Stand-up Maths | Why do Biden's votes not follow Benford's Law? @standupmaths | Uploaded 3 years ago | Updated 7 minutes ago
My book is cheap at Waterstones and signed at Maths Gear:
waterstones.com/book/humble-pi/matt-parker/9780141989143
mathsgear.co.uk/products/humble-pi-signed-paperback

Check out Steve Mould's Numberphile video about Benford's Law.
youtube.com/watch?v=XXjlR2OK1kM

Buy a signed copy of "How Many Socks Make a Pair?" by Rob Eastaway.
mathsgear.co.uk/products/copy-of-signed-copy-of-why-do-busses-come-in-threes

There’s more on Mark Nigrini’s work here:
http://www.nigrini.com/benfords-law

"Benford's Law and the Detection of Election Fraud" 2011 paper.
cambridge.org/core/journals/political-analysis/article/benfords-law-and-the-detection-of-election-fraud/3B1D64E822371C461AF3C61CE91AAF6D

And for balance, here is a paper critical of that other paper (but only in the use of a 'second digit' check and they do not dispute the main Benford's Law claims.). pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e667/b8ad9f58992828ff820ddc8a005de754c5f5.pdf
And here is a paper by the same author specifically about the 2020 US election results:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/inapB.pdf

Get your Chicago Board of Election Commissioners data here!
chicagoelections.gov/en/election-results.asp?election=251&race=11

Yep, 2069 precincts. Some would say that's too many.
data.cityofchicago.org/Facilities-Geographic-Boundaries/Precincts-current-/uvpq-qeeq

If you must, here are links to people using Benford's Law to suggest the Biden votes were fraudulent. Please do no harass or brigade anyone.
github.com/cjph8914/2020_benfords/blob/main/Chicago_Wards_Precincts_Benfords_Data.ipynb
jonsnewplace.wordpress.com/2020/11/07/joe-bidens-votes-violate-benfords-law-mathematics-gnews

CORRECTIONS
- Hello loyal viewer. If you are reading this you most likely regularly watch my videos and know that I put corrections here. But the comment section on this video has been, to put it lightly, "wild". I don't think anyone is checking the corrections here! So I'm going to break with tradition and put the corrections in a pinned comment. But in short:
- I should have said I used the Chicago data (instead of a swing state, let's say) because that is what people claiming election fraud were using. I didn't pick it myself to make a point.
- Foolishly I cut a bit of the video where I talk about how Trump's data is also a bad Benford fit but that massive spike of 1s makes it look like a good match. Check out how low 3, 4 and 5 are.
- There has been specific criticism of aspects of that paper I read from, but only the usual back-and-forth of academics. Everyone agrees with the idea that Benford is not a magic tool to detect election fraud (nor is any statistical tool really; they all require careful interpretation).
- As always, let me know if you spot any other mistakes.

Thanks to my Patreon supporters who mean I can spend TWO DAYS trawling through election stats and making plots. I'm meant to be writing a new book you know. So, thanks a lot.

patreon.com/standupmaths

As always: thanks to Jane Street who support my channel. They're amazing.
janestreet.com

Filming and editing by Matt Parker
Music by Howard Carter
Design by Simon Wright and Adam Robinson

MATT PARKER: Stand-up Mathematician
Website: http://standupmaths.com
US book: penguinrandomhouse.com/books/610964/humble-pi-by-matt-parker
UK book: mathsgear.co.uk/collections/books/products/humble-pi-signed-paperback