# Start Here > Ron Paul Forum >  (Huge) delegate vote anomaly in Alabama verified

## Liberty1789

As pointed out by dsw in the Daily Paul's post below, a really strange gap is visible between Paul's popular vote in Alabama's primary and thevote count in favor of his delegates, as it all happens on the same day through the same ballot. If you are not familiar with the enigma addressed here, I can only encourage you to read the post linked below first.

http://www.dailypaul.com/223002/voti...about-this-one

I think that it is worthwhile separating the discussion of this one in its own thread as the mathematical analysis and speculative interpretations are quite different from the other issues raised elsewhere.

As per Republican Party Rules, you could only vote for 1 candidate, and then only for the delegates of that candidates. For each of your candidate's delegate proposed, you had to choose between a Mr Jones or a Mr Smith to get the job. A rather complicated affair as illustrated by the typical ballot:



And that is only the first of the two pages...

A Gingrich supporter had to trawl through a list of 9 separate delegate contests, Paul 16, Romney 18 and Santorum 3. Voter's fatigue is very visible in the data: almost 20% of the electorate failed to reach the end of the delegate list after it started to fill it in!

I have collected all the precinct information available as of today (60 counties out of 67), ie 1,864 precincts x 46 delegate ballots = 85,744 data points. I have not included the additional Congessional District Delegate races, only the statewide ones.

The chart below verifies and confirms dsw's observation:



On my data, 82,940 votes were cast for Paul's 1st delegate contest, but only 29,609 for him directly as President choice. -64%.

187 precincts have votes for Paul's 1st delegate, but none for him as President. Yes, that is 10% of them all.

In Lowndes County, votes for Paul as President are only a 10th of the votes for his 1st delegate on the list.

In Walker County, in the "Prospect Method. Chuch" precinct, Paul's 1st delegate contest collected 34 votes. Paul as a choice for President? 1 vote. One vote.

As can be seen on the chart, the other candidates tend to get 1 vote in the delegate contest for 1 in the President's choice, with little volatility above and below that, as per the Republican party rule reiterated on the ballot itself. Paul's distribution of votes is from a different planet.

More to come.

Edit: How unusual is it to have 1/3 of the votes in the presidential preference vote that you get in the delegate races? Here is a partial answer:

----------


## nobody's_hero

Wow that's confusing as hell.

----------


## parocks

We went over this weeks ago.

See the precincts around tuscaloosa.

There were a lot of people, maybe 10% of the total, who filled out all the delegate spots.   In many precincts where Ron Paul didn't get many votes - he got a lot of delegate votes.  5% for Paul, 10% voting for everything.

----------


## anaconda

I've never seen a ballot like this in CA....where there's all these delegates' names listed.

----------


## parocks

****************************
Tuscaloosa - U of A Student Rec
*************************

Gingrich 
Range 38-30
Candidate Total 30

Paul 
Range 29-24
Candidate Total 26

Romney
Range 48-32
Candidate Total 53

Santorum
Range 35-30
Candidate Total 34

****************************
Tuscaloosa - Green Acres Health
*************************

Gingrich
Range 4-3
Candidate Total 1

Paul
Range 5-4
Candidate Total 4

Romney
Range 4-3 (a single 4, in the middle)
Candidate Total 3

Santorum
Range 9-8
Candidate Total 10

****************************

*************************

----------


## kathy88

You'd think in alabama of all places the ballots would be a little more user friendly.

----------


## kathy88

Wasn't the issue with this initially that the bad ballots were by their laws supposed to have been thrown out?

----------


## Titus

Wait, somehow we got *more* votes for delegates than the straw poll?

----------


## parocks

On that day, it certainly did look like "vote fraud".  "Why did Ron Paul get so many more votes for his delegates than he got himself?  There must be vote fraud" was my thinking.

But I looked at the numbers and found that where Ron Paul did well, such as University of Alabama precincts, the number of votes for Ron Paul were about the number of votes for his delegates.   "Range" = the most and least votes in the delegate election.

If there's a scandal, it's that Alabama allows people to vote for the delegates for all the candidates, not just the candidate they voted for.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> You'd think in alabama of all places the ballots would be a little more user friendly.


I didnt' want to say that, lol. 

At my small county convention here in Georgia, there were a dozen people present and it was pretty much, "Okay, who wants to be a delegate?. . . . Okay, you got it."

----------


## kathy88

> I didnt' want to say that, lol. 
> 
> At my small county convention here in Georgia, there were a dozen people present and it was pretty much, "Okay, who wants to be a delegate?. . . . Okay, you got it."


Cool ? So you're a delegate?

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Cool ? So you're a delegate?


shhhh

----------


## Liberty1789

> There were a lot of people, maybe 10% of the total, who filled out all the delegate spots.   In many precincts where Ron Paul didn't get many votes - he got a lot of delegate votes.  5% for Paul, 10% voting for everything.


I do not follow the math here. Paul gets X% in the Presidential Choice vote. Then 10% of voters vote for all delegates. Is it what you are saying? So ALL candidates should get more delegate votes than their Presidential Choice vote. And that is note the case.

----------


## parocks

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Alabama/page9

see this thread where this was discussed - March 15-16

----------


## parocks

> I do not follow the math here. Paul gets X% in the Presidential Choice vote. Then 10% of voters vote for all delegates. Is it what you are saying? So ALL candidates should get more delegate votes than their Presidential Choice vote. And that is note the case.


No.  

10% voted in all the delegate elections.

Not everyone who voted for a candidate voted in their candidates delegate elections.

Person 1 - voted for a candidate, and voted in all delegate elections.
Person 2 - voted for a candidate, and did NOT vote in the delegate elections.


There was Overvoting, and Undervoting.

----------


## Liberty1789

> There was Overvoting, and Undervoting.


Thanks, I see. Let me show you why I do not believe that. See the chart below: people who went for Gingrich, Romney or Santorum did the job mostly right, as per the instructions. The result is that 1 vote in the Presidential Choice and 1 vote for the delegate is the most frequent observation (ratio of one, the peak of the bell curves for all of them). Instructions were followed. 1 for 1. Why is only Paul subject to a totally different instruction compliance pattern??

----------


## parocks

Please, I did go over this 2 weeks ago.  

Ron Paul only got 5%.

Look at what happens when Ron Paul got 20%.  It was normal.

----------


## Liberty1789

> Please, I did go over this 2 weeks ago.  Ron Paul only got 5%. Look at what happens when Ron Paul got 20%.  It was normal.


Nope. Paul score >20% in only 27 precincts and even there he is stuck at 0.8.

