> That's because there is no direct causation between legitimate elections and a Benford's law style distribution.
This doesn't make any sense to me. Why do we see it in physical constants and so many other places, but not election results?
I did look through that paper by Deckert, Myagkov and Ordeshook from the Wikipedia citation, and I find it extremely difficult to follow. (A literature search reveals a number of other papers with varying conclusions.) I haven't done any stats since college, and that was over a decade ago, so I don't claim to be an expert. Still, if you actually understand something, you should be able to explain it from first principles!
I did some more digging, and I did find this very well-written piece on Benford’s law. It is something I can actually follow: https://towardsdatascience.com/benfords-law-a-simple-explana...
In general, I think it is best to avoid argument from intimidation. I also don't think that linking conspiracy theorizing with someone that just wants to understand something better is a kind thing to do.
This doesn't make any sense to me. Why do we see it in physical constants and so many other places, but not election results?
I did look through that paper by Deckert, Myagkov and Ordeshook from the Wikipedia citation, and I find it extremely difficult to follow. (A literature search reveals a number of other papers with varying conclusions.) I haven't done any stats since college, and that was over a decade ago, so I don't claim to be an expert. Still, if you actually understand something, you should be able to explain it from first principles!
I did some more digging, and I did find this very well-written piece on Benford’s law. It is something I can actually follow: https://towardsdatascience.com/benfords-law-a-simple-explana...
In general, I think it is best to avoid argument from intimidation. I also don't think that linking conspiracy theorizing with someone that just wants to understand something better is a kind thing to do.