HN does not suffer fools gladly. Speaking as a fool, I find this challenging at times, but overall I think it is a distinctive feature. I'm free to go to reddit and find a sub with fellow wingnuts if I fancy something more whimsical.

That isn't what the comment you are replying to said. It said that before you claim that thing X and thing Y are related, take a look at this page that goes through the claims and debunks them.

If the answers on that page are mistaken and it is relevant to a topic on HN then it seems logical (to me) that you could discuss it here (but unfounded political allegations should be off-topic in most HN chats in my opinion).

Yes, from the paper "A first-digit anomaly in the 2009 Iranian presidential election" (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.2789.pdf):

"The total numbers of votes per voting area in the MOI’s data vary from about 10^4 to 10^6, i.e. by two orders of magnitude (powers of 10). This suggests that Benford’s Law may be applicable"

The issue, as I understand it, is that the US districts that the "law" is being applied to are too small, uniform, and uniformly sized, and therefore the "law" doesn't apply.

Additionally, many of the graphs being shared have obvious biases (change of scale between one candidate and the other) which suggests bad faith of those making the graphs (see the skeptics.stackexchange link a sibling shared).

> Why are you so against discussing it?

I'm not especially against discussing it. I am against presenting it as a fait accompli that the election was rigged, when thirty seconds of Googling and critical thought show it to be a red herring.