🗑️ 🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:34:20 UTC No. 16059439
How does Bedford's law work?
How reliable is it in terms of its ability to detect fraud?
Is it as powerful as the mathfags says it is or is that just another one of their lame brags?
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:36:46 UTC No. 16059441
I think your post was accidentally sent with a 3 year delay
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Mar 2024 06:40:56 UTC No. 16059445
>>16059439
Bedford's law has been used to detect electoral fraud in other countries. It doesn't apply to the US though because all experts agree we have safe and secure elections.
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Mar 2024 07:04:34 UTC No. 16059475
>>16059439
Trust the science, chud. Except for benfords law, it's bad.
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Mar 2024 07:22:38 UTC No. 16059491
>>16059439>>16059439
>How does Bedford's law work?
It works because it only takes a 10% decrease to go from 100 to 90 but it takes 100% more to go from 100 to 200.
>How reliable is it in terms of its ability to detect fraud?
With large datasets spanning multiple magnitudes my understanding is that it is pretty good at finding a very specific type of fraud.
>Is it as powerful as the mathfags says it is or is that just another one of their lame brags?
It's kinda miraculous that you can go through a bunch of seemingly random numbers and get an indication of fraud without any hard evidence but what do I know I'm an engineer.
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Mar 2024 07:44:54 UTC No. 16059508
>>16059445
>>16059475
>>16059491
>it only applies if the data samples classified as "fair" are i.i.d.
>voting districts are far from identically distributed.
is what you would say if you weren't /pol/tards spamming /sci/
El Arcón at Wed, 6 Mar 2024 08:01:13 UTC No. 16059525
>>16059439
>How reliable is it in terms of its ability to detect fraud?
~100%
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Mar 2024 08:33:09 UTC No. 16059571
>>16059508
>everything is politics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandw
>anytime someone posts something I disagree with its /pol/ doing it
>/pol/ is out to get me
nice persecutory delusions, skizo
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Mar 2024 08:46:53 UTC No. 16059588
>>16059571
First rule of denying an accusation is actually deny the accusation. You didn't.
El Arcón at Wed, 6 Mar 2024 09:07:12 UTC No. 16059611
This data shows the security that the betrayer thought he should prioritize.
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Mar 2024 10:31:28 UTC No. 16059692
This 2009 Washington Post articles cite Benford's law as evidence that the Iranian election that year was rigged
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-d
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Mar 2024 12:30:38 UTC No. 16059782
>law
lmao
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Mar 2024 12:33:26 UTC No. 16059784
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etx
Stand-up maths already BTFO you chuds (I am intentionally being inflammatory so someone will respond with an explanation)
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Mar 2024 12:51:24 UTC No. 16059807
>>16059784
Here's the basic thing with Benford's law.
Benford's law works well if whatever is generating the samples is more or less uniform on a log-scale. In the ideal case, it's exactly uniform on a log scale over a certain range.
If you have a "clumped" distribution, meaning your probability of getting samples in one order of magnitude is significantly different than getting samples in another order of magnitude, then Benford's law won't apply.
You can kind of think about Benford's law as being similar to a geometric distribution. Usually people are taught about a geometric distribution as being a distribution on the number of trials before the first success of a coin flip. If your coin is fair (meaning uniform in discrete space), you get that great exponential decay looking curve. If your coin isn't fair, and heads is a lot less likely than tails, then you'll get something that is bunched and normal distribution-y around the expected value of the geometric instead of a nice exponential decay.
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:40:41 UTC No. 16059859
>>16059807
got it
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Mar 2024 14:07:46 UTC No. 16059895
>>16059439
That law always work, i have never seen it not work, as in not align with a decision outcome. Somehow Biden cheated. Maybe the electronic voting machines were backdoor hacked, idk.
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Mar 2024 14:16:46 UTC No. 16059905
>>16059571
no one gives a fuck which plebbit forum or news site comment section you came from retard.
the point is you're on the math board but you don't know any math.
/pol/ is the board where you belong, go there
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Mar 2024 15:34:43 UTC No. 16059987
>>16059905
Based
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Mar 2024 22:53:28 UTC No. 16060483
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 02:24:48 UTC No. 16060758
>>16060483
This is a math thread, just hide the thread if seeing math threads on the math board upsets you so much
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 02:54:48 UTC No. 16060791
>>16059439
Bedford thought he had found something as big as the normal curve, but it turns out almost nothing follows his law, so nobody really cares about it. Now the only usefulness of his law is for conspiracy theorists to call for fraud when the voting counts do not follow the pattern, ignoring that the Bedford law doesn't apply.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 03:48:40 UTC No. 16060822
>>16059692
Benford's law is real when it supports ZOG narratives, otherwise it isn't
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 12:37:46 UTC No. 16061265
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 13:01:09 UTC No. 16061282
>>16059439
Where are those two figures from? If Trump had a natural distribution everywhere, whereas Biden had unnatural distribution at places, I really will believe that the election was stolen. But I somehow suspect that these figures are based on very much cherry-picked data.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 13:03:33 UTC No. 16061284
>>16060784
I bet this is a result of what is essentially polynomial interpolation. You scour past data to find an exotic pattern, but then that pattern invariably fails at making any useful predictions.
🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 14:04:34 UTC No. 16061350
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 17:36:05 UTC No. 16061566
>>16060784
Did you know there were also a different set of bellwethers that were wrong in 2016? The "Trump effect" is real. He doesn't draw the same cross-section of voters as those other Republicans. I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be the case.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 17:43:25 UTC No. 16061573
>>16061265
You have issues with election fortification?
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 18:15:26 UTC No. 16061616
>>16061566
No there weren't.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 18:45:30 UTC No. 16061640
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 20:02:40 UTC No. 16061725
Doesn't the accuracy of Bedford's law depend on variance in the orders of magnitude? A thing you explicitly won't find in voting districts?
This is like bitching that rolls of a die don't distribute along a bell curve.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 20:07:28 UTC No. 16061730
>>16061640
>en.wikipedia.org
No.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 20:09:24 UTC No. 16061731
>>16061730
It's just data, like that blurry unsourced graphic. Feel free to debunk it.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 20:12:31 UTC No. 16061734
>>16061731
I already did debunk it.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 20:23:06 UTC No. 16061747
>>16061734
The data, anon. That's just an ad hom.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 20:37:35 UTC No. 16061766
>>16061747
Your data was debonked, because it's invalid.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 06:45:36 UTC No. 16062418
>>16062347
Where did all the votes go?
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 08:42:29 UTC No. 16062534
>>16062418
>Where did all the votes go?
Option A: Nowhere. CNN just fucked up entering the data and then corrected their mistake. Government website updates on vote data don't automatically read themselves into network servers and data entry is large field for a reason. You'll see this all the time with networks putting in wrong values or even increasing totals for the wrong candidate when reporting precinct data. The mistake won't be reflected by other networks and everyone will end up with the same totals (only possible in the end if the mistake was corrected by later entries ALSO unique to that network).
tl;dr the fucking news doesn't control fucking election results and any fuckery would be able to be shown with more than one source which they never fucking are because there is no fuckery.
Option B: Those are from 2 different days/its a shoop.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 10:05:09 UTC No. 16062589
>>16062534
>and those are the only two possible options
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 15:27:56 UTC No. 16062895
>>16059807
Anon, the geometric distribution is an exponential decay regardless of the success probability. The mode is still at 0.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 15:28:57 UTC No. 16062898
>>16059807
>>16062895
I.e., even if chance of heads is 1%, then the odds of first success right away are 1%, and the odds of success on try two are .01 * .99, and the odds of success on try three are .01 * .99 * .99, etc
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:40:39 UTC No. 16063010
>>16062895
>>16062898
You are correct and I was confusing the geometric distribution example with the Poisson. Number of coin flips between each heads vs. number of coin flip for the first heads. My bad.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:45:18 UTC No. 16063363
>>16062589
>and those are the only two possible options
Yes. Those are the only 2 real world possibilities.
Pigs flying is possible in an abstract sense, but Porky isn't sprouting wings anytime soon no matter how much Red Bull you give him.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:48:25 UTC No. 16063371
>>16062534
>Those are from 2 different days
but the other guy gained votes
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:49:50 UTC No. 16063375
>>16062534
>which they never fucking are because there is no fuckery
Mass mail-in voting lends itself to massive fuckery
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 08:59:31 UTC No. 16064688
>>16063896
where did all the votes for garvey go?
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 09:01:27 UTC No. 16064692
>>16059439
It's not really applicable to election data.
https://youtu.be/etx0k1nLn78?si=rin
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 11:20:51 UTC No. 16064823
>>16064692
Yes it is
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 20:53:35 UTC No. 16065488
>>16059439
>Bedford's law
I think it has something to do with sex work in canada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canad
>How reliable is it in terms of its ability to detect fraud?
I don't know. Maybe it is only useful for erection fraud.
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 21:42:12 UTC No. 16065550
>>16063363
>It's impossible that a small group of people who have spent 4 years hating someone might conspire to do something bad to him
???
