So just shut up or put up.

29. Rune Valaker says:

I have been following the legal issues surrounding the election closely over several days. The only credible thing I have come across so far was a postal employee, a Richard Hopkins, who has signed an affidavit in which he states that his superiors had ordered several postal employees to backdate postal votes so that they would seem to be legal, in other words deliberate voter fraud.

But what happened to that one case? Phooof!

“IG investigators informed Committee staff today that they interviewed Hopkins on Friday, but that Hopkins RECANTED HIS ALLEGATIONS yesterday and did not explain why he signed a false affidavit,”

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/postal-worker-recants-claims-fraud-cited-trump-campaign/story?id=74138861

30. Nate says:

“The Republican Party Is Attacking Democracy.

‘Our survival as a nation depends, above all, on the loser accepting the results of an election.’

by Jesse Wegman Nov. 10, 2020

It turns out there was a coordinated attack on the 2020 election after all. It began several years ago and accelerated in the last several months. Now that Election Day has passed, it has launched into overdrive.

Its weapons are baseless insinuation and evidence-free charges, deployed solely to sow chaos and undermine the results of a free and fair election — one that produced a clear winner and an even clearer loser.

But the most dangerous attackers of American democracy aren’t the Russians or the Chinese. They are the leaders of the Republican Party.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/10/opinion/trump-election-concede.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

31. AJS says:

• Nate says:

Interesting.

I found “trump emergency injunction michigan” worked fine on Google. Without Michigan it gave lots of results of earlier Immigration related cases.

• Bindidon says:

AJS

You seem to have serious problems with your browser.

Here is Google’s reaction on a search with “trump emergency injunction voter fraud” :

https://tinyurl.com/y3a3pzgd

(tinyURL’d because of the known ‘D C’ syndrome)
*

Do they really do that?

J.-P. D.

• Svante says:

Google tries to give people what they want, so different people get different results.
Gordon Robertson will find conspiracy theories, sensible people will not.

32. Richard Wright says:

You can find detailed election results from 2020 and past elections in Chicago here:

https://chicagoelections.gov/en/election-results-specifics.asp

Interestingly, Trump got a higher percentage of votes in Chicago in 2020 vs. 2016, 16.15% vs. 12.41%. Chicago is so heavily Democrat that there would seem to be little need for fraud in the presidential election but, on the other hand, Chicago has a long and treasured history of voter fraud (e.g., https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/where-theres-smoke-theres-fire-100000-stolen-votes-chicago).

33. Roger Caiazza says:

Other suspicious statistics: https://thenationalpulse.com/news/case-against-biden-win/

34. co2isnotevil says:

“How does that work?”

Perhaps because most of the malfeasance identified so far has been in districts run by Democrats where Democratic candidates were going to win anyway. This is most apparent with House seats and State assembly elections where voting is by a relatively small numbers of counties, about 80% of which voted overwhelmingly for Trump and whose local leadership has no tolerance for voter fraud.

Some of the cheating could have spilled over into Senate races, where all citizens in a state vote for the candidates, and indeed, Senate races in swing states were closer than they should have been given that the House gained so many Republican seats.

35. Gordon Robertson says:

Interesting…recount ordered for Georgia. Arizona is being contested as well where the Biden lead is a few tenths of a percent.

I can see a recount coming for Pennsylvania, possibly ordered by the Supreme Court. If Trump’s team can get recounts in Michigan and Wisconsin as well, it could prove to be the undoing of Sleazy Joe. I’m sure there will be serious irregularities uncovered.

As it stands, the state electors don’t meet till December 14th so Biden won’t be sworn in before that. Trump is right to refuse conceding, a lot can happen between then and now.

• Nate says:

“If Trumps team can get recounts in Michigan and Wisconsin as well”

Gordon you are quite naive. Recounts rarely change results by more than 50 votes.

The Margins are all > 10,000 votes. Michigan is 150,000. Pa is 55,000.

But one can dream.

36. Ken says:

Does Benford’s law have utility in the alleged fraud being committed by ‘adjusting’ the temperature record?

37. Tim C says:

Benford’s law is not universal, but a statement that holds true for certain kinds of probability distributions. Specifically, it is true for probability distributions that are distributed evenly over a logarithmic scale. Equivalently, the probability density function must be proportional to 1/x over several orders of magnitude of x.

Dr. Spencer is trying to apply this statement to vote counts by precincts. However, precincts are chosen to be relatively uniform in size. Moreover, each precinct’s results approximately represent a sample of the overall population, and so their distribution should follow a normal distribution by the central limit theorem.

A normal distribution CANNOT satisfy the requirement for Benford’s law to hold. So there is absolutely no reason to think that it would apply. This is easy to see in practice: consider a normal distribution centered at an arbitrary number (say 600) with an arbitrary standard deviation (say 50), and obviously the most common leading digits will be 6, 5, and 7. Not 1 as predicted by Benford’s law.

This article should be retracted. There is no reason for Benford’s law to apply, so all analysis that follows is bogus. To insinuate that the election is fraudulent (as Dr. Spencer does several times) based on this nonsense is irresponsible, not to mention flat-out wrong. I would expect better from Dr. Spencer.

• argusmanargus says:

Come on man, its an interesting article. If his math is so wrong, just work it out for everybody and quit the insinuations. Keep in mind, one State will not change this election. At worst, it would make for a weaker President.

• Tim C says:

I agree that the article is interesting, but it is incorrect for the reasons listed in my post. Dr. Spencer can do whatever math he wants to compare the election results to Benford’s law. But if there is no reason to think they should match in the first place, it’s a pointless endeavor.

Normally I would politely correct a mistake like this. But Dr. Spencer then uses these totally incorrect arguments to throw false accusations and undermine the legitimacy of the election. If you’re following U.S. politics right now, it’s clear that there is a very serious issue with politicians refusing to commit to a peaceful transition of power, and Dr. Spencer is fanning the flames.

• davidgmillsatty says:

Nonsense. This has nothing to do with peaceful transition of power. For years now there have been questions about the integrity and validity of our elections and I am tired of this, especially the problem that electronic voting poses.

A very similar thing happened to John Kerry that has happened to Trump. Kerry was far ahead of Bush in the exit polling and then the polling numbers stopped at 1:30 am and were all changed to reflect a Bush win. It was a 6 point flip. Kerry got the same pressure to concede and he should not have. Had he not, we might not be where we are today.

I think it would do the country good and the whole election process good to have five or six recounts in the close states and have intense scrutiny of the legality of every ballot and the total tabulation and especially electronic voting.

The result would hopefully give renewed credibility to our election process. Or (hopefully not) we would find out we have a serious problem.

• Tim C says:

You are presenting a very sanitized version of what Republicans and Dr. Spencer are claiming. Of course I agree that there should be “intense scrutiny of the legality of every ballot.” This is already done during the election certification process.

But Republicans are not supporting a careful review of the election results. Rather, they are asserting (falsely and without evidence) that the election was rigged and that the winner was wrongly decided. See for yourself on the sitting president’s Twitter page:

“Biden did not win, he lost by a lot!”

“DOMINION DELETED 2.7 MILLION TRUMP VOTES NATIONWIDE.”

“Nobody wants to report that Pennsylvania and Michigan didn’t allow our Poll Watchers and/or Vote Observers to Watch or Observe. This is responsible for hundreds of thousands of votes that should not be allowed to count. Therefore, I easily win both states. Report the News!”

Meanwhile, Trump is refusing to give Biden access to necessary resources for an incoming president, including vital intelligence for national security.

So yes, this had everything to do with peaceful transition of power.

• Nate says:

“John Kerry that has happened to Trump. Kerry was far ahead of Bush in the exit polling and then the polling stopped..”

Huh???

Exit polling are not votes. They are polls and can be wrong, just like this year.

• Tim S says:

I am not a Trump supporter or Biden supporter. I think we can do much better than either one, but here we are. I think this problem is of the Democrats own making. Trump was harassed by the Crossfire Hurricane investigations which was authorized and supervised by President Obama. This led to a very corrupt investigation by the FBI according to the IG report, and ultimately the Mueller Investigation which indeed was a witch hunt. If someone had told me 4 years ago that there was a “Deep State” operating in the government I would have just laughed. Now, anyone who denies that Trump was harassed by the Democrats is equally laughable.

They brought this on themselves. It was not necessary to flood the country with mail-in ballots. Every sane person can see that as a scheme to influence the election with a high turnout that would favor Democrats. That is why Republicans opposed it. It is now payback time for Trump, and since he obviously has not shame, I would expect him to make move he can to obstruct the Biden presidency just the way his was obstructed. Then there is Hunter’s laptop. Roast the popcorn — this thing is not over!

• Nate says:

“Every sane person can see that as a scheme to influence the election with a high turnout that would favor Democrats.”

Making it easier for people to vote is a ‘scheme’?