----------


## dsw

Awesome, Liberty1789!  Thanks for doing this and doing a better job with it than I did.


And ... I think parocks has a solid point.  It would explain why Ron Paul delegate races got on average what would amount to 15% of the total vote, 5% from Ron Paul voters and 10% from people who didn't understand the instructions.  (I'm assuming there was little overlap between those groups.)  It explains why Mitt and Newt have close to the same distribution on the graph, because they had close to the same number of votes.  It explains why Santorum had the fewest delegate race totals that exceeded Santorum's own vote, because he had more votes.   It explains why the hand-counted precincts had roughly the the same level of discrepancy as the machine-counted precincts.   

If nothing else it could explain a large part of the effect.  And taking into account that different candidates had different levels of enthusiasm from their supporters (i.e., likelihood of just voting for the candidate and ignoring the rest of the ballot) and different levels of ability to understand and follow directions, ...

Sigh.

----------


## tbone717

It says right on the ballot that votes for delegates that are different than their presidential choice is against party rules.  More than likely people did not read or understand that and voted incorrectly.  Eg:

Voted for Paul for President
Voted for Joe Smith for delegate (Romney delegate)

----------


## parocks

> It says right on the ballot that votes for delegates that are different than their presidential choice is against party rules.  More than likely people did not read or understand that and voted incorrectly.  Eg:
> 
> Voted for Paul for President
> Voted for Joe Smith for delegate (Romney delegate)


And that, by itself, is a problem.

----------


## parocks

> Nope. Paul score >20% in only 27 precincts and even there he is stuck at 0.8.


I'm not interested in figuring out what your graph says.

This was taken care of 2 weeks ago.

It looked like major fraud at the time.  I thought so.  But then I looked at the numbers closely, and it turned out that a lot of people voted wrong.

People voted wrong.  

But there were lots of types of wrong voting.

The order of the candidates on the ballot is a factor as well.

Gingrich was first, then Paul, Romney, Santorum.

Gingrich's first delegate race got the most votes, because that was the first delegate race on the ballot.

A lot of people voted wrong, a lot of people voted wrong in many different ways.  A lot of people voted for some, but not all, of the delegates for the right candidate.  

What can be seen where Paul does well is that the number of real Paul votes exceeds the lowest number of votes in his delegate races.  

Much in the way that the "vote flipping" graphs tend to obscure and ignore what is actually happening, so does this chart.

----------


## MarkKirk

i see what parocks is saying i think, so for example, this guy votes for romney and then votes in each slot of delegates so, hes voting in gingrich's 1st slot of delegates and then pauls and then romneys and then santorums..Even though its against the rules to vote for other candidate's delegates other than your pick for pres, the machines are still counting the votes even tho they should be invalid?

----------


## parocks

> i see what parocks is saying i think, so for example, this guy votes for romney and then votes in each slot of delegates so, hes voting in gingrich's 1st slot of delegates and then pauls and then romneys and then santorums..Even though its against the rules to vote for other candidate's delegates other than your pick for pres, the machines are still counting the votes even tho they should be invalid?


Right.  That happened a lot.  That shouldn't be.  It's a clear problem and it should be fixed somehow.

----------


## drummergirl

Well, I suppose the elephant in the room which no one wants to mention is that if there was vote flipping from Paul to Romney in the overall and not in the delegate races, the election results make a lot more sense.

But it would be very difficult to show in Alabama because that ballot system is the most convoluted Rube Goldberg device ever conceived by humanity.  The results of that election are about as meaningful as a series of "Ask the magic 8 ball" sessions.

----------


## RonRules

The elephant is also missing a baby.

If 10% of the people (for ALL candidates) screwed up their votes, they why did Romney's vote count match his delegate count so close. Same for the Grinch and Santo, but to a lesser extent.

----------


## tbone717

> And that, by itself, is a problem.


Oh agreed.  It is by far the most confusing ballot I have seen in a while.  It took me a few minutes to figure it all out and I get this stuff.

----------


## parocks

a bunch of things happened.

1) some people voted in every delegate race.  about 10%

2) some people started voting in every delegate race and then got bored or realized their mistake

3) some people started filling out Gingrich's delegates then stopped somewhere in the process.

4) some people filled out the delegates for the person they voted for and completed it.

5) some people filled out the delegates for the person they voted for and got tired of it and quit.

6) other people randomly picked delegate races to vote in, perhaps because they knew a person there.

7) 100 different other reasons why people voted in some races and not others.

There were a lot of people not voting the way the instructions said.  Over 10%.

What you're looking at is a whole bunch of voters voting in a whole bunch of different ways.

I looked at this over 2 weeks ago.  It looked like fraud, because we assumed that overvoting would disqualify the ballots, and that there was no way that there would be so many voter errors.  It really look like they took away the Ron Paul votes.

But then I looked at where Ron Paul did well, and in those cases, his numbers were about the same as everybody elses, so not fraud.

----------


## BamaAla

When I was at the polls, there was a young lady beside me that voted for Paul and then started filling in Gingrich's delegates (immediately below the Presidential candidates.) She caught herself after a couple and asked the poll workers if she needed a new ballot. They instructed her to finish filling it out and see if the machine accepted it - which it did. That night I saw these discrepancies coming up and figured that problem probably repeated all over the state.

----------


## drummergirl

> But then I looked at where Ron Paul did well, and in those cases, his numbers were about the same as everybody elses, so not fraud.


That was the extent of the analysis?!?

----------


## drummergirl

> When I was at the polls, there was a young lady beside me that voted for Paul and then started filling in Gingrich's delegates (immediately below the Presidential candidates.) She caught herself after a couple and asked the poll workers if she needed a new ballot. They instructed her to finish filling it out and see if the machine accepted it - which it did. That night I saw these discrepancies coming up and figured that problem probably repeated all over the state.


That's called voter manipulation and it's illegal.

----------


## parocks

> That was the extent of the analysis?!?


We saw the oddity, and determined the cause of the oddity.

Ron Paul's numbers were odd when he got low votes.  When he got a normal number of votes, there ceased to be a problem.

The anomaly went away.  I was able to determine the cause of the anomaly, and there was no reason to go further.

----------


## Liberty1789

> We saw the oddity, and determined the cause of the oddity.
> 
> Ron Paul's numbers were odd when he got low votes.  When he got a normal number of votes, there ceased to be a problem.
> 
> The anomaly went away.  I was able to determine the cause of the anomaly, and there was no reason to go further.