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 23:20:25 UTC No. 16065665
>>16064688
Election fraud
El Arcón at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 23:33:38 UTC No. 16065686
>>16065550
>It's impossible that a small group of people who have spent 4 years hating someone might conspire to do something bad to him
Preposterous.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 02:03:58 UTC No. 16065873
>>16065550
>A small group of people
Do you have any idea how many people spread across how many organizations are responsible for conducting, monitoring, and reporting elections?
Trump's got far more rabidly loyal followers and he couldn't even manage to gather enough fuckwits together to launch a successful coup against Congress with no military protection.
Motherfucker, you don't even have more than one fucking source for data fuckery. CNN can't rig an election.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 02:43:57 UTC No. 16065923
>>16063896
>ANY QUESTION?
Yes, a few:
* Why are you yelling at me?
* What are you showing here?
You can just post some screenshots with no context and expect people to understand what it want from them.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 21:19:15 UTC No. 16067046
>>16065873
>rigging an election isn't possible
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 22:03:24 UTC No. 16067135
>>16065873
> He couldn't even manage to gather enough fucksits to launch a successful coup against Congress with no military protection.
It's almost as if there wasn't even an attempt at a coup. I'm not even a trump fan and it's pretty obvious people are reaching with this "insurrection" bullshit.
I don't think the maga people had any clue what they actually wanted and expected to happen as a result of their riot, but it certainly wasn't a coup.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 22:06:55 UTC No. 16067142
>>16061640
>>16061731
What data? It's list of names with no data.
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 02:23:00 UTC No. 16067458
If math laws don't count for anything when they're applied to real world problems then what good are they?
>REDDIT SPACE
Benford's law is apparently real here >>16059692
but not here >>16059439
>REDDIT SPACE
Which means that it's application is arbitrary rather than universal and it may as well not exist at all
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 02:34:09 UTC No. 16067473
>>16067046
If voting by mail means that elections can be rigged, why aren't elections rigged all over the world? Why don't we see the same election riggers stay in power indefinitely in countries like Switzerland where most people vote by mail?
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 02:40:05 UTC No. 16067482
>>16059905
Who the fuck are you responding to schizo? Nothing in your reply makes sense.
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 03:14:42 UTC No. 16067515
>>16067473
Nta, but I'll give a crack at answering your question.
It all comes down to how the verification systems work. As far as I'm aware, your votes in Switzerland are not fully anonymized. They send a ballot to your home address if you properly registered for this and verified, and then when they receive your vote it is clearly associated with your name, address and ID. Similarly, if you were to go vote in person in Switzerland, you need a proper government ID/passport.
The problem with mail in voting in the US, which leaves them vulnerable to tampering, is that the vote itself is not associated to anyone's ID. The only thing that has any identifying information on a mail in ballot in the US is the return envelope. As a result, if these mail in ballots end up in the general voter pool and are separated from their respective return envelopes, it becomes literally impossible to determine whether multiple ballots were cast originating from the same address.
I'm not claiming that this last election was rigged via mail in ballots. I haven't really seen compelling evidence to suggest it was.
What I will say is that it is far easier to rig mail in ballots in the US where there's no way to determine legitimacy if the ballots are separated from their respective return envelope. You'd essentially have to way to even figure out what's a legit ballot and what's a fake were a bunch of fraudulent ballots to get mixed in with the general absentee ballot voter pool without careful accounting of legitimate ballots' envelopes.
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 06:35:26 UTC No. 16067662
>>16067515
>They send a ballot to your home address if you properly registered for this and verified, and then when they receive your vote it is clearly associated with your name, address and ID.
Is that not how it's done everywhere in the world? I have two citizenships and live in a third country. All the countries have similar systems. You need to be registered and then you get the necessary documents sent to your home address. The vote itself isn't necessarily connected, but you mail in an identifying document together with your ballot that is sealed. Then check your document and then put your ballot envelope in another box, so that it cannot be traced back to your personal details anymore. Only afterwards are the envelopes opened and the votes counted. That way it's still 100% anonymous who you vote for but not who cast their vote.
Why can't the Americans do this? It's a solved problem and allows people to vote even if they're travelling, working, sick, disabled or lazy.
>easier to rig mail in ballots in the US where there's no way to determine legitimacy if the ballots are separated from their respective return envelope
I'm either not getting the process in the US, or that's the same system as I've described above. The sealed ballots get separated from the return envelope. Inside the return envelope is a document with a bar code, your name, address and signature. But obviously you don't want that near the ballot when you open it to see who you voted for.