Mail in and early voting has been heavily used previously by Republicans in States that had it as a normal feature.

But DT discouraged it this year. Big mistake.

• co2isnotevil says:

Nate, please pay attention to what’s happening.

Making it easier to cheat is the nature of the scheme. It is already as easy as it can be to cast a legitimate vote.

• davidgmillsatty says:

It has long been recognized that not voting in person presents huge issues in identifying the voter. We have our pictures on our drivers license for a reason. So the state legislatures have taken major precautions in identifying people who vote by mail. They set out a number of requirements which helps ensure that the voter has properly identified himself when he chooses to vote by mail. And they have to be followed to the letter of the law or they are not valid votes.

The US Constitution clearly states that legislatures are to make the election laws for any federal office and the Constitution does not give courts the right to modify the laws that the legislature has made no matter how equitable it might be for a court to modify them. That is what the Pennsylvania case is all about.

And it may also be the case in other states.

When you cast a mail-in ballot, your chances of casting an illegal ballot go up tremendously. If you don’t want to take that chance then go to the polls and vote in person on voting day.

38. markr says:

Comments by those such as Tim C seem to match reality. Benford’s rule doesn’t apply to competitive candidates in elections where ward/constituency sizes are narrowly distributed.

See e.g. comments in the cited github repo.
https://github.com/cjph8914/2020_benfords/issues/9
https://github.com/cjph8914/2020_benfords/issues/17
https://github.com/cjph8914/2020_benfords/issues/36

For example, Trump’s counts in precincts where he won in Allegheny couty violate Benford.
https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/74244234/98703095-0b233500-2373-11eb-964c-5e744236385c.png
Is this evidence that pro-Trump people were fiddling the vote in those precincts? No.

https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/74244234/98800757-ba5e1b80-2408-11eb-945c-f4f4f0ebf437.png

Weak, in this case baseless, accusations and implications undermining election integrity are very damaging to the trust that’s vital for democracy. I hope you pull this article Dr Spencer.

• davidgmillsatty says:

It is an educational post. And so are all of the comments. How about letting the readers decide?

And how about letting all the recounts proceed? Why not? We have election laws for a reason. The right to recount is one of them.

Plus, of you are Biden, it is better to win twice. And that is what James Carville said.

What I worry about is people like you who want to throw aspersions at anyone who doesn’t agree with you or who want to prevent candidates from exercising their legal rights.

39. bjrn says:

Very difficult to apply Benfords law. The voting klusters are designed to be a non random size for the convenience of the voter organisation.

40. Bruce Kay says:

Fascinating little bit of detective work there Roy, all in a field well outside of your own expertise. If you see the wisdom in applying your , er… “wisdom” here for the sole purpose of elevating what you acknowledge is a barely plausible hypothesis to a problem that so far has no substantive empirical evidence, Why not instead consider a solid scientific theory that through 70 years of abundant statistical analysis and replication around the globe far more directly explains this particular controversy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism

41. Steve CASE says:

After poking around various pro and con sites, it looks like the Benford numbers don’t reveal a whole lot. But the 4 AM dump of 100% Biden votes in Milwaukee, still look suspicious.

42. Tim S says:

I posted most of this as a reply above, but I think it stands by itself. There is very good reason not to trust Democrats to play fair. The Russia investigation that consumed the first years of the Trump presidency was an obscene abuse of power by President Obama, the FBI, and Democrats in congress. If ever published, the Durham report may reveal even more corruption. There was never any evidence, but people such as Adam Schiff made outrageous claims about secret evidence that would eventually be revealed. Instead, the Mueller Report was a complete exoneration of the Trump campaign except for his attempts to stop the investigation that he knew was baseless. That attempt to stop the investigation was alleged to be obstruction, when the real obstruction was the investigation itself.

I am not a Trump supporter or Biden supporter. I think we can do much better than either one, but here we are. I think this problem with the election results is of the Democrats own making. Trump was harassed by the Crossfire Hurricane investigations which was authorized and supervised by President Obama. This led to a very corrupt investigation by the FBI according to the IG report, and ultimately the Mueller Investigation which indeed was a witch hunt. If someone had told me 4 years ago that there was a “Deep State” operating in the government I would have just laughed. Now, anyone who denies that Trump was harassed by the Democrats is equally laughable.

The Democrats brought this on themselves. It was not necessary to flood the country with mail-in ballots. Every sane person can see that as a scheme to influence the election with a high turnout that would favor Democrats. That is why Republicans opposed it. Further, it is this flood of ballots that is the basis for suspicion. It is now payback time for Trump, and since he obviously has no shame, I would expect him to make every move he can to obstruct the Biden presidency just the way his was obstructed. Then there is Hunter’s laptop. Roast the popcorn — this thing is not over!

• Gordon Robertson says:

tim s…”The Russia investigation that consumed the first years of the Trump presidency was an obscene abuse of power by President Obama, the FBI, and Democrats in congress”.

Let’s not forget Hillary, it was the Clinton Foundation that funded the Steel dossier where the lies about a Russia-Trump collusion got its bite.

Occurred to me that Trump beat Hillary too easily and now he’s giving Sleazy Joe a head start. Sleazy can’t be inaugurated before Dec 14th at least and that leaves plenty of time to investigate and get the federal Supreme Court into it.

Wouldn’t it be a gas if the Supreme Court order recounts in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania and Trump won? Man, I’d love to see Sleazy Joe eat crow. More than that, I’d love to see AOC ranting and pulling out her hair.

43. Rune Valaker says:

>>>>>the Mueller Report was a complete exoneration of the Trump campaign except for his attempts to stop the investigation that he knew was baseless.

Wrong, first, the main purpose of the Mueller investigation was to uncover whether and to what extent Russian intelligence had sought to influence the US election. And they did so massively with the goal of getting Trump elected.

Secondly, there was extensive contact between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence, including the Trump Tower meeting where the Trump campaign asked for harmful information related to Hillary Clinton, if You stil believe that Mueller was a “complete complete exoneration of the Trump campaign ” read from page 33

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AReport_On_The_Investigation_Into_Russian_Interference_In_The_2016_Presidential_Election.pdf&page=3

Attorney General Barr’s first rendition was an attempt at “a complete exoneration of the Trump campaign,” the rendering proved to be grossly misleading.

• Tim S says:

Are you joking? Crossfire Hurricane was a real investigation. The IG Horowitz report revealed the whole thing. Hand written FBI field notes quote President Obama requesting that “the right people” be selected. Those right people were personally selected by Andrew McCabe and made a total of 17 “unexplained” errors in the most important investigation of their careers including one falsified email. In recent Senate testimony, McCabe himself had to admit that in light of publicly available information, all three FISA warrants were improper.

The Trump tower meeting was a complete setup that failed completely. There was no followup with her. Media reports claim that Natalia Veselnitskaya met the day before and the day after with Hillary Clinton sleaze merchant Glenn Simpson. Can you challenge that information?

• Rune Valaker says:

You don’t seem to accept Mueller’s findings, with customized facts where one picks a bit from “media reports” and selects out key parts of the Mueller report, one is of course free to conclude with anything.

The Trump Tower meeting a “set up,” really, well that dosen’t matter, the Trump team tried anyway to obtain harmful information about a presidential candidate from Russian intelligence and thereby involved KBG in the US election, something they already were.

And this is not an opinion, but a fact. Had this been done by a Democrat, there would still have been investigations and hearings in Congress. I am reminded of the Benghazi attack investigation, an absolute nothingburger, where Republicans spent more time and resources than on the 911 hearings. Trump has no reason to whine, due to his despotic handling of the judiciary, he probably escaped to easily.

• Nate says:

“Obama requesting that ‘the right people’ be selected.”

Pls show us the ‘source’ for this claim. Is it Qanon?

He says he’s ‘not a Trump supporter’ But he just swallows whole the Trump claims of conspiracies all over.

• Nate says:

OMG and “Media reports claim that Natalia Veselnitskaya met the day before and the day after with Hillary Clinton sleaze merchant Glenn Simpson.”

Source for this???

‘Can you challenge that information?’

It is difficult to prove a negative with no source given.

• Tim S says:

Try doing your own research on commonly available facts. I also found this on a very simple search. The basic source is the US Senate:

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/fusion-gps-glenn-simpson-dined-russian-lawyer-after-her-meeting-trump-tower

“Transcripts released Wednesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee say that Glenn Simpson, the co-founder of Fusion GPS, had dinner with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya both the day before and the day after she met with Donald Trump, Jr. at Trump Tower on June 9, 2016.”

• Nate says:

Ok Fine.

False equivalence however, since he was not a Clinton campaign manager or even a staffer.

• Tim S says:

This quote is correct: “Media reports claim that Natalia Veselnitskaya met the day before and the day after with Hillary Clinton sleaze merchant Glenn Simpson.” The report comes from a Senate investigation. A person doing operation research for the campaign is properly described as a sleaze merchant, but thank for playing.

