>>12312384Wards are manmade, I'm guessing they are made to "somewhat" split a population or territory equally. In milwaukee it's an average of 960 votes.
This is also why Benford doesn't apply. It has nothing natural. If you had all the wards in the US and the number of votes range from 1 to 99999 maybe you would see that pattern.
Now, I'm guessing there is some sort of rule of thumbs in the US that wards are defined as being about size X to Y.
Looking at the frequency of total votes, do you think it would make sense that 30% of wards have either 100-199 to 1000-1999 votes.
Currently it's 32% so very close.
But then for leading digits of 2, Benford says 17%, we got 7%. How would you add 10% of wards were the total number of votes is between 200-299 (extremely small wards) and 2000-2999 (very big wards)
Digit 3, Benford says 12%, we got 8%.
Digit 4, Benford says 10%, we got 7%.
For these 2, 3, 4 digits. How would you add leading digits in total votes by remove votes? Are you thinking that 70% of the votes are fraudulent?
