[Ped]

Originally Posted by opendoor

They also point out why it doesn't apply in many US examples because of the relatively small size of precincts and wards. They use Milwaukee, which is a good example. It had 324 wards with total vote totals ranging from 5 votes to 2,541 votes. Biden's average share there was about 80% (ranging from 40% to 97%), with a median of 81.5%. If you apply the median vote share to the different ward sizes, you would expect the leading digit of Biden's votes to be 1 in only the following situations:

-total votes between 13 and 24
-total votes between 123 and 244
-total votes between 1,227 and 2,453

Of the 324 wards, only 48 (14.8%) would meet that criteria, well below the 30% or so that would be expected from Benford's law. Because the vast majority (73%) of the ward vote totals fall between 350 and 1,100 (from which virtually none of Biden's vote totals would have a leading digit of 1 given his general vote share in the city), it would be completely illogical to expect the data to follow Benford's law. Based on the ward sizes and how popular Democratic candidates tend to be in the city, you'd expect the highest number of leading digits to be 5, 4, 1, and 6 in that order. And what was the order of most numerous leading digits in Biden's actual vote total? Surprise, surprise, it was 5, 4, 1, and 6 in that order.

I have no idea what you are saying. Therefore, I must conclude that the election is a fraud and I must resist!