• Nate says:

What kind of media outlet would use the term ‘sleaze merchant’ to describe a campaign staffer or chairman?

Again misinformed by confirmation biased sources.

44. George says:

Dear Roy,

I had respected you as a careful scientist, but after this article I totally lost all respect. One cannot let once’s political preference influence rigor of scientific analysis. What you are doing here is exactly what climate alarmists are doing: presenting some half-baked models or analysis and then starting to draw dramatic conclusions. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So until you have done all the confidence interval analysis and considered a number of systematic effects, this discussion is just propaganda masquerading as scientific analysis.

• Tim S says:

What “dramatic conclusions” do you see? I had to go back and read it a third time. Be specific. What conclusion do you see here?

Dr. Spencer wrote:

“Conclusions

It appears that a Benford’s Law- type of analysis would be useful for finding evidence of fraudulently inflated (or maybe reduced?) voter totals. Careful confidence level calculations would need to be performed, however, so one could say whether the departures from what is theoretically expected are larger than, say, 95% or 99% of what would be expected from just random variations in the reported totals.

I must emphasize that my conclusions are based upon analysis of these data over only a single weekend. There are people who do this stuff for a living. I’d be glad to be corrected on any points I have made. Part of my reason for this post is to introduce people to what is involved in these calculations, after understanding it myself, since it is now part of the public debate over the 2020 presidential election results.”

• Bindidon says:

Tim S

” I must emphasize that my conclusions are based upon analysis of these data over only a single weekend. ”

How many persons did read the sentence above?

That exactly is the problem!

Why did Mr Spencer publish such a superficial nonsense, in absolute contradiction to the qualified work he usually presents here?

J.-P. D.

• Bruce Kay says:

to stoke the Qanon fire perhaps?

No don’t be silly

• George says:

The title of the blog post: “Benford’s Law: Evidence of Fraud in Reporting of Voter Precinct Totals?” So it has a question mark. It doesn’t hurt to ask, right? But it’s a big difference if it is someone anonymous on reddit vs a leading climate scientist. That’s how climate change meme started “Are people contributing to Earth’s warming?” And then the question mark was dropped, without much more evidence.

• Nate says:

“But its a big difference if it is someone anonymous on reddit vs a leading climate scientist.”

Yes one would expect a leading, influential, scientist to be properly skeptical, look into the background facts, and do a proper analysis, and not suggest inflammatory conclusions. That was not done here.

As a leading scientist, he should retract this clearly erroneous, inflammatory post.

• Nate says:

“Careful confidence level calculations would need to be performed”

It is not about that. It is about applying a theory to data that it is not applicable to!

The data, straightforwardly, do not meet the basic criteria required for Benfords law to apply.

See many posts explaining this.

45. ghalfrunt says:

The scariest thing about this election is that nearly half the voters still voted for a liar (+20000 lies) as president.

It is one thing to lie about personal taxes, but to lie about the dangers of a virus that will soon have killed 250 thousand people should have made thinking people vote this man out of office by a massive majority.

He is the laughing stock of most outside USA. His incompetent presidency has not given any stability to the world.

• davidgmillsatty says:

How well has Europe done with this virus? England just went over 50,000 deaths for 68 million people. Both France and Spain have very left wing governments and they haven’t done any better. The only European exception seems to be Germany.

And as for world stability, he has been the most non-interventionist President since Jimmy Carter.

And for the record, I am not a Republican. I an not a Democrat. I am a progressive in the traditional sense, before that term was co-opted by a bunch of nut cases.

46. Sanjib Dutta Roy says:

Here , the question is not whether Biden or Trump own or loose the election . The big question remains in the election law and process itself . Any law is framed on the basic foundation of probity and also provide sufficient protection to all stakeholders covered in the law to prevent any malpractices ,fraud or misdeed , in the system that is guided by that law . Here in the instant case Mail-in Ballot and postal ballots were allowed even upto three days after the election day having dated on or before election day . Even counting of in person voting starts just after closing of voting on the election day ( even though cut off date of receipt of mail & postal ballot was three days after) and by mid of the next day when election trend of the in person voting was apparently clear , stream of ballots in millions mostly supporting a particular party starts pouring in , that rose eyebrows of the democracy loving people of the whole world including atleast 50% American people , those have a faith and belief in the proud democracy of USA and tend to follow that as a hallmark . Thus , probity in the election law was missing and it kept enough scope for either party to facilitate malpractices , fraud or misdeeds to influence or manufacture the mandate of the election and thus the law could not protect the stakeholders covered under the law .Here it is also pertinent to mention , Trump expressed his dis-satisfection numerous time well before election day and expressedly demanded mail-in ballot and postal ballot receipt after election day should not be counted . Even after that , the governors of the respective states could not revisit and amend such a faulty law . On the other hand both electronic & print media , which is one of the strongest pillar of democracy , go on trumpeting only with the one phrase “Trump is lying” , but never facilitated or promoted any discussion on the flaws well within the election law . Besides court to order in one case permitting election observer of one party to enter in the counting room , even though court permission allowed to observe counting process from six feet apart which was all the same whether election observer remain within or outside the counting room since details & authenticity of ballot could not be verified from such a distance . Thus verification right of the election agent, which is the constitutional right , was also hindered . This proofs beyond doubt even the election process was not transparent .
Even under critical Covid situation :
Was there any problem to set the last date of the sending Mail-in ballot 4-5 days before election day and keeping the last date of receipt of such ballots on the election day , when election process of casting ballot continuing months’ long .
Was there any problem to commence counting process after cut off date of receipt of last ballot .
Was there any problem to complete the counting of mail-in ballot and postal ballots in the first stage and then to start the counting of in-person voting .
While each of House. senate and president elections are of three different processes , those who believe there is no fraud or malpractices in the House & Senate election , can they proof there is no conscious effort by a section solely to oust President Trump from presidency by exercising serious fraud and malpractices , when flaws rest well within the election law & its processes and the way it was executed in a non-transparent manner .
Dr. Roy posses a sensible and scientific mind . Herein he has presented a scientific analysis of the current voting pattern using some scientific tool , which is well within the scope of this scientific forum . However , the most valuable part of this is that he kept himself neutral and invited comments from the public in this forum , that uphold & strengthen the democracy .

In such a situation . when the election law & its processes and the way it was executed widely lack in probity & transparency Apex federal court can intervene and pass the order in favor of the sufferer , for recount , investigation or reelection by amending the election law & its process , as case may be , under the law , even without any or robust proof and in such a case even a minor established or suspected evidence can also be considered by the court as a robust proof .

At last to mention that , any discussion or debate for or against in all open forum and to that sense in electronic & print media including social media always to be welcome and that never weaken or malign any country , rather strengthen it and uphold its democracy , for which we all are proud of .

• Nate says:

“stream of ballots in millions mostly supporting a particular party starts pouring in , that rose eyebrows of the democracy loving people”

It should not have, it was predicted well before hand that this would happen because DT had encouraged his voters to vote in person and DEMS and Covid had encouraged voters to vote early or by mail.

In several states the reverse situation happened, in Ohio for example, Early Votes were counted first, and Biden took a wide lead. Then later in-person Trump votes began pouring in, (began to be counted). And Trump pulled ahead and won in Ohio.

Few if any of the math loving people on the DEM side claimed this was fraud or nefarious.

• Bindidon says:

Nate

” … it was predicted well before hand that this would happen because DT had encouraged his voters to vote in person and DEMS and Covid had encouraged voters to vote early or by mail. ”

Yeah. This is exactly what pernicious commenters like Robertson deliberately ‘ignore’.

J.-P. D.

• Gordon Robertson says:

binny…”Yeah. This is exactly what pernicious commenters like Robertson deliberately ignore”.

I did not ignore it I merely considered the source, which was the fake-news media who promoted Biden and suppressed anything negative about him. Living in a country where such propaganda and control of the media was used to great effect in WWII, you of all people should be concerned about that. Outfits like CNN, Google, Facebook, and Twitter participated in the suppression of the truth. Goebbels would have been proud of them.

I saw one of those idiots recently, sputtering in indignation that he saw votes being counted and he knows there was no fraud. How the heck could he even begin to prove that? He had no idea if the votes being tallied were legitimate.

The Democrats had already committed a huge fraud through a campaign to create the illusion that Trump and Russia were in cahoots to fix the 2016 election. Now that they are being accused of the same thing they are crapping their pants in indignation.

• davidgmillsatty says:

There are very good reasons Trump did not want his voters voting by mail. It is far easier to cast an illegal ballot if you vote by mail. You have lots of hurdles to overcome to prove your identity and you have to make sure your ballot is cast on time. You really ought to think of casting a mail-in ballot as a vote of last resort. Even mailing a mail-in ballot early still exposes you to all the technical requirements of a mail-in ballot. It is not a good idea if you are really worried about your vote not counting.

