Posted on Datatodisplay.com blog; last accessed April 25, 2019.
ISSN/ISBN: Not available at this time. DOI: Not available at this time.
Abstract: In part 1 I showed that candidate vote counts from the 2010 election in the UK didn’t conform to Benford’s law but that there was a perfectly reasonable explanation for this. In short: the combination of roughly equal constituency size and broad support for three parties lead to a large number of candidates getting counts around ten to twenty thousand votes and relatively few getting three to four thousand. Hence there is an excess of 1’s and a deficiency in 3’s and 4’s, as seen here.
Bibtex:
@misc{,
AUTHOR = {Tim Brock},
TITLE = {Benford’s law and elections – part 2},
url = {https://datatodisplay.com/blog/politics/benfords-law-elections-2/},
YEAR = {2014},
NOTE = {last accessed Apr 25, 2019},
}
Reference Type: Blog
Subject Area(s): Voting Fraud