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 06:59:12 UTC No. 16067674
>>16059439
It might suggest fraud, it might not. If a distribution doesnt follow Benford's law then further investigation is needed. In the 2020 election it was determined there was no fraud.
Benford's law is expected to be violated when theres a non random influence. In this case I believe it was election county codes, which if we are to expect most of Biden's votes to have come from the most populous counties (i.e. big cities), then obviously that will be a non random influence.
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 10:50:48 UTC No. 16067905
>>16067662
> Inside the return envelope is a document...
I don't think you are understanding. The US process has absolutely no identifying information associated with the ballot itself. Not just counting who you voted for, but also whether you've voted or not.
So, for example, let's say I go in person to vote. I go to a ballot station within my local jurisdiction, and tell them my name and address. They check off that I have been there and I go vote. Depending on the jurisdiction, you may or may not need to show ID to vote (believe it or not, that's a controversial thing here even though it is pretty standard to show ID to vote in most countries).
Once you've passed that check to get into the location, there is no other confirmation process to see whether you've voted or not. If you, for example, have a medical emergency and need to leave the facility and then want to come back later to vote, you won't be able to because you've already been checked off as having voted whether or not you actually fill out a ballot.
The same lack of tracking happens with mail in ballots. The local voting center gets a bunch of mail in ballots. These ballots have some identifying information on the outer label, but then the documents inside of the return envelope don't have any information.
This, in theory, should prevent people from being able to track "this person voted for this party" as a retaliatory sort of thing, which is a good thing. What it also means is that if the ballots get separated from the return envelope, there's no process to keep track of whether multiple votes have come from the same address, or whether a particular person has voted.
This is not good, should change, and leaves the process open to corruption. Of the roughly 1500 convictions of voter fraud that have happened in the US since 2000, a full 70% of them have involved fraudulent use of absentee ballots, and generally these fraud cases aren't figured out until multiple years after the election.
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 19:13:20 UTC No. 16068739
>>16067905
that system functioned perfectly when america was a high trust Christian nation, but now that its overrun with atheists, the system has stopped functioning
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 20:58:02 UTC No. 16068879
>>16067135
>hang mike pence
>stop the steal
>if you don't fight like hell you're gonna lose the country
>etc
>on the exact day of the certification
>while his magamutts are rampaging through the capitol building trump is making calls around to various politicians trying to cancel/delay the certification
yeah that's a coup attempt.
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 21:45:12 UTC No. 16068934
>>16063375
>Mass mail-in voting lends itself to massive fuckery
Proofs? I'm just kidding. There's been dozens of court cases that show you don't have proof by now. And I mean besides elections taking forever to count because that's due to states forbidding counting mail in votes as they come in. No god damn shit counting mail in after in person is done is going to lead to massive delays in reporting, especially in states where votes are valid as long as they're postmarked by election day.
States where Republicans don't force them to do that dumb bullshit wrap up their elections just fucking fine.
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 21:46:33 UTC No. 16068936
>>16067135
>It's almost as if there wasn't even an attempt at a coup.
You must be 18 to post here. And preferably under 50.
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 21:48:14 UTC No. 16068937
>>16067046
Rigging an election in the USA without getting caught isn't possible. Obviously in your shithole it is, but we're talking about the first world here.
Also, I'm noticing nobody has a source from any other fucking news organization for fucking rigging. CNN isn't the only fucking news org that reports results.
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 22:25:03 UTC No. 16069002
>>16059692
do they "cite" benfords law?
>Bernd Beber and Alexandra Scacco, Ph.D. candidates in political science at Columbia University, will be assistant professors in New York University's Wilf Family Department of Politics this fall.
anyways they don't use benfords law. they look at last digits not first.
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 22:59:41 UTC No. 16069080
>>16069002
you have no understanding of benfords law
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 23:11:31 UTC No. 16069109
>>16069080
lashing out
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 23:30:53 UTC No. 16069145
>>16068937
Funny you mention CNN. Fulton County, the central county of Atlanta, did its ballot counting at State Farm Arena. There was a break in the chain of custody of ballots when there was a "water leak" in the secure enclosure. You'd think CNN would have sent over some journalists to check up on the story, since they're headquartered in Atlanta. That should have been easy, right?
What, they were worried about getting stuck in traffic or something like that? Well, no need to worry since State Farm Arena and CNN Center are PHYSICALLY JOINED. All CNN had to do is send someone down an elevator to the food court and walk into State Farm Arena to do a report. But they didn't. For some reason, CNN was absolutely not interested in the violation of the integrity of ballot counting even though it would have been the easiest story to cover since a tornado hit CNN Center in 2008.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 00:51:38 UTC No. 16069231
>>16067905
>I go to a ballot station within my local jurisdiction, and tell them my name and address. They check off that I have been there and I go vote. Depending on the jurisdiction, you may or may not need to show ID to vote (believe it or not, that's a controversial thing here even though it is pretty standard to show ID to vote in most countries).