• Gordon Robertson says:

nate…”It should not have, it was predicted well before hand that this would happen because DT had encouraged his voters to vote in person and DEMS and Covid had encouraged voters to vote early or by mail”.

That’s a red herring argument handed out by the fake news media who had no proof. There were instances in the count where Biden garnered thousands of votes whereas Trump got nary a vote. That is statistically unlikely. Furthermore, during the election, some election boards showed sudden unexplained flips in the total, with votes being subtracted from Trump and added to Biden.

The computerized machines supplied in several states for vote counting are owned by people heavily loyal to the Democrats.

There are enough irregularities in this mail-in process to require a judicial recount. You can’t rely on advocates for Biden to supply justifications for fraud.

The Democrats have demonstrated fraudulent behavior before and since the 2016 election. They hated Trump so badly they concocted a story about collusion between Trump and Russia to discredit him. Prior to that behavior I had little time for Trump but when I saw an overt attempt to overthrow a duly elected President I became very concerned.

This load of Democrats are cheaters, rotten to the core. I used to support Democrats like Jimmy Carter and I supported Bill Clinton for the longest time till I learned what a sleazebag and liar he is. Trump may have been a sleazebag in his personal life but he did not have sex with an intern in the Oval Office, completely disrespecting the US people and their constitution.

Biden is no different. There is good evidence that he sexually molested an employee and also evidence that he has abused his power of office to aid and abet his son’s shady financial dealings. The fake news outlets completely disregarded his sleazy behavior.

• Nate says:

‘Thats a red herring argument handed out by the fake news media who had no proof. There were instances in the count where Biden garnered thousands of votes whereas Trump got nary a vote. That is statistically unlikely. ‘

Gordon, do you know what red herring even means?

Something not relevant.

How could it be not relevant that DEMS and REPS did in fact vote in different ways, and these were counted in different order?

You’re not a big believer in facts and reality.

• Sanjib Dutta Roy says:

In the first line of my above comment dated 12.11.20 , the phrase “own or loose” may be read as “won or lost” . This was an inadvertent typing mistake . Sorry for the inconvenience .

47. Gordon Robertson says:

nate…”Yes one would expect a leading, influential, scientist to be properly skeptical, look into the background facts, and do a proper analysis, and not suggest inflammatory conclusions. That was not done here”.

Yes, Nate, scientists today are expected to kiss butt and fall in line. Thankfully, Roy and John at UAH reported the facts about global warming, even though they flew in the face of fudged data propaganda from NOAA and NASA GISS.

Roy’s speculation on this election is very important. If that idiot, Sleazy Joe Biden and his groupie Congresswomen like AOC have their way, life as we know it will go out the window. Those idiots, like the good little climate Nazis they are, will have skeptics denounced and maybe even thrown in jail.

Biden is already talking about making masks mandatory even though there is not an iota of proof that masks do anything other than preventing people spitting at each other as they talk at close range. This politically-correct load of weenies will make life miserable for everyone in the US.

It’s vital that people concerned about Democracy speak out now. The election was obviously rigged.

• SHanslien says:

Gordon,
You apparently live in an alternative universe. Here is a “JOINT STATEMENT FROM ELECTIONS INFRASTRUCTURE GOVERNMENT COORDINATING COUNCIL & THE ELECTION INFRASTRUCTURE SECTOR COORDINATING EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES”:

The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and double checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the result.

When states have close elections, many will recount ballots. All of the states with close results in the 2020 presidential race have paper records of each vote, allowing the ability to go back and count each ballot if necessary. This is an added benefit for security and resilience. This process allows for the identification and correction of any mistakes or errors. There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.

Other security measures like pre-election testing, state certification of voting equipment, and the U.S. Election Assistance Commissions (EAC) certification of voting equipment help to build additional confidence in the voting systems used in 2020.

While we know there are many unfounded claims and opportunities for misinformation about the process of our elections, we can assure you we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections, and you should too. When you have questions, turn to elections officials as trusted voices as they administer elections.

• Gordon Robertson says:

“The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and double checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the result”.

Where’s the proof that it was conducted securely? The mail-in ballot system has already been compromised in Chicago in a separate election.

“While we know there are many unfounded claims and opportunities for misinformation about the process of our elections, we can assure you we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections, and you should too. When you have questions, turn to elections officials as trusted voices as they administer elections”.

I have seen some flag-waving in my time but you are right up there with the best. There was a case in one state where 6000 votes for Trump were credited to Biden. The election official called it a glitch.

Computers don’t glitch like that, if there was a glitch in the hardware it would be random and favour no one. A computer program could not do that either unless someone was tampering with it in real time. The so-called glitch had to be intentional and the program had to have been written to allow it to happen.

I once regarded the Democrats as honest people, no longer. Since their sour-grapes whining re the 2016 loss, I regard them as desperate people. Election officials are people too and if Democrats can be as dishonest as the Democrats who tried to frame Trump re Russian collusion, election officials who are Democrats can do it as well.

Political-correctness, which has become rampant, is about a minority dictating to the majority…for their own good. In climate-related political-correctness, I have heard politicians claim that the science does not matter, it’s the cause. Climate modelers like Stephen Schneider have gone so far as to question whether or not a scientist should lie to the public…again…for their own good. The politically-correct are nutjobs who ill lie through their teeth, and cheat, to get their cause recognized.

If you want honest elections, you need to do it offline. Once computers come into the equation, hacking happens, and there are some pretty good hackers out there. Nothing online is safe.

Then you have the Club of Rome, a collection of nutjobs who think Democracy is getting in the way and they must intervene to set people on the right road. If you think election officials are all honest, just because they are election officials, you’re pretty naive.

• SHanslien says:

“The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and double checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the result”.

It is Trump’s Homeland Security Department writing this. The fact that you have more confidence in unfounded claims that are repeatedly debunked by the courts tells everything.

• Nate says:

“Roys speculation on this election is very important.”

So speculation, that oh BTW he admits was erroneous, is important?

For what? Deligitimizing democracy? Thats what you want?

Oh well! Happens to all of us. Get over it. Move on.

48. Gordon Robertson says:

sanjib….”The big question remains in the election law and process itself ”

This is the problem. No one counted on this covid nonsense or how hysterical people would become about it. The Democrats took advantage of the hysteria by pushing mail-in ballots because they knew it was an ace in the hole if things started going badly for them as in 2016.

It’s telling that the polls suggested a Biden landslide, and when it was apparent that was not the case, it came down to the last six states where all of them were late counting mail-in ballots. That’s where the problems lie, in the last six states where irregularities have been noted. It’s only fair that those six states be counted by hand by independent auditors. Arizona should be included to make 7 states.

Here in a recent election in the province of BC, Canada, we were offered mail-in ballots but we had to request them. As it turned out, the election was decided without the mail-in ballots. Some Democratic governors in the US have been mailing ballots to everyone, whether they wanted one or not.

There are irregularities going on for sure in the US and I think that’s grounds alone, based on what you stated above, to have an investigation. The election was not a normal state of affairs, in a way, it was regarded as an emergency solution to have mail-in ballots.

No one had ever seen a situation like that before and many people had concerns about it. Since it has raised a lot of questions I think its only right that the mail-in problem be investigated before a winner is declared.

49. Gordon Robertson says:

ghalfrunt…”It is one thing to lie about personal taxes, but to lie about the dangers of a virus that will soon have killed 250 thousand people should have made thinking people vote this man out of office by a massive majority”.

It’s not Trump lying about covid, it’s the healthy authorities. It is essentially a harmless virus to people with healthy immune systems and the number of deaths blamed on covid has soared due to the stupid methods of classifying deaths by a virus.

The deaths should be re-classified to at least distinguish people dying with covid from those dying of covid. Since most deaths are essentially due to pneumonia, no one knows what caused the pneumonia? Was it due to underlying healthy conditions, the frailty related to old age in some people, or people who have run themselves down badly with lifestyle?

Trump allowed himself to be treated with untested antiviral drugs which was dumb. There are people reporting minimal symptoms from contracting it. One person recently reported the symptoms as being no worse than a cold. I recall an octogenarian getting it while on a flight and reporting he had a 100C+ fever but it cleared up in about 8 hours.

The number of deaths worldwide, in the worst-case countries, is no worse than 0.06%, hardly the basis of a scientific definition of a pandemic. Here in the province of BC, Canada we’ve had about 160 deaths out of a population of 5 million. Most people who have died in Canada, unfortunately, were elderly people in rest homes….about 80% of the deaths.

I spoke to a nurse who works at a local hospital and she related that many older folks who get sick with it are not asking to be revived and/or treated aggressively.

• Norman says:

Gordon Robertson

Once again you display incredible ignorance of a topic you know nothing about (like so many topics on this blog like physics which you have a few cobbled ideas about but are mostly ignorant of the topic).

If you had a bad case of this disease you would not be spouting stupid comments. It really makes you seem stupid!

