Benford’s law and the 2020 election. A Limerick on fraud.

Elections and fraud in this nation

cannot stand a close observation.

Zero Trump votes are added

but Joe Biden’s are padded

an act of the left’s desperation


Joe Biden’s votes violate Benford’s Law, President Trump’s do not.




This is Pittsburgh.



Published by



17 thoughts on “Benford’s law and the 2020 election. A Limerick on fraud.”

  1. Hello. Is it possible to do the graphs for MI? I do not believe for a second Biden won MI. Over night Biden pulled out like 300k votes while we were sleeping to take the lead. Before that, Trump was up over 10%. Thank you!

      1. Hi there,

        Thank you for this. I have a rough understanding of the concept, but it’s not clear what is being measured. Can you clarify what the frequencies stand for please?


  2. Hey man I 100% think this is Feasible feasible and makes sense but do you have any other sources where I can check this against. Just want to be 100% sure when talking abt it. 🙂

    1. I haven’t explored this source, but what you’re looking for may be here:

      Because I haven’t explored it I don’t know the ins and outs of it and I have no idea whether it’s real information (with provenance where the data was taken from) or wholly or partially fabricated. I plan to look into it when I have the time, because I am quite interested.

  3. What produces the first digit whose frequency is being measured in the election results? I don’t understand what is being measured.

  4. Jimmy Carter said in 2009 that vote by mail was a bad idea and there would be wide spread fraud, looks like he was right.

  5. can really see the anomaly, the curve of total results not even close for Biden/Harris. Wonder what a 3d graph of results over time, say every 6 hours, for the first 4 days would look like? There would have to be an hour of day AHA! moment.

  6. I am afraid I don’t get the numbers. Could someone translate this into something that a layman like me can grasp? What does frequency of the leading digit mean in the context of ballot counting.

    1. First, Benford’s law is applied to audits … most auditor tool sets include it. Also, Benford was a Physicist studying mathematical theory of leading digits.

      “Specifically, in data sets, the leading digit(s) is (are) distributed in a specific, nonuniform way. While one might think that the number 1 would appear as the first digit 11 percent of the time (i.e., one of nine possible numbers), it actually appears about 30 percent of the time (see figure 1). Nine, on the other hand, is the first digit less than 5 percent of the time.”

      “The theory does not hold true for data sets in which digits are predisposed to begin with a limited set of digits. For instance, Benford’s Law will not hold true for data sets of human heights, human weights and intellectual quotient (IQ) scores.” I.e., many weights start with a “1” for example.

      “Benford’s Law is legally admissible as evidence in the US in criminal cases at the federal, state and local levels. This fact alone substantiates the potential usefulness of using Benford’s Law.”

      Interesting, huh?

      So, it is not “political”. It’s PHYSICS! Hooah!

      Election example, 2009 Iranian election.




      Above from:

      1. First of all, it’s not PHYSICS it’s mathematics *facepalm*. And guess what, just because it’s legally admissible as evidence, doesn’t mean for a second that it’s actually useful: see lie detector tests. Benford’s law is only useful in detecting election fraud under very particular circumstances; it does not fit everywhere (like Chicago)!
        Read the following from
        “This essay, however, argues that, despite its apparent utility in looking at other phenomena, Benford’s Law is PROBLEMATIC AT BEST [emphasis added] as a forensic tool when applied to elections. Looking at simulations designed to model both fair and fraudulent contests as well as data drawn from elections we know, on the basis of other investigations, were either permeated by fraud or unlikely to have experienced any measurable malfeasance, 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.”

  7. How many of the last 58 presidential elections has benford law shown no fraud? If it shows fraud for the majority of elections does that mean all of then have had fraud from one side or the other? Does this prove that election system needs to be changed at its foundation to eliminate fraud? What would satisfy benfords law using datasets for presidential election? Trumps and Bidens votes are dependent on each other. If trump got 10 votes and biden 5, there is no way for biden to get more votes, since the total votes is 15. If trump has all the 1’s, then biden can’t have the 1’s since they don’t exist for him.

  8. Since Bendford’s law is admissible in federal courts, do you know if it might be used by the Trump team for this election? I’ve seen a few references to it and the data look compelling but never hear if they intend to present it to a Federal judge.

  9. You are deranged loser cult members holding on to your pathetic unamerican lies and I can’t wait to see your angry tears once again. Disgusting unamerican loser fucks.

    Feel free to rejoin society if you want to be treated like people again.

Leave a Reply to Wharfplank Cancel reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s