In Germany it's the exact same. I've voted several times in a small city (50,000 people) and never had to show my ID. Just my Wahlbenachrichtigung, a letter you get in the mail. I later moved to a bigger city where I had to show my ID in addition to the Wahlbenachrichtigung. They also have a list of people registered in their particular voting district and check off that you've voted. All ballots are equal apart from what you write on them. After you've cast your vote there's no way to tell who cast that particular ballot.
>If you, for example, have a medical emergency and need to leave the facility and then want to come back later to vote, you won't be able to because you've already been checked off as having voted whether or not you actually fill out a ballot.
No idea how this is handled, but I've never seen such a case while voting, nor have I ever heard it. Worst case, fill the ballot while waiting for the ambulance. If you can't, chances are you won't be able to return before the closing time anyway. I mean, who's so sick that they can't write down an "x" at 12pm and by 5pm they waltz back into the polling booth ready to cast their vote?
>These ballots have some identifying information on the outer label, but then the documents inside of the return envelope don't have any information.
Yeah, roughly the same in Germany, just it's not on the outside but both pieces of information (sealed ballot and Wahlbenachrichtigung) are inside another envelope. Once you've separated them, they know that the person voted, they won't accept another ballot in that person's name.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 00:54:23 UTC No. 16069232
>>16067905
>What it also means is that if the ballots get separated from the return envelope, there's no process to keep track of whether multiple votes have come from the same address, or whether a particular person has voted.
Why? They have a list of voters. They tick off the people who already sent a ballot by mail. If they open a new envelope and it's in the name of a person who has already voted, it will not be counted and probably investigated if one of the two Wahlbenachrichtigungen is counterfeit, if the person tried to xerox their ballot and vote twice etc. Why is that not possible in the US?
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 01:25:21 UTC No. 16069274
>>16069232
Prove it.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 01:35:46 UTC No. 16069284
>>16068937
Every single election law passed since 2016 has been passed in order to make rigging elections as easy as possible.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 02:06:01 UTC No. 16069313
>>16069284
Why did Trump make elections easier to rig?
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 02:31:30 UTC No. 16069342
>>16069313
The federal government doesn't control state voting laws.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 02:35:31 UTC No. 16069347
>>16069342
Then why did the SCOTUS interfere with Colorado's state rights?
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 02:40:51 UTC No. 16069353
>>16069347
SCOTUS didn't interfere with Colorado's state rights.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 02:56:56 UTC No. 16069374
>>16069353
>Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 13:27:55 UTC No. 16070007
>>16069374
What does that have to do with Bedford's law?
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 00:15:08 UTC No. 16071028
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 00:35:52 UTC No. 16071058
They sent unsolicited mail in ballots to literally EVERYONE in cities
Cities are 90% democrat because thats been the Republican agenda for decades now
Not a surprise that mail in vote counting looks wonky
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 00:36:16 UTC No. 16071059
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 02:46:33 UTC No. 16071312
>>16071059
/pol/ website
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 03:50:44 UTC No. 16071368
>>16068934
>Proofs?
Proof is using your fucking head anon. I didn't say mail-in voting LEADS to fuckery, I said it LENDS ITSELF to fuckery. Are you really gonna tell me that it's not any easier to get fradulent votes into the system by mail than by in-person elections?
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 03:55:13 UTC No. 16071371
>>16071368
You realize you're responding to a marxist, right?
You're not having a debate, he's just trying out different strings of words to get to you tolerate his defective marxist regime instead of killing them.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 03:59:13 UTC No. 16071378
>>16071371
It's just amazing to me how many liberal-ish people have this huge blind spot, I saw it with non-marxist normie friends and family. They're so invested in the "trump's BASELESS claims" narrative that they can't even see how mail-in voting is just inherently sketchier
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 04:36:52 UTC No. 16071406
>>16071368
>Are you really gonna tell me that it's not any easier to get fradulent votes into the system by mail than by in-person elections?
Neither is practical in any real sense. To steal someone's vote by mail, you would have to either fraudulently register as them (which if you are capable of doing so means attempts to stop you in person aren't going to work in the first place), or you would have to get access to their mail in vote without them being aware of it despite them requesting it. In the extreme, that would require literally stealing their mail, an activity that will set off red flags if done in any widespread fashion. Alternatively, you would need one of those cons where people go around helping old people fill out ballots.