Yes there are many mild cases of the disease and then there are many not so mild cases that lead to hospitalization and possible death.

If you had logical thought process (which you do not, only contrarian mental process runs in your mind) you would understand that the Covid is the reason the people are dying. The Covid makes the people so sick that the other symptoms are now lethal when before they would not have been (diabetes, high blood pressure, etc)

The degree of illness from Covid makes the treatable symptoms now lethal. You can’t understand any of it since you have not had a bad case of it to gain understanding and you also are a foolish contrarian who opposes anything established just to do it. That makes you ignorant and stupid. You should use logical thought and reason as opposed to contrarian stupidity.

• Gordon Robertson says:

norman…”If you had a bad case of this disease you would not be spouting stupid comments. It really makes you seem stupid!”

What disease are we talking about? Most covid-claimed deaths are due to pneumonia and pneumonia has been killing people for a long time. Most people with healthy immune systems do not get pneumonia never mind die from it. It’s not covid killing people, it’s pneumonia.

But, why is it only a tiny fraction of people in any population are getting the pneumonia? Obviously, they have compromised immune systems or serious underlying health issues. Many of those seriously affected have existing lung conditions like asthma or bronchitis.

The same nonsense was claimed for HIV, that a virus no one has ever seen with an electron microscope, was destroying immune systems. No one has ever demonstrated scientifically how that works and the scientist who discovered HIV, Luc Montagnier, is now claiming HIV won’t harm a healthy immune system. He claims an immune system has to be compromised first due to lifestyle.

How is that any different than the covid nonsense? It is blatantly obvious that covid has little or no effect on more than 99% of the people in populations. And millions of people worldwide are being held hostage by idiot politicians because a tiny fraction of 1% of populations are affected.

The solution to this problem is in the wrong hands. As it stands, we will see no progress on this situation, as with HIV, because the idiots responsible in the medical community are hung up on paradigms that have never been proved. Social distancing, masks, and self-isolation have not been scientifically confirmed. In fact, the 6 foot recommended distance for social distancing is a theory dating back 120 years.

Get these idiots out of the way and allow real scientists, using the scientific method, to deal with it.

• Norman says:

Gordon Robertson

I call you ignorant and stupid because you are. You are a contrarian. You do not use rational or logical thought. You accept, blindly, the screeds of contrarian leaders. You never seek evidence or proof of anything you claim.

Pneumonia is a symptom not a disease, it is just the lungs filling up with fluid restricting breathing. Many things can cause pneumonia…chemicals, bacteria, viruses. Covid causes the pneumonia that is killing the people. They would not get it if not for Covid. It is the cause.

Evidence (something you lack giving, you talk science but you do not know how to walk science):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7144257/

HIV has been with electron microscopes. You are just flat out lying and hoping no one will challenge this. The point made by your contrarian heroes is that it was not isolated. It has been imaged in electron microscopes just not in isolation.

Evidence is being confirmed that masks work. It was unknown at first but places where masking is used have cases flatten out. That is actual scientific evidence dude. Not sure why you claim it is not.

YOU: “It is blatantly obvious that covid has little or no effect on more than 99% of the people in populations.”

Your statement is an idiot statement. 1& of 7.8 billion people is 78,000,000. That is quite a lot of people. Not sure why you post these stupid things and complain about me calling you stupid. Stupid is as stupid does and you are stupid without a doubt. Low level thinking ability. I guess you need to find some foolish contrarian to help your point.

50. Bruce Kay says:

Gordon is the sort of guy who would say that the deer died of a limp, not the cougar that knocked it down.

• Svante says:

Old age rather.

• Gordon Robertson says:

bruce…”Gordon is the sort of guy who would say that the deer died of a limp, not the cougar that knocked it down”.

And you are an idiot just like the rest of the conformists here who appeal to authority. You might have stated your objections to what I am saying or even given and indication of what I said.

I have noted that another notorious idiot and yes-man, svante, has backed you.

• Svante says:

Strawman, I did not back him, your point was that the deer died of old age.

• Norman says:

Gordon Robertson

You are the one who appeals to Authority all the time. You have crackpot heroes like Lanka, Peter Duesberg, etc and you consider their views as infallible. Science likes evidence. Something you are not interested in at all. You are the Yes-Man, anything that supports Contrarian religion is Truth to you, everything else is false. The problem is the Contrarians never seem to supply evidence for any of their positions. They just make claims without data and you believe it and come here with the stupid garbage.

• Gordon Robertson says:

norman…”You are the one who appeals to Authority all the time. You have crackpot heroes like Lanka, Peter Duesberg, etc ”

You don’t even understand what appeal to authority means. It’s trying to win a debate by claiming something is true just because an authority on the subject said it’s true.

All I have ever done with Lanka and Duesberg is used evidence from them that makes scientific sense to me.

Example. Duesberg pointed out an obvious fact that HIV, circa 1983, was killing 90% males. He concluded that no known virus could single out men over women. I figure that makes sense and I delivered his message.

Luc Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV, claimed it is harmless to a healthy immune system. The data supports him. He also claimed he has never seen HIV, that he tried to isolate it but could not see it on an electron microscope. Since he won a Nobel for discovering HIV it means he found it without seeing it. That does not make scientific sense to me considering that the gold standard for identifying a virus requires seeing it with an electron microscope.

Lanka disagrees with Montagnier, he claimed there is no scientific evidence to prove HIV exists. He convinced a German court of that fact.

Kary Mullis searched for a paper for 10 years that showed how HIV can destroy an immune system. He did not find one paper, even though he asked Montagnier for one.

You call these good scientists crackpots. I call them courageous scientists who are willing to call a spade a spade.

You, on the other hand, and your alarmists brethern, use sources like NOAA and GISS because of their names. You don’t care if they make sense or if they’re honest.

You are willing to accept any bs that will maintain the pseudo-science about HIV/AIDS or catastrophic global warming theory. I’m not.

• Norman says:

Gordon Robertson

YOU: “You dont even understand what appeal to authority means. Its trying to win a debate by claiming something is true just because an authority on the subject said its true.”

That is exactly what you do! First you sight your heroes as experts in the field, then you use that to support your outlandish ideas that HIV does not exist, or measles does not exist. You have used that many times. You make the claim that German Judges (appeal to authority) prove measles virus does not exist because they did not make Lanka pay out his reward. That is exactly what appeal to authority means!

I used logic to counter Lanka’s horrible thinking but you just ignore this. So again (so you can keep ignoring it), if measles is not a virus how did scientists eliminate the disease by using a weakened strain of a non-existent virus? The evidence is the vaccine stopped the disease. The vaccine was composed of a weak strain of the wild virus to create an immune response in the person so a person could fight a wild version before it could establish itself.

At this time I think only severe Contrarians (you can find them on PSI blog) would think Coronavirus was not real and not the active agent causing Covid. Also most would start rejecting the claims that there is massive fraud in the assigning deaths to Covid. Logic and Reason must play a role in thought.

51. Gordon Robertson says:

shanslien…”Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and double checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the result”.”

That sounds an awful lot like the fox watching the chickens. Do you think any election official is going to admit their vote tallying system may have been compromised? Or that the people involved are doing the job right with integrity?

In a Michigan precinct, 6000 votes were mysteriously awarded to Biden at Trumps expense. The first justification was a computer glitch, and as someone with expertise in computers I knew immediately that was not the case. A computer glitch is hardware related due to a power surge, or equivalent, that fools the processor into thinking the data has changed. The surge shows up as a spike in the data and is unexpected by the error control methods used like CRC, hence the computer goes into a stalled state until reset.

It was not till recently the officials admitted human error related to voting software. In Georgia, a so-called glitch was credited to the software company uploading software the night before the election.

Excuse me? The software company has access to voting software? Come on, the entire system is showing signs of compromise and this election needs to be put on hold till every claim is addressed re irregularities.

• Svante says:

Dunning-Kruger knows all about computers too:
“power surge, or equivalent, that fools the processor into thinking the data has changed”.

Good one!

• Gordon Robertson says:

svante…”Dunning-Kruger knows all about computers too:
power surge, or equivalent, that fools the processor into thinking the data has changed.”

Why do you continue to make an ass of yourself, commenting on matters you know nothing about?

A computer processor is a logical device that requires synchronization with the data it receives and processes. It recognizes data as a voltage change from 0 volts to 3.3 volts (in general), or from 3.3.v to 0v.

If a glitch occurs, like a power surge, the surge creates an unexpected leading edge from 0v to 3.3v or more, and that changes the data it expects. A surge will normally be far greater than that range but protective devices limit its range.

Yes, the unexpected leading edge fools the processor. As I said, a computer is a logical device that requires a logical data formation. If the data packet is a byte of information representing the ASCII code, then a set of binary digits represent a capital A, 01000001, could be represented as 01010001 due to the unexpected glitch. That is the code for a capital Q.