You have provided only 2 cherrypicked precinct data with high Paul vote share to support your affirmation:

_Tuscaloosa - U of A Student Rec_
*Paul* 
Range 29-24
Candidate Total 26 (Paul share = 18%)

_Tuscaloosa - Green Acres Health_
*Paul*
Range 5-4
Candidate Total 4 (Paul share = 22%)


Here are 2 to with high Paul vote share (>20%) to debunk your assertion. 

_Baldwin - Douglasville Comms_
*Paul* 
Range 19-16
Candidate Total 8  (Paul share = 22%)


_Mobile - Toulminville Library #2_
*Paul*
Range 5-4
Candidate Total 2 (Paul share = 22%)




> 1) some people voted in every delegate race. about 10%


As to the idea that 10% of voters just cast their votes for all delegates, (a) you have provided no evidence to support the number, in this thread or in the previous one that you kindly linked to, and (b) the math below shows it would have thrown Romney and Santorum  delegate votes out of kilter, far away from their presidential votes. And that did not happen, so this assumption, albeit interesting, just does not fit the data and can be rejected.



In other words, a 10% idiocy rate was picked out of thin air to minimize Paul's discrepancy, at the cost of creating 2 big ones for Romney and Santorum, which makes the proposed model fit the presidential vote EVEN LESS.

----------


## tbone717

> We saw the oddity, and determined the cause of the oddity.
> 
> Ron Paul's numbers were odd when he got low votes.  When he got a normal number of votes, there ceased to be a problem.
> 
> The anomaly went away.  I was able to determine the cause of the anomaly, and there was no reason to go further.


And if I recall, wasn't the only reason you voted for a delegate was because there were two people running for delegate from the same district and you were choosing between the two, otherwise the delegate in that district (if there was only one) automatically got your vote based on your presidential selection?

----------


## kathy88

I think the more important issue here is that the ballots that were WRONG were supposed to not go through the machine, therefore not valid. They allowed all the bad ballots through, obviously or we would not be even having this discussion. I'm pretty sure Paul supporters know to vote for delegates, it's in our blood.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> We saw the oddity, and determined the cause of the oddity.
> 
> Ron Paul's numbers were odd when he got low votes.  When he got a normal number of votes, there ceased to be a problem.
> 
> The anomaly went away.  I was able to determine the cause of the anomaly, and there was no reason to go further.


You didn't identify the cause.  You identified the source.

----------


## Liberty1789

Many people could not be bothered to go thru the entire ballot, and in particular thru the delegate list. The data shows it spectacularly:



It is very instructive to see that Paul and Romney supporters were tiring at the same speed. If a vote-for-all-delegates idiot factor was at work, those idiotic votes would represent a much larger proportion of Paul's votes than Romney's and the fatigue would follow a different pattern: it is not the case and it is another debunk of that argument. Both candidates got their votes from equally commited people with identical endurance.

Gingrich's relative decline is much steeper, even though his list was half as long and the 1st on the ballot. As was said before, voters realized that they were voting for Gingrich even though they should not have, and just stopped in the middle. Another evidence of it is to compared the difference between the votes received by the 1st delegate vs the presidential votes (as a % of the latter):

Gingrich +16%
Romney +0%
Santorum -9%

Gingrich got a 16% artificial boost from his top position in the delegate listing. However, the electorate corrected some of the mistake quickly, as evidenced by the steepness of the decline of the blue line.

Being 1st-listed helps a great deal and Santorum feels the impact of being last, with his delegates only on the back side of the ballot. Romney was on both sides. Paul? Well, his delegates were 2nd-listed so you would expect that his number should be somewhere between Gingrich and Romney. Not quite:

Paul +180%!

And that makes no sense whatsoever.

----------


## dsw

> 


Are you assuming that every voter either voted in all delegate races OR else they voted for all and only their candidate's delegate races?  Because there's a third case:  voters who didn't vote for any delegate races, not even the ones they were allowed to vote in.  (And even this is still not the whole picture because of the ballot fatigue that you demonstrated so nicely.)

Then the question is what percentage of supporters for each candidate didn't vote in any delegate races.  Santorum probably lost some from people who didn't turn the ballot over.  Gingrich benefitted from being at the top of the ballot.  Some presumably also just voted for their candidate and turned in the ballot without looking any further.  

My back-of-an-envelope calculation, starting from the numbers in your spreadsheet, is that to make the numbers come out roughly right would mean roughly 10% of Gingrich supporters didn't vote for Gingrich delegates, and similarly for 25% of Romney supporters, and 30% of Santorum supporters.  That could either be getting closer to an explanation of what really happened, or merely an example of overfitting.  Or my math could be wrong.  But in any case the model needs to be refined to include voters who didn't vote in any delegate races, whether out of confusion or apathy.

----------


## Liberty1789

> Because there's a third case:  voters who didn't vote for any delegate races, not even the ones they were allowed to vote in. (...) Then the question is what percentage of supporters for each candidate didn't vote in any delegate races.


That is an easy one.

Out of 1,864 precincts, number of occurences with presidential preference vote and no delegate vote:

Gingrich
7

Paul
0

Romney
11

Santorum
9





So no 3rd case.

----------


## kathy88

> That is an easy one.
> 
> Out of 1,864 precincts, number of occurences with presidential preference vote and no delegate vote:
> 
> Gingrich
> 7
> 
> Paul
> 0
> ...


Ouch. This looks crazy.

----------


## affa

is that a state-wide ballot? or is it different per county/congressional district/etc?

----------


## dsw

> That is an easy one.
> 
> Out of 1,864 precincts, number of occurences with presidential preference vote and no delegate vote:
> 
> Gingrich
> 7
> 
> Paul
> 0
> ...


That's the number of *individual ballots* with no delegate votes?   Out of over 600,000 voters only 27 stopped after the presidential preference vote?  Where did you find that?

----------


## dsw

> is that a state-wide ballot? or is it different per county/congressional district/etc?


It looks like the parts relevant to the GOP primary are mostly the same, but with some minor differences.  The order of the delegate races was the same in the ones I checked, first Newt's races, then Paul, Romney (split across both pages) and Santorum always on the back side.  

http://alabamavotes.gov/ElectionInfo....aspx?a=voters

Here's an example of the minor differences I noticed:
http://alabamavotes.gov/downloads/el...012-Sample.pdf
http://alabamavotes.gov/downloads/el...012-Sample.pdf
Looks like they're formatted for different machines is all.