To do so in person, you would again need their registration information again, multiple corrupted poll workers to do a ballot con at the polls themselves, or to hack the machines. None of this shit is particularly feasible.
About the only way mail in ballots are more vulnerable than in person ballots is they're easier to destroy en route. But a lot of people *rely* on mail in ballots so if you banned them, you'd just end up with less votes overall anyway. Destroying a bunch of votes to prevent a few votes from being destroyed makes no god damn sense.
Also, who literally gives a singular fuck if there is a snowball's chance in hell of illegal votes being cast? It's impossible to ensure a perfectly secure election. The end goals should be to ensure there isn't fraud anywhere near a level that would change outcomes and as many people that want to legally vote can. It is neither effective nor constructive to turn elections into a security hell for voters.
Also also, "a lends itself to b" means a is suitable for b. It doesn't mean a is more suitable for b than c. We don't have massive amounts of mail in voter fraud for a fucking reason. Neither mail in nor in person voting "lend themselves to" fuckery, you absolute dumbfuck.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 04:40:47 UTC No. 16071409
>>16069145
And did any other network? Atlanta is fucking some micronation in the south Pacific. Pretty sure every major news organization in the country either has resources there and plenty of minor ones either have resources there or could get them there easily. Did anything come of it?
I reiterate, you can't rig an election with a single fucking news network, you absolute dumbfuck.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 04:46:02 UTC No. 16071416
>>16071406
>or you would have to get access to their mail in vote without them being aware of it despite them requesting it
So if people were getting mail-in ballots without having requested them, that would make fraud more likely than if they needed to be requested?
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 04:59:52 UTC No. 16071427
>>16071406
>random far reaching assertions backed by nothing
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 05:13:34 UTC No. 16071432
>>16059439
trump lost. and even though no one likes the match up this cycle, trump is going to lose again. now get the fuck of /sci/
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 05:30:15 UTC No. 16071451
>>16071427
>random far reaching assertions backed by nothing
Yes, the idea that mail in voting makes fraud easy is a random far-reaching assertion backed by nothing.
>So if people were getting mail-in ballots without having requested them, that would make fraud more likely than if they needed to be requested?
No. If people were getting mail in ballots unexpectedly without having requested them it would.
As an example, California sends every registered voter a mail-in ballot. So every register voter expects a mail in ballot. They also allow you to look up
>When the ballot has been delivered
>The date that the voter's ballot is expected to be delivered to the voter
>If the voter's ballot is returned as undeliverable to the county elections official by the USPS
>When the voter's completed ballot has been received by the county
>Whether the voter's completed ballot has been accepted or a reason why the ballot could not be accepted and instructions of steps the voter can take in order to have the ballot accepted
>The deadline for the voter to return his or her ballot if the county has not received a voter's completed ballot by specified dates as determined by the county elections official
So fucking with someone's ballot without them finding out would be broadly impossible. It's not like elections go by without anyone noticing. You're gonna fucking know if you didn't get your ballot.
Frankly it is an excellent system. More states should do that.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 05:31:17 UTC No. 16071454
>>16071451
Meant also for
>>16071416
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 05:42:45 UTC No. 16071472
>>16059439
Benford’s law couldn’t be used in the 2020 election because the leading digits of electors is unlikely to be arbitrarily determined. In other words, we select voting districts by population so of course the leading digits will favor higher values than lower ones. Especially since Biden did better in cities than Trump. All you’re showing there is that Trump did better in smaller communities.
Read more here
https://chance.amstat.org/2022/04/b
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 09:30:14 UTC No. 16071683
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 09:46:40 UTC No. 16071709
>>16059439
Benford's law : In many collections of data, a given data point has roughly a 30% chance of starting with the digit 1.
Benford's law of controversy: Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grego
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 10:21:33 UTC No. 16071755
>>16071472
>All you’re showing there is that Trump did better in smaller communities.
This just in: Bumfuck nowhere votes conservative while densely-populated cities vote democrat.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 10:28:12 UTC No. 16071761
>>16059692
>>16059445
I remember the day after the election the wikipedia article was edited to say that sometimes the law sometimes it doesn't , and for the US election the case was that it doesnt.
Before the edit, the phrasing was that the law worked all the time.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 10:29:14 UTC No. 16071762
>>16071761
>sometimes the law the law works
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 10:43:10 UTC No. 16071771
>>16059439
It certainly seems to work on an exponential function like 1.05^n. Under what conditions it happens in real data, I am not able to tell.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 10:44:11 UTC No. 16071773
>>16059439
It certainly seems to work on an exponential function like 1.05^n. Under what conditions it appears in real data, I am not able to tell.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 10:45:47 UTC No. 16071776
>>16071762
Mathematical theorems/laws only apply under certain contexts.