That is a fairly innocent example that simple garbles a text message. However, the glitch could affect timing circuits and that could be catastrophic. It could shut the processor down and none of that will transfer 6000 votes from Biden to Trump.

Do you realize that some voting machines used in the US election send voting data offshore for analysis? Do you realize that the company that issues the machines is owned by a company in Venezuela that is notorious for fixing elections in that country?

Can you explain why counting was suddenly terminated in several states when it was apparent Trump was on his way to victory?

The real laugher here is that Trump can simply refuse to concede till it reaches the House of Representatives, where a vote is taken state by state. Since the Republicans control 37 out of 50 states, what does that mean to you?

Of course, Nancy could panic and decide to take over the Presidency. Hope she does and I hope they put her away for a long time.

• Nate says:

“he real laugher here is that Trump can simply refuse to concede till it reaches the House of Representatives, where a vote is taken state by state. Since the Republicans control 37 out of 50 states, what does that mean to you?”

Thats a big whopper. Trumps concession irrelevant

Not how elections in US work, my confused Canadian friend.

• SHanslien says:

“That sounds an awful lot like the fox watching the chickens. Do you think any election official is going to admit their vote tallying system may have been compromised?”.

Well, this is how the elections have worked in the past. Are you insinuating that the Trump victory in 2016 may have been illegitimate? After all he lost the popular vote with a wide margin. And you cannot trust the election officials in the different states. Sounds very suspicious to me.

• Gordon Robertson says:

SHanslein….”Are you insinuating that the Trump victory in 2016 may have been illegitimate? ”

Anything is possible. Hillary was adamant in insisting that Biden not concede no matter what. I suppose she thinks she gave up too easily. Mind you, the President has the advantage there, he can refuse to concede if he thinks there have been irregularities.

As it stands, in several key states that could reverse this election, Biden and Trump are separated by less than a percentage point. Recounts are underway in Georgia and apparently Pennsylvania. I get the impression that by the time this is finished there will be recounts in 7 states.

Trumps lawyers are not as focused on the outcome of recounts they are going after one company in particular, Dominion, a Canadian company who issues the voting machines in several states. Their machines were involved in 7 states where the voting irregularities have been claimed. Apparently the supplier of Dominion’s machines have been involved in fixing elections in Third World countries.

If you think the Russian issue was big, this may dwarf that. Questions are being asked as to why suppliers of voting machines for a US election went abroad to known dictatorships to get their machines. And why voting data is sent abroad for processing.

I would not be surprised if this election is ruled null and void by the time the smoke clears. The Republican lawyers have a month to research and present their cases to State and Federal courts.

• SHanslien says:

Are you serious – you really believe all these lies? Many of them presented by this pathological lier! Why don’t you listen to the people that know him very well – McMaster, Bolton, Kelly, Mattis, Tillerson etc, etc…
Kelly said about Trump that he is “the most flawed person’ he’s ever met”. And listen to the most damming comments by McMaster and Bolton here: https://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2020/11/15/exp-gps-1115-mcmaster-on-2020-election.cnn

And these flimsy lawsuits are dismissed one after the other – I guess 10 out of 10 so far?
And regarding Dominion the Trump administration said in the statement last week: “There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.”

• Gordon Robertson says:

SHanslein…”Why don’t you listen to the people that know him very well ”

You mean those he fired for failing to do their jobs?

We are not talking about Trump’s intellect we are talking about the lawyers he has hired to represent him. They are slowly creating a portfolio of corruption in the voting system.

Trump is doing US voters a favour by refusing to concede. The longer he holds out the more the shenanigans are being revealed. I hope he pushes it right to the end, forcing a vote in the House of Representatives.

In Nevada, they just through out an entire ward due to voting irregularities that gave a Democrat a win by 10 votes.

BTW, I don’t accept that the White House offered such an endorsement of the election integrity. It was likely one of Biden’s flunkies working there as a janitor.

• SHanslien says:

“You mean those he fired for failing to do their jobs?”

Well, it takes an incompetent leader to select as many incompetent advisors, does it not? Or alternatively, these pepole are fully competent and is actually telling the truth about their former boss – like the CISA chief Chris Krebs?

Or like his now subordinate lawyer Jenna Ellis did before she became her boss: “Ellis, an attorney and former law professor from Colorado, repeatedly slammed then-candidate Trump as an “idiot,” who was “boorish and arrogant,” and a “bully” whose words could not be trusted as factually accurate. She called comments he made about women “disgusting,” and suggested he was not a “real Christian.”

52. Gordon Robertson says:

norman…”Pneumonia is a symptom not a disease, it is just the lungs filling up with fluid restricting breathing. Many things can cause pneumoniachemicals, bacteria, viruses. Covid causes the pneumonia that is killing the people. They would not get it if not for Covid. It is the cause”.

I guess the Mayo Clinic is wrong then, they call it an infection of the lungs. You claim covid is causing the pneumonia that is currently killing people but that’s a neat trick since no one has isolated covid therefore they have no virus to prove it can cause pneumonia.

If the disease did come from seafood markets in Wuhan, China, it’s more likely it would be a bacterial infection. We’ll never find out till they push the virologists aside and do some real science.

I agree that something is causing it but the science behind covid, like the science behind HIV, is fraudulent and based on consensus, not the scientific method. If it could be identified using the scientific method there would be no need to use a test that converts RNA of an unknown origin to DNA in order to amplify it. They could simply sequence the viral genetic material.

****

“HIV has been with electron microscopes. You are just flat out lying and hoping no one will challenge this”.

So you keep claiming but Luc Montagnier, who discovered HIV, some 30 years after the alleged discovery admits he has never seen HIV. That would suggest the micrographs you have seen are fakes.

Again, if HIV has been seen on an EM, why can’t they take the genetic material from the virus and sequence it? Then they’d know everything they need to know. As it stands, they can only find a few strands of RNA claimed to be from HIV but they cannot find nearly enough to make a genome. So, they fake the missing parts of the chain using a computer model.

A lot like NOAA and their fudging.

The way covid was alleged to be found was by so-called scientists in China. They took samples from the lungs of infected people, a method that involves injecting a saline solution into the lungs and recovering the pus-filled solution. From that solution they claim to have extracted the RNA from covid.

Seriously? Infected lungs are full of contaminants from the disease process plus other bodily fluids. No one knows the source of the RNA they claim to be from covid and the only reason they relate the RNA to a virus is because they agreed it’s from a virus. They don’t have the actual virus with which to confirm the RNA is from covid.

You are incredibly gullible, Normie.

• Norman says:

Gordon Robertson

Not sure what source you are listening to when you come up with your posts.

YOU: “As it stands, they can only find a few strands of RNA claimed to be from HIV but they cannot find nearly enough to make a genome. So, they fake the missing parts of the chain using a computer model.”

What?? Where do you get these ideas from. They are not correct at all. You want HIV genome. Here it is, the entire thing.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/AF033819

And you are wrong about Luc Montagnier. I watched your video interview. He did say he saw the HIV virus in the video, it was just hard to see. Also HE NEVER SAID HIV could NOT infect a healthy immune system. In previous posts I proved this assertion false but that does not matter to you. I won’t keep repeating it. Watch the video again. He claims a healthy immune system can fight it but he NEVER claimed a healthy immune system could not get the infection. You are not making correct claims.

• Gordon Robertson says:

norman…”What?? Where do you get these ideas from. They are not correct at all. You want HIV genome. Here it is, the entire thing”.

You are incredibly gullible.

How can they get a genome when they don’t have the virus?
Montagnier, commenting on covid on a French TV show, claimed it appeared to be human engineered. He based that on the fact it had HIV genetic sequences in its genome. Duh!!! Of course there are, they created the genome from a computer database in which they have stored imagined sequences from other SARS-like viruses.

That pretty well proves the HIV genome is fake as well. It is stored as pieces of genetic sequences in a computer database and those who created the so-called covid genome failed to realize that when the used the HIV sequence incorrectly in the covid genome.

They create the genome on a computer by artificially splicing theoretical sequences of RNA and protein genetic sequences they have pre-conceived as being from a virus. There is no scientific proof that such sequences are from a virus and inevitably they reach gaps in the sequences, so they artificially create them. The genomes are as fake as NOAA and GISS temperature data series.

Why do they need to speculate that RNA from an unknown source is from a virus? Why can they not isolate the virus directly and take the genetic sequence straight from the virus? If they could, there would be no need for a test that uses the RNA from an unknown source, converts it to DNA, then amplifies the DNA using the PCR method.

“He did say he saw the HIV virus in the video, it was just hard to see. Also HE NEVER SAID HIV could NOT infect a healthy immune system”.

You can’t even watch a video without distorting what you see. He admitted that he has never seen HIV and in one sequence of the video they showed a statement from his lab technician claiming they have not seen it. In fact, Montagnier explained they tried to view HIV and could not see it due to contamination with cellular material.