----------


## affa

> It looks like the parts relevant to the GOP primary are mostly the same, but with some minor differences.  The order of the delegate races was the same in the ones I checked, first Newt's races, then Paul, Romney (split across both pages) and Santorum always on the back side.  
> 
> http://alabamavotes.gov/ElectionInfo....aspx?a=voters
> 
> Here's an example of the minor differences I noticed:
> http://alabamavotes.gov/downloads/el...012-Sample.pdf
> http://alabamavotes.gov/downloads/el...012-Sample.pdf
> Looks like they're formatted for different machines is all.


Ok.  I was looking to see if we could figure out any oddity that would account for mis-votes like 'Ron Paul spikes if he's at the top of the second row'.  But, after looking at maybe 2 dozen samples from your link, it appears Gingrich is at the top of the second row in all of them.
I absolutely see no reason why mis-votes would explain people placing marks in the middle of the second row, unless someone voted for every single delegate spot (which would affect everyone equally).

I can see mis-votes going to: 
1) Gingrich at the bottom of the first row
2) Gingrich at the top of the second row

but after that?  I'm hard pressed to come up with a reason why anyone but Gingrich would benefit from these confusing ballots.   I mean, yes, they're confusing... but not so confusing that you'd randomly vote for RP delegates at the expense of others based on layout.

----------


## dsw

> I'm hard pressed to come up with a reason why anyone but Gingrich would benefit from these confusing ballots.   I mean, yes, they're confusing... but not so confusing that you'd randomly vote for RP delegates at the expense of others based on layout.


The theory is that some people missed that little paragraph saying "Votes for delegate candidates pledged to someone other than the voter's choice for President ARE NOT ALLOWED" and dutifully went down the list of all races.  To the extent that that happened, it disproportionately impacts candidates with the fewest votes.  For example, if 10% of all the voters made this  mistake then it would only bump up Santorum's delegate races by 15% or so, but it would boost Ron Paul's delegate races by 300%.   

Or did I misunderstand what you were asking?

----------


## RonRules

What's puzzling about Alabama, besides the previous 5 pages of suspicious evidence, is that it doesn't look like Ron Paul was "flipped".  The Alabama Cumulative Precinct Vote Tally chart is certainly neat looking, but Ron's a straight shooter on this one. We have about a dozen charts that "come together" like that. Once or twice could be a coincidence, but a dozen times raises my BS detector well into the yellow zone.



BTW, I'm working on the 2011 Canadian elections, where I'm seeing funky stuff there too. I'm trying to streamline the process to prevent repetitive work, so I'll be doing that for a while longer.

----------


## affa

> The theory is that some people missed that little paragraph saying "Votes for delegate candidates pledged to someone other than the voter's choice for President ARE NOT ALLOWED" and dutifully went down the list of all races.  To the extent that that happened, it disproportionately impacts candidates with the fewest votes.  For example, if 10% of all the voters made this  mistake then it would only bump up Santorum's delegate races by 15% or so, but it would boost Ron Paul's delegate races by 300%.   
> 
> Or did I misunderstand what you were asking?


Yes, but it's my understanding this 10% is pulled out of thin air, and just looking at the numbers, any % large enough to affect Ron Paul this dramatically would have been significant and effected other candidates.

That is, yes, 10% voting down the line WOULD explain Paul's numbers, but 10% down the line is significant enough that it would in turn mess up everyone else's even more than they are now.



Liberty did the work here:

----------


## affa

Paul Over Vote	53702		

If we blame 'down the line' voters, and assign misvoters evenly to all other candidates			
	        Votes-----Percent of Votes-----Bad 'Down the line' Voters
Gingrich	177030-----29.26%-----15712
Romney	176065-----29.10%-----15626
Santorum	208255-----34.42%-----18483
Others	13512-----2.23%-----1199

That is, 15712 Gingrich voters mistakenly voted down the line.  15626 Romney voters did so. Etc, determined by multiplying the percent of the popular vote they got times Paul's delegate overcount (53,702).

Expected Gains from Bad 'Down the Line Voters'			
Romney Gain = Santorum + Gingrich down the line voters: 34195
Gingrich Gain = Santorum + Romney down the line voters: 34109
Santorum Gain = Gingrich + Romney down the line voters: 31338

Gingrich actual 'Gain'  :27719
Romney actual 'Gain' : 297
Santorum actual 'Gain': -19172

So... Gingrich didn't get his full share of down the line voters, and we're suppose to include people that voted for his delegates because he was first on the ballot, too.			

Romney didn't get any of his allotment of 'down the line' voters.			

Santorum not only didn't get any, but lost 19k to his own voters not 			
turning over the ballot.			

I don't understand how this 'down the line' voter theory explains anything.

----------


## parocks

> You have provided only 2 cherrypicked precinct data with high Paul vote share to support your affirmation:
> 
> _Tuscaloosa - U of A Student Rec_
> *Paul* 
> Range 29-24
> Candidate Total 26 (Paul share = 18%)
> 
> _Tuscaloosa - Green Acres Health_
> *Paul*
> ...




I'm looking at your table.

Make these corrections.  10%, didn't vote in any delegate race.  That takes away some, since the hypothetical is larger than actual in all cases.

You might also want to take into consideration the proximity to the top of the candidate.   Gingrich, Paul, Romney, Santorum.  Gingrich got more overvotes than Santorum.

top or bottom of the ballot weighting factor.
x 1 for Gingrich
x.9 for Paul
x.8 for Romney
X.7 for Santorum

you combine the effects of those 3 things and you'll get pretty close.

If 10% is wrong, try 8 or 12.  Tweak the top or bottom factor. 

A lot of people voted in a lot of different ways.  

One thing that's absolutely NOT TRUE is that 90% voted absolutely right, for all the delegates they're supposed to and none wrong.  That 90% is way way high.

That means that your (2) is wrong.

10% vote for all delegates isn't spot on, but it moves Ron Paul's number close.


But, if you want to get it really close, try this.

X% - didn't vote for any delegates
X% - voted delegates / right candidate / partial
X% - voted delegates / right candidate / full
X% - voted delegates / right and wrong candidates / full
X% - voted delegates / right and wrong candidates / partial

If you want to figure out what happened, plug in different numbers.

----------


## parocks

> That's the number of *individual ballots* with no delegate votes?   Out of over 600,000 voters only 27 stopped after the presidential preference vote?  Where did you find that?


Yes, where did he find that?

Here are the various cases.