For example, the weak law of large numbers works when the random variables being added are independent and identically distributed. If the random variables aren't i.i.d., then the LLN doesn't apply..
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:20:16 UTC No. 16071815
>>16071371
>>16071378
lmfao maga retard tries to call sane people marxists, while it's the "maga communist" leftypol trannies that agree with them.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:13:17 UTC No. 16071975
>>16071815
you're trans btw
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:15:33 UTC No. 16071980
>>16071755
>This just in: Bumfuck nowhere votes conservative while densely-populated cities vote democrat.
Correction: people vote conservative, marxists commit election fraud
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:37:20 UTC No. 16072021
>>16071776
>Mathematical theorems/laws only apply when I want them to
>If they say something that I disagree with then they don't apply
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:47:30 UTC No. 16072036
>>16071980
If your vote wasn't counted, did you even vote?
>>16072021
Mathematical theorems/laws generally say when they do not apply and you're disagreeing with that because you don't want them to
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:54:43 UTC No. 16072043
>>16071451
>Yes, the idea that mail in voting makes fraud easy is a random far-reaching assertion backed by nothing.
Except the fact you don't have to provide any identification to mail it in meaning they can be filled out by anyone, aka classic textbook voter fraud.
>As an example, California sends every registered voter a mail-in ballot.
And it never occurred to you the Democrats in California do this on purpose precisely because they know it'll be easier to commit fraud with?
Florida's election system is the best system in the country. All absentee/mail-ins are counted far in advance, and then there's election day with a cut-off time, and that's it. It makes it impossible to "find" ballots at 3am. Which, coincidentally, Democrats were doing all the time in Florida until the law changed.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:11:56 UTC No. 16072064
>>16059441
Not my president
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:21:40 UTC No. 16072073
>>16072043
>meaning they can be filled out by anyone
With access to the specific ballot, yes. "Anyone" doesn't have access to ballots though. Recipient households and postal workers do.
Course the person filling out the ballot and the person mailing it both have to sign too.
>And it never occurred to you the Democrats in California do this on purpose precisely because they know it'll be easier to commit fraud with?
No? People don't forget they're registered to vote and a missing ballot would be easy to notice. And you can check on your ballot's status.
Remind me, how many people reported missing ballots that ended up getting cast twice? Zero? Wow. It's like nobody's dumb enough to run around stealing blank ballots out of mailboxes or something
>Florida's election system is the best system in the country. All absentee/mail-ins are counted far in advance, and then there's election day with a cut-off time
In point of fact, Florida allows overseas votes to come in up to 10 days past the election. Also, you are bitching about vote by mail and they have vote by mail.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:35:07 UTC No. 16072093
>>16072073
reddit spacing, didn't read
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:44:22 UTC No. 16072102
>>16072036
The issue is "this mathematical theorem works accurately in detecting voter fraud in every country except for America in the 2020 election because UHHHHH"
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:45:32 UTC No. 16072104
>>16072043
You are gay.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:49:32 UTC No. 16072108
>>16071451
Nope. You invented a completely made up fantasy and now declare it as justification for insane belief. Where is the case studies? Nowhere. What jurisdiction does it apply to? None. You are delusional and essentially diary posting. Like a fed nigger.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:55:24 UTC No. 16072119
I've looked at the post numbers in this thread and literally all of them start with a 1, not a single other digit to be found.
This thread had been infiltrated from the start.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:10:59 UTC No. 16072145
>>16072093
You failed the newfag test.
>>16072102
It's not used for detecting voter fraud. It's used for detecting financial fraud. And it fails in American elections because precincts tend to be uniform in population. You can't use it for every kind of randomly generated number. If you applied this shit to random rolls of a die, it'd ALSO fail. For the same fucking reason. Are you telling me all D6s are rigged?
>>16072108
>You invented a completely made up fantasy
How many court cases did you lose?
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:27:18 UTC No. 16072172
>>16072145
Except it has always been used everywhere to detect voter fraud, and there is nothing unique about America, nor mathematics, that changed four years ago that would make it not work.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:34:19 UTC No. 16072183
>>16072172
you're very angry and deranged because it feels like treason to your orange god and capitulation to the "elites" to admit that the 2020 election wasn't stolen, even though you know it wasn't.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:38:56 UTC No. 16072190
>>16072183
I accept your consneedsion.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:41:22 UTC No. 16072195
>>16059508
\thread
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:44:59 UTC No. 16072204
>>16072172
Bedford's law would suggest you should get heads disproportionately more than tails though.
