Since the Iranian elections earlier this month, you’d be hard pressed to find someone who thinks Ahmadinejad fights a clean fight.
With hard fact mired in swirling stories and deliberate obfuscation, pollsters and pundits have jumped on the unbelievable appearance of Ahmadinejad doing well in urban areas – where the vitriol against him has swelled to its most powerful proportions – and even his opponents' home turfs.
But, as Daniel pointed out on Saturday, the devil’s in the digits. When people cheat with numbers, those numbers often give them away.
With the same thought in mind, Bernd Beber and Alexandra Scacco, at the Washington Post, have taken a statistician’s eye-glass to the results and revealed some intriguing trends.
“last digits [such as 7and 9 in a vote count of 14,579] in a fair election don't tell us anything about the candidates, the make-up of the electorate or the context of the election,” they write.
“They are random noise in the sense that a fair vote count is as likely to end in 1 as it is to end in 2, 3, 4, or any other numeral. But that's exactly why they can serve as a litmus test for election fraud.”
So, in a natural selection of results in a fair vote, you’d expect each number (from one to ten) to round-off the vote-count one in ten times. Not in Iran’s provincial results. The number 7 is the final digit 17 per cent of the time, the number 5 only 4 per cent of the time.
According to The Post, there’s a less than 4 in 100 chance of a fair election producing spikes and drops like that.
And the mistakes aren't only there because the little Ahmedinejad was busy plotting domination while the other children diligently paid attention to their maths classes.
Humans, not just power-crazed leaders, are bad at making up random selections of numbers. If asked to, we’ll accidently reproduce some numbers more often that others.
Tests have also shown that, if asked to jot down a random selection of double-digit numbers, our lazy minds stray towards adjacent digits like 23, 45, or 67.
So back to Iran. What percentage of number-pairs contain ‘non-adjacent’ numbers? Only sixty-two.