He did claim HIV is hard to FIND, not see. That’s a dumb statement in itself. If you cannot see the virus, as required by the gold standard, why would you claim it is hard to find?

He said we humans probably contract HIV several times in a lifetime and if our immune systems are healthy it won’t harm us. The interviewer was so blown away he had him repeat it.

• Norman says:

Gordon Robertson

I am not the incredibly gullible one. You are very gullible and prone to accept anything contrary to established science. I am still going by evidence based science. There is considerable evidence that HIV was imaged by electron microscopes. Your counter argument is founded only on you opinion that they are fakes. You have no evidence that hundreds of images from various labs are fake but you believe this is true. That is a very gullible position. Not only do you strongly believe the Conspiracy view is the only possible view, you can’t consider the option. The labs are not lying and your heroes are crackpot contrarians. You would rather believe the elaborate conspiracy theory than the option that labs are not intentionally lying and making up false images to fool the public.

Also you can’t understand how GHE works. You come up with bizarre claims that energy cannot transfer in both directions. Again you offer zero evidence for you wild claims and you will reject real evidence that proves your position wrong. Now why would you call me gullible when you are the one who eats garbage over good food?

Roy Spencer did the valid experiment showing energy transfers both ways and a heated surface will change temperature (warm or cool) depending upon the radiant energy it receives from the surrounding.

• Gordon Robertson says:

norman…” You have no evidence that hundreds of images from various labs are fake but you believe this is true”.

I have no experience at all but Lanka has an immense amount of in-depth experience with viruses. He is also well versed in the history of the science and how the modern version of virus definition is based on shoddy science.

Lanka convinced a German high court that the information out there on the measles virus has no scientific evidence to prove it. He convinced another German court that HIV theory is not supported by any science. In fact, he has revealed that several images of the more popular viruses are not viruses at all but cellular material from dead cells.

He’s not the only one. When a Scottish researchers submitted a paper on the original SARS coronavirus, claiming she had images of the virus, it was rejected by the journal editor who claimed there was insufficient evidence to claim it was a virus and not cellular material.

The word virus has been thrown around far too much in medical science as an explanation for infections. There is really no scientific proof that a virus exists. Initially, it was thought to be a phage, a reference to bacteria. After some excellent historical research, Lanka has revealed the confusion over the years beginning with Koch and Pasteur who created ambiguous and dishonest assessments of how bacteria and viruses operate.

Even by the early 1950s, the ambiguity was rampant. Then the DNA revolution began and the science got really stupid with scientists struggling to explain viruses using DNA theory.

We are still lost and it wont get better anytime soon as long as illogical paradigms are guiding the medical community. The proof is staring us right in the phase and being obfuscated by people like yourself.

Viruses like HIV and covid cannot be isolated using the gold standard whereby a virus must be seen with an electron microscope. I have pointed that out to you by asking why the test for these viruses cannot use genetic material from a virus isolated, seen, and dissected to reveal it’s genetic material. Rather, the tests rely on an indirect method of taking RNA found in infected material, origin unknown, and ASSUMING it is from a virus.

If you cannot answer that question you have no hope of understanding the problems we face with covid tests. They are fraudulent and created by fraudulent scientists. Either that or they are incredibly stupid.

• Norman says:

Gordon Robertson

You cannot use one example (water flowing down hill) to attempt to prove a false narrative that EMR does not travel in both ways. I already told you how to prove it to yourself but you are so much avoiding evidence that might upset your false conspiracy contrarian world view. You take an IR instrument and you put it between two objects of different temperature. The IR from each object can only be detected in the direction you hold the instrument. You will find it reads a temperature or image of one object it is pointed at. Now you turn it 180 degrees to the other object, and it also “sees” this one individually with its own temperature. You are completely wrong but so stuck in contrarian nonsense scientific evidence has no sway on your false narrative.

You also are clueless on your quantum theory. It is a false narrative cobbled together from your totally incomplete knowledge of both Chemistry and Physics. You are not capable of understanding the concept of molecular vibrations. I have even given you words from Linus Pauling himself from his book on Chemistry but not even that is able to change your false world view.

• Norman says:

Gordon Robertson

Reading your post makes you seem very ignorant. You are clueless of any of the techniques used by scientists to determine genomes. You talk a bunch of uninformed gibberish!! I read some of the articles on the process (not at all what I studied, it is interesting) and it is quite involved and elaborate. Basically you act like an expert but are really quite the Fool. You don’t know anything at all about the subject of figuring out genomes of viruses or how the process works. You are grasping at things you don’t know anything about and then calling the experts in the field frauds. What an awful human you are. Totally ignorant of the topic but arrogant and smug enough that you think you are qualified to call the highly intelligent and dedicated scientists frauds. Really a lame thing to do.

• Gordon Robertson says:

norman…”You come up with bizarre claims that energy cannot transfer in both directions. Again you offer zero evidence…”

I have offered good evidence from quantum theory but your background does not allow you to understand it.

Why should energy be transferred in two directions? Mechanical energy in water does not flow in two directions, it flows downhill only, under the influence of gravity, unless acted upon by an external power to pump it uphill. The kinetic energy of a boulder falling off a cliff is not two way either. Electrical energy flows only in one direction.

Why should EM be different? What is there about EM that allows it to flow both ways between bodies of different temperature and be absorbed in both directions?

Besides, it’s not the EM that is in question its heat transfer in both directions due to radiation flow that is the question. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says it cannot happen and neither does quantum theory. You have yet to explain how your contradiction of both works.

• Norman says:

Gordon Robertson

Heat would be the total amount of energy transferred. How many times do people have to tell you the same thing?

When you have a HEATED object, one gaining energy continuously from some external source, it will rise to a temperature until the loss of energy is equal to the gain (whatever temperature that might be depends upon the external environment…this is a point you are not able to understand primarily because of cultish contrarian people have influenced you to the point you can’t understand this obvious reality).

The temperature of the colder environment influences the temperature of the heated object. Roy Spencer already demonstrated this and so have many others, that is why it is an accepted fact. Only a handful of contrarians on blogs counter this view.

The colder object emits IR toward the hotter heated object. The hotter the colder object is the more IR it emits to the hotter object. The amount of HEAT the HEATED HOT object loses is combination of how much heat it loses via emission MINUS the amount of energy it receives from the colder object. Factual and accepted and evidence bases. Your refusal to understand this just means you are ignorant.

• Gordon Robertson says:

norman…”Heat would be the total amount of energy transferred”.

You and the others you mentioned fail to grasp that with radiation, no heat is physically transferred. Neither is there any EM transferred, in fact, no energy, of any kind is transferred. That’s is, no energy leaves one body and gets transferred to the other body.

The process involves energy CONVERSION from one kind of energy, heat, to another kind of energy, EM, and converted back to heat.

In a hotter body, heat is converted to EM. That has been quantified by the S-B equation, EM intensity = sigma.T^4. The T is a measure of the heat in the hotter body and it is reduced in proportion to the amount converted to EM, unless it is replace.

Note: heat is CONVERTED to EM.

At a cooler body receiving the EM, that EM is converted back to heat. The cooler body gets hotter. There is no physical transfer of heat from the hotter body to the colder body. There is no transfer of EM either since it is lost in the conversion to heat.

If a cooler body radiates EM, and that EM is intercepted by a hotter body, no conversion of EM to heat can take place. Furthermore, no EM energy is transferred. The conversion cannot take place because the electrons in the hotter body are at too high an orbital energy level to be affected by the lower intensity, lower frequency EM from the cooler body.

• Norman says:

sGordon Robertson

Absolute garbage! You post this gibberish and think it is somehow valid or good, either you just made it up and think it will pass or you read it on some contrarian blog where they just make up stuff.

Everything you posted is false and misleading. It has no basis in the physics world. I do not think any reason or logic will change your false mind. Evidence does not change it. You just keep on living in your fantasy world. Pretending to have taken engineering in a University, pretending you are a genius, pretending you are accomplishing anything with you endless stream of falsehoods.

Have you even attempted what I suggested? NO you did not so you are really quite the fool aren’t you. You take an IR device and you put it between two objects. You measure the temperature of one and then rotate it to the other object. Both are emitting IR toward each other. You deny evidence. What are you trying to accomplish by endless lies? Are you going to make things better by dishonesty and intentional lying? What motivates a person to be so dishonest?

• Gordon Robertson says:

norman…”Absolute garbage! You post this gibberish and think it is somehow valid or good…”

Poor old Normie, when he gets caught out with a response that proves him wrong, he freaks out and responds with ad homs and insults. He cannot prove, using science, why the argument is wrong.

• Norman says:

Gordon Robertson

My strong words against you are because you are constantly lying and being deceptive. Of course it is not possible to refute, to you, what you incorrectly believe. You think textbook physics is bogus so I am not sure what source you consider good.