A flat distribution is unnatural. Distributions naturally sharply descend.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:20:54 UTC No. 16072277
>>16072145
Nice try redditor
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:25:05 UTC No. 16072291
>>16072204
Right, so that's not merely an application of benford's law that suggests fraud, that's a statistically astronomical impossibility that demonstrates fraud.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 17:47:46 UTC No. 16072434
>>16072145
>How many court cases did you lose?
Actually pretty much none of the court cases made it to the stage where evidence could be presented
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 18:01:03 UTC No. 16072449
>>16072434
He knows.
The time you spent replying to him should have been spent doing pushups, because the only way things will ever improve is if you kill him.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 19:05:51 UTC No. 16072574
>>16072434
>>16072449
You will never harm anyone... Why embarrass yourself posting like this? Are you in pure shaking magacuck rage mode
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 19:12:19 UTC No. 16072593
>>16072574
yeah "talk is useless! just kill em!" posts are fucking retarded, much like "they lost all the court cases!" posts
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 19:36:45 UTC No. 16072658
>>16072593
One of those things are just impotent seethe, the other refers to a fact
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 19:58:26 UTC No. 16072715
>>16072658
Yep one day your head will be stomped in by a Democrat stasi police because you're too much of a bougie revolutionary and let them win through voter fraud.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 20:03:01 UTC No. 16072731
>>16072658
it's a misleading fact though, it implies that judges looked at the evidence and decided there wasn't enough when actually like one or two of the court cases made it that far
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 20:15:40 UTC No. 16072779
>>16072731
they have no evidence, so of course they didn't get far. it's not something anyone actually believes, trumpcucks just repeat it because it's a declaration of loyalty to their cult.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 20:17:47 UTC No. 16072784
>>16072779
Everyone knows drumpf won.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 20:18:00 UTC No. 16072785
>>16072779
>can I show you my evidence?
>no I refuse to see it
>why though
>because you have no evidence
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 20:21:01 UTC No. 16072789
>>16072593
If you aren't willing to defeat marxists by any means necessary, you aren't playing to win, which makes you a loser.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 20:24:32 UTC No. 16072793
>>16072789
You haven't done shit though
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 20:29:03 UTC No. 16072797
>>16072796
Cool video of someone who isn't you
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 20:46:15 UTC No. 16072838
>>16072797
I'm holding the camera.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 03:33:20 UTC No. 16073415
>>16072796
hope his fist was OK
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 03:58:25 UTC No. 16073436
>>16059439
you're expected to overlook this sort of thing. as a scientist, you should know it's for the best.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xj1U7
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 04:45:19 UTC No. 16073483
>>16072172
>>16072183
>>16072190
>>16072277
>>16072574
>>16072593
>>16072658
>>16072715
>>16072731
>>16072779
>>16072784
>>16072785
>>16072789
>>16072793
>>16072796
>>16072797
>>16072838
>>16073415
Ladies, this is a science board. Take your political discussions to the appropriate containment board.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 05:25:31 UTC No. 16073545
>>16072277
If you think reddit spacing is a thing, you're significantly newer than me.
>>16072291
You definitionally can't demonstrate fraud with statistical analysis and beyond that I was describing applying Bedford's law to coin flips to show that it is inappropriate to use it in all circumstances, you fucking idiot. Are you saying it is astronomically impossible that coins are fair? Cause if coins aren't fair enough for you, I don't really care about your opinions on elections.
>>16072434
>Actually pretty much none of the court cases made it to the stage where evidence could be presented
To a jury. Not to judges who universally laughed them out of court for being unsupported wastes of everyone's time.
You actually have to show you have a case to get one heard, you fucking idiot.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 05:47:34 UTC No. 16073575
>>16065488
lol
🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 09:12:00 UTC No. 16073728
>>16073545
>You definitionally can't demonstrate fraud with statistical analysis
yes you can
🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 09:19:32 UTC No. 16073743
>>16073728
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2X
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 09:21:47 UTC No. 16073751
>>16073728
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHU
🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 21:54:07 UTC No. 16077883
>>16073728
Clearly you can, the Washington Posts says so right here >>16059692
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 22:08:00 UTC No. 16077912
>>16071683
/sci/ is pretty much a defacto /pol/ extension and antiscience board of morons trying to justify their shitty opinions in the guise of logic and reason
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 02:43:51 UTC No. 16078480
>>16077912
>everyone on /sci/ is sooooo dumb!!
>i am soooooo smart!!!
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 02:56:57 UTC No. 16078489
>>16078480
psychological projection