X% - didn't vote for any delegates
 X% - voted delegates / right candidate / partial
 X% - voted delegates / right candidate / full
 X% - voted delegates / right and wrong candidates / full
 X% - voted delegates / right and wrong candidates / partial

And there's a bunch of each, and we have no idea what the percentages are.  But if we make up percentages, (and we add the, closer to the top, more likely to get extra votes factor, you can get close)

----------


## parocks

> Paul Over Vote	53702		
> 
> If we blame 'down the line' voters, and assign misvoters evenly to all other candidates			
> 	        Votes-----Percent of Votes-----Bad 'Down the line' Voters
> Gingrich	177030-----29.26%-----15712
> Romney	176065-----29.10%-----15626
> Santorum	208255-----34.42%-----18483
> Others	13512-----2.23%-----1199
> 
> ...



Voters voted differently.  Some voted down the line.  Some voted not at all.  Some voted randomly.

X% - didn't vote for any delegates
 X% - voted delegates / right candidate / partial
 X% - voted delegates / right candidate / full
 X% - voted delegates / right and wrong candidates / full
 X% - voted delegates / right and wrong candidates / partial
X% - voted delegates / wrong candidate / partial
 X% - voted delegates / wrong candidate / full

voter behavior random, unpredictable.

----------


## affa

> One thing that's absolutely NOT TRUE is that 90% voted absolutely right, for all the delegates they're supposed to and none wrong.  That 90% is way way high.


Based on...?

ps - you're doing an awful lot of tweaking and guessing to explain away these numbers.  I mean, sure, if we just guess at percents of this and that we can come up with any set of numbers we want.

----------


## affa

> Voters voted differently.  Some voted down the line.  Some voted not at all.  Some voted randomly.
> 
> X% - didn't vote for any delegates
>  X% - voted delegates / right candidate / partial
>  X% - voted delegates / right candidate / full
>  X% - voted delegates / right and wrong candidates / full
>  X% - voted delegates / right and wrong candidates / partial
> X% - voted delegates / wrong candidate / partial
>  X% - voted delegates / wrong candidate / full
> ...


That doesn't remotely explain what we're seeing.

You're telling me that voters just 'voting randomly' is supposed to explain this?

----------


## dsw

> Yes, but it's my understanding this 10% is pulled out of thin air, and just looking at the numbers, any % large enough to affect Ron Paul this dramatically would have been significant and effected other candidates.


Whatever hypothesis you start with, don't you end up at some point checking to see if you can find numbers that make it work?  With the "idiot voters" theory, 10% is a rough estimate (and there's more to the story that I'll get back to in a second) that makes the numbers come out about right.  One theory about Alabama was that around some percentage of Ron Paul's vote got thrown out, but they didn't adjust the delegate race totals to be consistent; to make that theory work the percentage of discarded votes ends up being something like 66%.  (But that doesn't fit the data nearly as well as the idiot voter theory.)  Someone asked me if I could make the data work with the "flipping algorithm" theory, and I tried some numbers without much success, but if I'd come up with numbers that worked would the air they were pulled from be any less thin than for the number 10 in the idiots theory or the number 66 in the discarded votes theory?

Just saying that 10% voted in all the races doesn't tell the whole story, but it seems likely (although Liberty1789 claims to have data disproving this) that some unmotivated or uninformed voters would just vote for their candidate and ignore all the other races on the ballot.  Having 10% dutiful idiots voting in every race would give Ron Paul a huge boost, but Santorum and the others a much smaller boost that might be offset by lazy or uninformed voters.  Newt and Mitt did have some delegate races with an excess of votes, and especially for Newt ballot placement probably explains a lot of that.  The point is that the "10% were idiots" theory makes the largest and most interesting anomaly go away, and other voting patterns that aren't unreasonable would easily get us the rest of the way.    Combining Ockham's razor and the observation that lots of voters are stupid, I think this is the theory to beat.

----------


## J_White

the flipper strikes again ?

----------


## drummergirl

> We saw the oddity, and determined the cause of the oddity.
> 
> Ron Paul's numbers were odd when he got low votes.  When he got a normal number of votes, there ceased to be a problem.
> 
> The anomaly went away.  I was able to determine the cause of the anomaly, and there was no reason to go further.


2 things

1) Please tell me you are not a professional analyst.  I hate to think how many astronauts would be dead by now if the guys at NASA said, "yeah, that looks about right; press the launch button"

2) this is more complex than other states we've seen but it does fit a certain pattern.

----------


## affa

> The point is that the "10% were idiots" theory makes the largest and most interesting anomaly go away, and other voting patterns that aren't unreasonable would easily get us the rest of the way.


I don't understand this. Please see my post #48.  The "10% were idiots" needs to come from somewhere; that is, you can't just assign 10% of votes to Paul (which does explain his votes) without also giving those 10% to other candidates via the 'down the line theory'... and when you do that, it no longer holds.   Using Paul's overvote s a measure, you're looking at over 30k per candidate in 'bonus idiot votes' for the other candidates which we don't actually see for -any- of those candidates.   It's one thing to explain away 20k+ votes for Santorum to 'didn't flip the ballot over' but now we need to explain away 50k+.   And Romney? Where are his bonus votes?

----------


## parocks

> Based on...?
> 
> ps - you're doing an awful lot of tweaking and guessing to explain away these numbers.  I mean, sure, if we just guess at percents of this and that we can come up with any set of numbers we want.


Right, any playing around with numbers can get any result. 

I'm throwing out numbers to show that some random combination of these numbers is the actual TRUTH.  It's pretty much impossible to get these numbers right.  But THE TRUTH is that a combination of these numbers is what actually did happen.

A bunch of different people doing a bunch of different things is WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.  

The overvote on the Ron Paul delegates is explained by a bunch of people voting in races.  10% would explain it fully, and even go over.  Since the question we're trying to answer is "how can Ron Paul get so many delegate votes and so few real votes", we don't have to worry too much about the numbers not matching up.

10% voting for all is plausible.

And that's just 1 factor.  When you start adding in the other factors, you get more and more precise.

What I'd be interested in is "impossible" numbers.  Things like - more votes in Ron Paul delegate elections than votes cast for all the other candidates combined, things like that.  Things that can't be easily explained away by recognizing that a lot of Alabama voters did not follow the instructions well.

That's all this is, a lot of Alabama voters voted in races they shouldn't have.

We can play with numbers and get it really close.  I personally don't see the need to.  But if someone did, it would probably be a fairly accurate represention of what actually happened.   

A bunch of Alabama voters voted in a bunch of different ways.

----------


## affa

Okay, the Alabama 2008 ballot looked just as ridiculous.
http://www.co.baldwin.al.us/uploads/...ballot_Rep.pdf

So, did we have the same problem that year?

----------


## drummergirl

> the observation that lots of voters are stupid


I don't know about that assumption.  I've clerked a lot of elections and seen all kinds of voters.  With a ballot that complex, there will be more voter errors than with a simple ballot just by the ballot design.  And there will always be a few voters who don't see well, are tired, etc. that will make mistakes.  10% spoiled ballots is awfully high.  

