Why do Biden's votes not follow Benford's Law?

Matt Parker explains Benford's Law and demonstrates why it does not apply to precinct-level election data.

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-busse… There’s more on Mark Nigrini’s work here: nigrini.com/benfords-law/ "Benford's Law and the Detection of Election Fraud" 2011 paper. cambridge.org/core/journals/political-analysis/article/benfo… 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/b8ad9f58992828ff820ddc8a005de7… And here is a paper by the same author specifically about the 2020 US election results: www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/inapB.pdf Get your Chicago Board of Election Commissioners data here! chicagoelections.gov/en/election-results.asp?election=251&ra… Yep, 2069 precincts. Some would say that's too many. data.cityofchicago.org/Facilities-Geographic-Boundaries/Prec… 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_Pr… jonsnewplace.wordpress.com/2020/11/07/joe-bidens-votes-viola… 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.