quote from the article you pasted： Maybe there’s something I’m missing here, but that’s my quick take. This is not to say that I think the election was fair, or rigged, or whatever–I have absolutely zero knowledge on that matter–just that I don’t find this analysis convincing of anything. I will say, though, that Roukema deserves credit for presenting the analysis clearly. P.S. In response to comments: let me emphasize that I’m not saying that I think nothing funny was going on in the election. As I wrote, I’m commenting on the statistics, I don’t know the facts on the ground. To move my comments in a more constructive direction (I hope), let me pull out this useful comment from Roukema’s article: “One possible method to test whether this is just an odd fluke would be to check the validity of the vote counts for candidate K in the voting areas where the official number of votes for K starts with the digit 7.” Further investigation could be a good thing here.
以及，他反驳的不是lz贴的这个visualized data distribution。当然，same here: This is not to say that I think the election was fair, or rigged, or whatever–I have absolutely zero knowledge on that matter
quote from the article you pasted： Maybe there’s something I’m missing here, but that’s my quick take. This is not to say that I think the election was fair, or rigged, or whatever–I have absolutely zero knowledge on that matter–just that I don’t find this analysis convincing of anything. I will say, though, that Roukema deserves credit for presenting the analysis clearly. P.S. In response to comments: let me emphasize that I’m not saying that I think nothing funny was going on in the election. As I wrote, I’m commenting on the statistics, I don’t know the facts on the ground. To move my comments in a more constructive direction (I hope), let me pull out this useful comment from Roukema’s article: “One possible method to test whether this is just an odd fluke would be to check the validity of the vote counts for candidate K in the voting areas where the official number of votes for K starts with the digit 7.” Further investigation could be a good thing here.
以及，他反驳的不是lz贴的这个visualized data distribution。当然，same here: This is not to say that I think the election was fair, or rigged, or whatever–I have absolutely zero knowledge on that matter ecko 发表于 2020-11-06 15:23
哈哈，科技求真。肯定不能拿来做法律证据，不过分析越多大家心里越有数
第一次听说这个法则，不好意思打错了！我看看在哪里修改
甩个链接 咱也去学习下哈
Unconvincing (to me) Use of Benford’s Law to Demonstrate Election Fraud in Iran
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/unconvincing-to-me-use-of-benfords-law/
quote from the article you pasted：
Maybe there’s something I’m missing here, but that’s my quick take. This is not to say that I think the election was fair, or rigged, or whatever–I have absolutely zero knowledge on that matter–just that I don’t find this analysis convincing of anything. I will say, though, that Roukema deserves credit for presenting the analysis clearly. P.S. In response to comments: let me emphasize that I’m not saying that I think nothing funny was going on in the election. As I wrote, I’m commenting on the statistics, I don’t know the facts on the ground. To move my comments in a more constructive direction (I hope), let me pull out this useful comment from Roukema’s article: “One possible method to test whether this is just an odd fluke would be to check the validity of the vote counts for candidate K in the voting areas where the official number of votes for K starts with the digit 7.” Further investigation could be a good thing here.
以及，他反驳的不是lz贴的这个visualized data distribution。当然，same here: This is not to say that I think the election was fair, or rigged, or whatever–I have absolutely zero knowledge on that matter
真烦人，就是你这样的川粉把 trump 人品霍霍没的。多少人是因为身边这些低素质的川粉最后决定不选川的。真可笑，在朋友圈儿乱叫还以为是在给trump拉票。多少人没有给你点赞就是多少人烦你。
那篇文章是2009年的啊，质疑是否这个law试用于大选数据。这种质疑不是新的。
就拿Milwaukee地区的数据做一个例子，Milwaukee地区Biden：Trump总支持率是在69%：29%，简化一下，就是70%：30%。我们简单假设一下整个城区478个ward都差不多符合这个比例（基本上没啥区别，有兴趣的人可以快速scan一下： https://county.milwaukee.gov/EN/County-Clerk/Off-Nav/Election-Results/Election-Results-Fall-2020）。
但是，要注意一点的是，在城市划分Ward的时候，本身就是大致按照人口分布划分的，而不是完全随机的！具体到Milwaukke这478个ward，其中投票人口在300～1400这个区间就占到382个（80%）！大家可以用简单的数学常识计算一下，70%乘以300～1400中的任何一个数，都不会得出首位是1的数字。这也就意味着，投Biden的选票在这80%的ward中都不太会是1字打头的，而1字打头的数字的期望比例在这个样本中应该是20%左右，刚好和这个原作者列出的图符合！
相反，对于拿30%票的Trump来说，他如果要得到1字打头的选票数字，原始投票人口分布应该是在333～666这个范围之内。Ward人口分布里，300～700这个range的Ward总共有160个（33%），刚好可以达成30%这个数！
这个Github原作者精心cherry pick出了5个地区来选择性的证明他的观点，真是脏了Statistician这个职业！
以下是Milwaukee每个Ward人口分布histogram供大家自己参考：