If the party rules are that you can't "mix and match", why isn't every mixed ballot thrown out as invalid?

----------


## affa

> The overvote on the Ron Paul delegates is explained by a bunch of people voting in races.  10% would explain it fully, and even go over.  Since the question we're trying to answer is "how can Ron Paul get so many delegate votes and so few real votes", we don't have to worry too much about the numbers not matching up.


No, that's not the entire question.  Any answer must also be able to be applied to other candidates with similiar results.  That is, you can't assume 10% just voted for Ron Paul delegates, even though his were halfway down the second row.  You need to apply this 10% to, at the very least, all candidates on the first page.  And when you do that, the 10% solution isn't as 'clean' as you want it to be.

If it were that simple 'oh, 10% of people just idiotically voted for Ron Paul', then we'd be able to explain absolutely -any- anomaly that way.  OH! 57% of people just randomly voted for Ron Paul.

----------


## parocks

> Whatever hypothesis you start with, don't you end up at some point checking to see if you can find numbers that make it work?  With the "idiot voters" theory, 10% is a rough estimate (and there's more to the story that I'll get back to in a second) that makes the numbers come out about right.  One theory about Alabama was that around some percentage of Ron Paul's vote got thrown out, but they didn't adjust the delegate race totals to be consistent; to make that theory work the percentage of discarded votes ends up being something like 66%.  (But that doesn't fit the data nearly as well as the idiot voter theory.)  Someone asked me if I could make the data work with the "flipping algorithm" theory, and I tried some numbers without much success, but if I'd come up with numbers that worked would the air they were pulled from be any less thin than for the number 10 in the idiots theory or the number 66 in the discarded votes theory?
> 
> Just saying that 10% voted in all the races doesn't tell the whole story, but it seems likely (although Liberty1789 claims to have data disproving this) that some unmotivated or uninformed voters would just vote for their candidate and ignore all the other races on the ballot.  Having 10% dutiful idiots voting in every race would give Ron Paul a huge boost, but Santorum and the others a much smaller boost that might be offset by lazy or uninformed voters.  Newt and Mitt did have some delegate races with an excess of votes, and especially for Newt ballot placement probably explains a lot of that.  The point is that the "10% were idiots" theory makes the largest and most interesting anomaly go away, and other voting patterns that aren't unreasonable would easily get us the rest of the way.    Combining Ockham's razor and the observation that lots of voters are stupid, I think this is the theory to beat.


"The point is that the "10% were idiots" theory makes the largest and most interesting anomaly go away, and other voting patterns that aren't unreasonable would easily get us the rest of the way. Combining Ockham's razor and the observation that lots of voters are stupid, I think this is the theory to beat."

Right.  Exactly.

----------


## affa

> Okay, the Alabama 2008 ballot looked just as ridiculous.
> http://www.co.baldwin.al.us/uploads/...ballot_Rep.pdf
> 
> So, did we have the same problem that year?


can anyone find 2008 results?

----------


## parocks

> No, that's not the entire question.  Any answer must also be able to be applied to other candidates with similiar results.  That is, you can't assume 10% just voted for Ron Paul delegates, even though his were halfway down the second row.  You need to apply this 10% to, at the very least, all candidates on the first page.  And when you do that, the 10% solution isn't as 'clean' as you want it to be.
> 
> If it were that simple 'oh, 10% of people just idiotically voted for Ron Paul', then we'd be able to explain absolutely -any- anomaly that way.  OH! 57% of people just randomly voted for Ron Paul.



No, we didn't set out to answer the question about the other candidates.

We set out to answer the question about Ron Paul.

I'm in agreement with dsm here.

And don't forget, this matter was settled over 2 weeks ago.  I initially thought it was fraud and I personally, looked at the data, trying to determine what happened.  I figured out that the truth of the matter would likely be found in the very rare precincts where Ron Paul did well.  I guessed where they might be - guessed near University of Alabama, was right - and noticed that Ron Paul's numbers looked normal in those cases.  I'm not sure who came up with "stupid voters" first.  But this has all been settled over 2 weeks ago.

----------


## parocks

> I don't know about that assumption.  I've clerked a lot of elections and seen all kinds of voters.  With a ballot that complex, there will be more voter errors than with a simple ballot just by the ballot design.  And there will always be a few voters who don't see well, are tired, etc. that will make mistakes.  10% spoiled ballots is awfully high.  
> 
> If the party rules are that you can't "mix and match", why isn't every mixed ballot thrown out as invalid?


"If the party rules are that you can't "mix and match", why isn't every mixed ballot thrown out as invalid?"

That's what this is about.

----------


## parocks

> 2 things
> 
> 1) Please tell me you are not a professional analyst.  I hate to think how many astronauts would be dead by now if the guys at NASA said, "yeah, that looks about right; press the launch button"
> 
> 2) this is more complex than other states we've seen but it does fit a certain pattern.


I fixed the problem.  I did this 2 weeks ago.  There is no reason (except to waste time) to figure out the best numbers.  It isn't exactly 10%.  And there is more than one variable.

But it's clear, because the RON PAUL numbers were so quickly cleaned up, that other numbers could be cleaned up.  

This was done quickly - but most importantly - 2 weeks ago, right after the election.

Random voters randomly voting resulted in the outcomes we see.  Nothing more than that.  

This should go to hot topics.

----------


## parocks

> That doesn't remotely explain what we're seeing.
> 
> You're telling me that voters just 'voting randomly' is supposed to explain this?


YA! You got it.  A big chunk of the voters overvoting.  Plus random.  I'll give you the categories again.

X% - didn't vote for any delegates
 X% - voted delegates / right candidate / partial
 X% - voted delegates / right candidate / full
 X% - voted delegates / right and wrong candidates / full
 X% - voted delegates / right and wrong candidates / partial
 X% - voted delegates / wrong candidate / partial
 X% - voted delegates / wrong candidate / full

I also would like to add the "top to bottom overage factor".  Because Gingrich was at the top - he would have a higher percentage of overvotes than Santorum.  Paul and Romney would be in the middle.

With the top to bottom overage factor, you can normalize the various candidates.  

So yeah,  that should take care of it.

----------


## BIG_J

I find it odd that we are Re-hashing 2008 again. Put your energy into the delegate process or dedicate the "$5.50" an hour to a donation for Ron Paul or favorite liberty candidate. 

