that is yet another issue

@realz agreed, that is a separate issue than Bendfords law.

The reason that the first digit appears in ratios is because we have a system of numbers based in 10

So 1 should appear more often than other numbers. It would be different than if it was evaluating the last digit that appears.

I imagine that benford's law actually applies in every base

which is interesting

as for the last number!

watch Parker's (Stand-up Maths) video

the last number also has a law

he demonstrates that the last 2 numbers are uniformly distributed in chicago

except for a blip

there are so few trump voters in some, that with just 1,2 or 3 digits, the last 2 digits are not uniformly distributed

The last 2 numbers I would expect to be uniform in distribution

yep he runs that test

and they are, except for this blip I just explained

` there are so few trump voters in some, that with just 1,2 or 3 digits, the last 2 digits are not uniformly distributed`

Yeah but I am sharing that Benfords law isn’t about what’s being measured. Though what’s being measured could bias what you would expect to see.

you are referring back to the base

> https://youtu.be/CMMbZH-H4ks
@Michele411 the problem I have with this sort of thing is that there is no evidence ... it sounds like a conspiracy theory and I cannot differentiate it from something from a crazy person

(not saying he is a crazy person)

I think Benford's law may be invalidated based on what is being measured ... consider for example a particular voting precinct, the voters in that precinct are relatively fixed, most of them consistently vote one way or another and very few change from election to election

I agree Meglide that the base may effect the law

so the variation in the number of possible combination of vote outcomes is limited

I might just add a base switcher; my guess is that the law will hold in all bases and fail in all bases equally

also different regions or precincts will be strongly influenced towards one party or another

(except for small sigma)

As for whether or not it is accurate here I do not know. I think that something probably happened, but it was a conspiracy of convenience not malice. Many people probably thought it was their duty to ensure Trump not win. I, erring on the side of process, would disagree that it’s right to intervene but understand the argument. Like there are cases where I would put the outcome above the process.

@realz could be, I would be interested to know.

@realz Agreed. He is making statements that I feel is somewhat unbecoming for a higher officer.

Montgomery is not a....well...not an A1-source

its like listening to coast-to-coast

at 3 am

and there is a former officer of the military or FBI

indeed. I expect more from a general.

and he's saying he's seen the grays

very entertaining

but I don't take it seriously

some kind of appeal-to-authority

and not a very great one

indeed

which is dishonest