The lie you claim is that I cannot refute the garbage you post. I have done it many, many times. Over and over. So that is one big lie. I can do it again here but for what purpose. You don’t accept established physics anyway. What is it you are seeking? Any one who has any science background knows your posts are very bad science, mostly just made up items. Who are you trying to convince? Yourself? Do you think repeating garbage over and over cleans it up and now it becomes true? It does not work that way.

Anyway do the IR device test before you comment to me again. If you actually do it you will see how stupid you were and then the light will go off in your head and you will see all the contrarians you believed are false teachers leading you astray. Until you actually prove to yourself what you believe is a house of lies no one outside of you can sway your deluded mind.

53. Tom says:

Hi Roy

Thanks for the post. (I ran across it on WUWT). I’ve done some of my own analysis on the statewide election returns in Pennsylvania. In analyzing the reported statewide votes by time, the totals nearly perfectly follow Benford’s law. I’ve done the same thing with the time resolved reports from other states, with the same result.

The mistake many of your commenters are making is to spend too much energy comparing the observed distribution with the theory. Anomalies like this are not evidence but they can be easily shown to be anomalous even when compared with the voting totals of other heavily democratic precincts. The principle observation of Benford’s law — a monotonically decreasing probability distribution is going to be there in any naturally distributed counting process.

• Nate says:

“eported statewide votes by time, the totals nearly perfectly follow Benfords law.”

What typical starting point and end point for vote counts? Are these more than factor of 10 apart?

54. Gordon Robertson says:

norman…”You cannot use one example (water flowing down hill) to attempt to prove a false narrative that EMR does not travel in both ways”.

I have never claimed that EM does not travel in both directions, I have claimed it is not absorbed in one direction if the source is a cooler body and the target a hotter body.

If two bodies of different temperature are close enough so they can intercept EM from the other, there is no connection between them. Both are radiating EM isotropically and independently, and each intercepts a small amount of EM from the other.

The EM emitted by the hotter body comes from electrons at a higher energy level than the electrons in the colder body. The EM from the hotter body can be absorbed by the electrons in the cooler body, raising them to a higher orbital energy level. That translates to a rise in heat (kinetic energy of the atom).

That is not true for EM emitted by the cooler body and reaching the hotter body. There is insufficient EM intensity and the correct frequency to affect the electrons in the hotter body.

That satisfies the 2nd law and what I claimed earlier about energy always flowing naturally from a higher energy potential to a lower energy potential. Water flows down hill from a higher energy potential to a lower energy potential and the same is true for electron flow in an electrical circuit. It’s also true for EM, it can only transfer heat from a higher energy level (hotter body) to a lower energy level (cooler body).

You can toss ad homs, insults, and pseudo-science, it won’t change that reality.

• Svante says:

How did you discover this alternative physics?

55. SHanslien says:

“You mean those he fired for failing to do their jobs?”

Well, it takes an incompetent leader to select as many incompetent advisors, does it not? Or alternatively, these people are fully competent and are actually telling the truth about their former boss – like the CISA chief Chris Krebs?

Or like his now subordinate lawyer Jenna Ellis did before he became her boss: “Ellis, an attorney and former law professor from Colorado, repeatedly slammed then-candidate Trump as an “idiot,” who was “boorish and arrogant,” and a “bully” whose words could not be trusted as factually accurate. She called comments he made about women “disgusting,” and suggested he was not a “real Christian.”

• Gordon Robertson says:

Shanslein…”whose words could not be trusted as factually accurate”.

You mean like when Lyin’ Willie Clinton adamantly claimed, “I did not have sex with that woman”. When he denied sexually harassing Paula Jones but settled out of court for \$800,000+. When he lied about his Gennifer Flowers affair. Or when he was impeached for lying.

BTW…exactly what did Clinton and his VP Al Gore accomplish in 8 years of power? I know Al spent a lot of time with his wife Tipper listening for Satanic references on rock records. In his 8 years, Gore did nothing about global warming then cashed in on warming/climate propaganda after being in office.

You gotta admit, at least Trump is up front about things. He has single-handedly kicked the politically-correct on their butts and that is good enough for me.

• Svante says:

Gordon Robertson says:
“exactly what did Clinton and his VP Al Gore accomplish”.

Peace in Northern Ireland and former Yugoslavia.

56. SHanslien says:

Gordon Robertson

“You mean those he fired for failing to do their jobs?”

Well, it takes an incompetent leader to select as many incompetent advisors, does it not? Or alternatively, these people are fully competent and are actually telling the truth about their former boss – like the CISA chief Chris Krebs?

Or like his now subordinate lawyer Jenna Ellis did before he became her boss: “Ellis, an attorney and former law professor from Colorado, repeatedly slammed then-candidate Trump as an “idiot,” who was “boorish and arrogant,” and a “bully” whose words could not be trusted as factually accurate. She called comments he made about women “disgusting,” and suggested he was not a “real Christian.”

57. Gordon Robertson says:

norman…”You take an IR device and you put it between two objects. You measure the temperature of one and then rotate it to the other object”.

Norman…IR devices do NOT measure temperature. They detect infrared band frequencies and that frequency is compared to the colour temperature of equivalent devices in a lab. Those equivalencies are stored in the IR device static memory.

All you will get with an IR device as you propose using it is a higher IR frequency from the hotter device and a lower IR frequency from the cooler device. Those frequencies do not indicate heat transfer. They indicate EM energy and cannot measure heat transfer.

• Norman says:

Gordon Robertson

You are brain-dead dumb. Talking to a wall would be more productive. I think I will bow out from reasoning with a foolish person like you. Believe the false ideas in your head. It is obvious reason, logic or evidence will never convince you the errors of your thought.

IR devices directly detect IR that reaches the sensing elements. Based upon the change in temperature of the array exposed to incoming IR and the ground state, a calculation based upon the change determines the temperature of the object. You are nearly total idiot in all you posts. Wow! What a stupid person you are!

• Gordon Robertson says:

norman…”IR devices directly detect IR that reaches the sensing elements. Based upon the change in temperature of the array exposed to incoming IR and the ground state, a calculation based upon the change determines the temperature of the object”.

I am an expert in electronics and I know how the receiving devices work in an IR detector. The type to which you refer use thermopyles to detect heat directly from a very high temperature source. The types to which we have been referring (the types used by Roy in earlier posts) have no heat sensitive elements, they operate on the principle that high frequency energy from an IR source will cause semiconductor material to change its resistance in proportion to frequency.

You could not use an IR detector with thermopyles in the way you described because they lack the sensitivity to detect low temperature devices. You need to use the semiconductor type and they respond only to frequency, not heat. They have conversion data from a lab in their EEPROMs which is used as a lookup table to convert frequency to a guestimated temperature.

The fact that you have to use an entire paragraph to cast ad homs and insults only reveals your complete lack of understanding of the science.

58. Michael Minich says:

Perhaps this claim would be worth your checking out.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/it-defies-logic-scientist-finds-telltale-signs-election-fraud-after-analyzing-mail-ballot?fbclid=IwAR0y3tMtEnN7FwDHNY1f4m8ZhyB9hzxbrjatxNm3QWim7VxIyvQPzWS1LZw

This article examines the ratio of Biden/Trump votes as they come in from the state via the postal service.
Mail votes should be very consistent in ratio as they are blended through the postal sorting system as compared to in person votes which have the character of the area of the precinct.
Data links are included purportedly from the New York Times.

If you haven’t seen it, you might be the best one to analyze it.

• Gordon Robertson says:

michael…”Perhaps this claim would be worth your checking out.”

Thanks for link. I became immediately suspicious when Trump was up by more than 500,000 votes in Pennsylvania and Biden came back and beat him based on mail-in votes. Since most of Trump’s base is rural, that means most of the mail-in votes came from the cities. Still, to make up 500,000 votes is seriously suspicious. I think there were major fraudulent votes cast for Biden.

• Brice Kay says:

You should be a bit more suspicious everytime you look in a mirror Gordon

• Gordon Robertson says:

brice…”You should be a bit more suspicious everytime you look in a mirror Gordon”

I am. The older I get the younger I look in a mirror. Don’t look nearly the same in a photograph as I do in the mirror. Obviously, photographs, in 2-D, don’t capture my youthful, handsome countenance.

59. Mary Anne Conmy says:

I just found this post and must tell my data nerd friend about you guys! I have found his people!

60. Svante says:

We could do with some fresh blood, we’ve been saying the same thing for years here.

61. Mary Kim says:

I tried checking the results for Pennsylvania. It’s more reliable to use data on county level (where there are 2-3 orders of magnitude) rather than on precinct level. It’s easy to do all the calculations with this free online tool: https://ezcalc.me/benfords-law-calculator/. It computes also chi square and p-value. And I’ve got that Biden’s results do not comply with the Benford’s law (p-value = 3%) while Trump’s DO comply (p-value = 68%). The data taken from here: https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/pennsylvania/