Certain "Campaigns" Like to latch onto the successful liberty movement. One of them being the voter fraud camp. They just want people to sign up for "Their" cause. Kind of like all the emails from "Dick Army..." DOUCHE of the century...

----------


## drummergirl

> I find it odd that we are Re-hashing 2008 again. Put your energy into the delegate process or dedicate the "$5.50" an hour to a donation for Ron Paul or favorite liberty candidate.


Well, frankly, the integrity of the voting process and the peaceful transfer of power this country has enjoyed for over 200 years is so important to me that the words to describe that level just fail me.

Let me paint a realistic worst case scenario for those of you who would like to sweep all the voter fraud under the rug.

By whatever means are necessary, Romney gets the nomination (worse things have happened; this in itself would not be the end of the world).  The campaign is close going into November; Romney and Obama are neck and neck in several key swing states.  Votes in those key states are "flipped" enough to give Romney the win on election night.  Democrats start looking at the data, and begin complaining of vote fraud AFTER the election; investigative reporters start talking about how GOP insiders have known since early in the primary process about allegations of vote flipping, the history in Louisiana, etc.  Pressure is put on electors to change their votes to Obama because of all the well documented fraud.  Political protests begin.  The electoral college votes for Romney and SCOTUS does not interfere.  Will Obama hand over the reins if he KNOWS the election was a scam?  Will there be riots?  Could it get any uglier?

So you can say, "oh please bury in hot topics" or, "who cares what serious analysis says?", but the truth remains the truth.  Pithy comments won't change that.  I know you don't like doing the math.  Einstein said, "If you think you've got math problems, you should see mine." Even he didn't like doing the math.  It's important; it matters; so don't be sloppy.

----------


## affa

> YA! You got it.  A big chunk of the voters overvoting.  Plus random.  I'll give you the categories again.
> 
> X% - didn't vote for any delegates
>  X% - voted delegates / right candidate / partial
>  X% - voted delegates / right candidate / full
>  X% - voted delegates / right and wrong candidates / full
>  X% - voted delegates / right and wrong candidates / partial
>  X% - voted delegates / wrong candidate / partial
>  X% - voted delegates / wrong candidate / full
> ...


Except you're expecting everything to exist in a vacuum, and it doesn't.    You can't seriously expect any significant number of people, say, voted for Gingrich, but skipped over Gingrich delegates, and voted for Paul and Romney delegates.   Or, for example, a Romney voter just voted for Paul and Romney delegates.  Or a Santorum voter only voted for Romney delegates.

Rather, you need to look at the ballot and figure out rational 'mistakes'.
Now, doing that, I can accept that a fraction of people:
1) Correctly voted
2) Voted 'down the line' for delegates for all candidates
3) Accidentally voted for a Gingrich delegate or two before realizing their mistake (due to his delegate's placement not only as first on list, but at top of second column)
4) Didn't vote for Santorum delegates because they didn't flip the ballot over.
5) Didn't vote for any delegates (note: Liberty has said this did not happen often; waiting on him for further info)
6) Some level of voter fatigue, however, Liberty has shown that voter fatigue did not seem to adversely affect Romney or Paul.

I can not, however, accept that a significant number (read: any) of Gingrich, Romney, or Santorum voters, say, voted for only Paul delegates.   The ballot simply isn't set up that way to make that mistake. 

You're asking me to accept that a sizable amount of people effectively drew happy faces on their ballots and that's not reasonable.  People generally take voting seriously, and while mistakes can certainly be made, the mistakes will mirror the oddities of ballot design.

Also of note - previous elections and primaries used this same exact ballot design; still trying to see if we have any of the same errors, but given this is the first time it seems to have been brought, up, it seems like this might be the first time voters suddenly forgot how to vote.

I realize you love to keep saying 'you' resolved this already, and you very well may have to your own level of satisfaction, but if your 'level of satisfaction' is satisfied by 'random voting'... well, let's just say you didn't resolve anything to my level of satisfaction.

And confining 'mistakes' to those we can consider reasonable based on the ballot configuration, it's far harder to justify the numbers.   

I mean, obviously, if you're willing to just go '10% extra voted for RP', 'X%' forgot to vote for Santorum, 'Y% voted for Gingrich by accident', and Romney voters do no wrong, you explain the problem away.  But that's not a real explanation. It's just conjecture.  

Again, I'm willing to accept a significant level of voter error due to the ballot.

But 'down the line voters', based on Ron Paul's excess votes, should have created over 30k 'bonus votes' for each of the other candidates.  However, this is not what seems to have happened, which means it's not an open and shut case no matter how many times you insist it is.

----------


## parocks

> Except you're expecting everything to exist in a vacuum, and it doesn't.    You can't seriously expect any significant number of people, say, voted for Gingrich, then skipped over Gingrich delegates, voted for Paul delegates, then skipped over the rest.   Or, for example, a Romney voter just voted for Paul and Romney delegates.  Etc.
> 
> Now, I can accept that a fraction of people:
> 1) Correctly voted
> 2) Voted 'down the line' for all candidates
> 3) Accidentally voted for a Gingrich delegate or two before realizing their mistake (due to his delegate's placement not only as first on list, but at top of second column)
> 4) Didn't vote for Santorum delegates because they didn't flip the ballot over.
> 5) Didn't vote for any delegates (note: Liberty has said this did not happen often; waiting on him for further info)
> 
> ...


We should take into consideration the fact that Gingrich was first, Paul was 2nd, Romney 3rd, Santorum 4th.  That's the top to bottom factor I'm talking about.
Because Gingrich was at the top, he got more votes, Santorum got less, because he was at the bottom.  So, you determine the factor, the multiplier, and multiply it by the delegate vote, or the guestimated vote.




Very many people did not vote right.  And they didn't vote wrong in identical ways.

Many people seemed to pick races to vote in at random.  Perhaps they scrolled down the list looking to vote for names of people they knew.  

We don't really have to worry too much about that.

There was a lot of random people voting wrong in random ways.

If you can figure out the truth of that statement, the relevance of that statement, the importance of that statement, you'll start to understand how things work in the real world.  

In the "flipping" threads, no one has really tried to understand that Romney does really really well in fast growing (therefore large) upscale suburbs of the major cities.

If you don't realize that different people do different things, and that not everybody behaves in ways that you think they do, you completely miss, or are blind to, what is actually happening.

In Alabama, many, many people thought that the directions said "do whatever you want".  And they did.

----------


## parocks

> Except you're expecting everything to exist in a vacuum, and it doesn't.    You can't seriously expect any significant number of people, say, voted for Gingrich, but skipped over Gingrich delegates, and voted for Paul and Romney delegates.   Or, for example, a Romney voter just voted for Paul and Romney delegates.  Or a Santorum voter only voted for Romney delegates.
> 
> Rather, you need to look at the ballot and figure out rational 'mistakes'.
> Now, doing that, I can accept that a fraction of people:
> 1) Correctly voted
> 2) Voted 'down the line' for delegates for all candidates
> 3) Accidentally voted for a Gingrich delegate or two before realizing their mistake (due to his delegate's placement not only as first on list, but at top of second column)
> 4) Didn't vote for Santorum delegates because they didn't flip the ballot over.
> 5) Didn't vote for any delegates (note: Liberty has said this did not happen often; waiting on him for further info)
> ...



You have 5 choices there, and you're clearly missing one.

Did you notice that the first delegate election for a candidate has the most votes in it?  And the the last delegate election for a candidate has the fewest votes in it?

How can you explain that?

Why, people got bored and stopped voting in those delegate elections.

There's #6 for you.

There are many many permutations.  More than you can figure out.

----------


## parocks

No, it's quite easy.

Group 1) - started filling out all, and then, didn't realize their mistake, simply got bored.  That's why Gingrich got more than Santorum.  He was the top guy on the ballot.  People started at the top.  This was a big group.

Group 2) - started filling out the right candidates delegates.  Got bored.  Stopped. Another big group.

Group 3) - filled out all.  another big group.

Group 4) - filled out none.  another big group.

Group 5) - filled out all the delegates for the right candidate.  another big group, but not as big as you think it is.

You seem to think that things that you don't understand = fraud.  But the world is just more complicated than you feel like recognizing.

You know, there were 88 year old women there voting.  Do you think they have the kind of eyesight you have?  Do you realize that half the voters are of below average intelligence?  Do you realize that some people are in a hurry, and see a bunch of ovals, and they figured out to pick one of 2, and scroll down that listreal quick, filling in whatever ovals they feel like.   

There was a lot of all of that.  And all of those people, doing all of those different things, gives us our result.

----------


## parocks

http://results.enr.clarityelections....n/reports.html

Affa - Let's look at some real data. U of A Student Rec

Let's look at this one precinct.  In one Romney delegate race, there were 48 votes cast.  In another Romney delegate race, there were 32 votes cast.

That's fully 1/3 of the total, 16, who voted in at least one Romney race, but not all.

33% voted in a way that you can't explain.   Perhaps you should realize that you're imagination, your ability to figure out what people are doing, is limited.  

Just because YOU CAN"T UNDERSTAND, doesn't mean there's fraud.

Oh, there probably is fraud.  But you have to be pretty kinda smart to figure it out, and you can't even realize that this one isn't really all that tricky to figure out.

Lots of people voted in ways that you can't imagine, even when they're explained to you.

----------


## parocks

Here's some data from the Mary Phelps Center.

Ron Paul didn't do well here, less than 4%.  That means there were overages in the delegate vote.

Let's see how many people, of the 1105, partially voted.  The difference between the most and least popular delegate races for each candidate.
Or, the "range"

Total pres votes - 1105
Gingrich - range - 270 - 211 (59 people partial)
Paul - range 106 - 76 (30 people partial)
Romney - range 367 - 270 (97 people partial)
Santorum - range 238 - 207 (31 people partial)

If you add all those up you get 217 partials of 1105 total.  That's around 20% right there.

Lots and lots of different behaviors.

Your theories do not account at all for this huge 20% variation.

In this particular precinct, around 9% partially voted for Romney delegates

97 of 1105

there were huge partials.  It might be accurate to say that more people voted "wrong" (didn't complete the delegate votes for their candidate) than voted right.

You can see a big drop off from delegate election 1 to delegate election 2.

In Romneys case, more than half of his partial 53 of 97 was people who only voted in the first delegate race.  So, right there, about 5% of the total voters voted in Romney's first delegate race, but not his second delegate race.  

How do we explain that?  5% found the candidates name, looked at the one box, checked the name they wanted, and didn't go any further.  Those might've been "people in a hurry".  5 whole percent, just Romney voters in a hurry, not voting for all the delegates.

See how we can solve these problems so quickly.  

Santorum lost 11% of his from 1st to 2nd.
Ron Paul lost 6% of his from 1st to 2nd.
Gingrich lost 10% of his from 1st to 2nd.

About 10%, are busy.

24 + 6 + 53 + 27 = 110 / 1105

It's also the candidates.  The choices on the ballots also matter some.
We can assume that there will be fewer and fewer votes, as people get bored.

This is not always the case.  Look for races that are farther down the list that have more votes than races above.
Why would this be?  More compelling candidates.  Voters who are voting based on some sort of impulse created by the candidate or the candidates
name.  Romney had a 315 vote delegate election after a 287.  That's 28 impulsers, close to 3%.

Ron Paul had a 78 after a 76. 2 impulsers

Gingrich had a 237 after a 229 8 impulsers.

----------


## Liberty1789

> Voters voted differently.  Some voted down the line.  Some voted not at all.  Some voted randomly.
> 
> X% - didn't vote for any delegates
>  X% - voted delegates / right candidate / partial
>  X% - voted delegates / right candidate / full
>  X% - voted delegates / right and wrong candidates / full
>  X% - voted delegates / right and wrong candidates / partial
> X% - voted delegates / wrong candidate / partial
>  X% - voted delegates / wrong candidate / full
> ...


Hmm.... You are not very familiar with statistics, parocks, are you? It's okay: few people are. Absolutely nothing to be embarrassed about, but my advice would be to adjust the obscurantist rhethoric accordingly.

You ignore 2 BIG statistical facts when you claim unpredictability: (1) random errors tend to cancel themselves out (2) bigger errors are much less likely than smaller ones. So, in theory, we should get the same numbers of votes in the presidential preference ballot and in the delegate race, but in reality we don't, as, among other factors, all the errors that you mention above get into play.

So instead of getting the 1st, theoretical, chart below, we get the 2nd, actual, one:



You see, there is a method to errors' madness.

A statistician will immediately note something critical: the average does not seem to have shifted and the most frequent observation, (called the mode) has not moved and the deviations remain nicely centered around it. 1 remains the most frequent data.

So what we need to focus on is rational, realistic factors, that could shift hugely the mode of 1 candidate whilst leaving the 3 other untouched, something truly unique to Paul, as evidenced in the chart below. And that is a tall order.



By the way, if 10% of the voters had voted for all delegates, the 4 bell curves above would have shifted to the left. Only 1 did. Mathematical proof that parocks' debunk is kaput.

----------


## The Man

Hey Liberty1789, can you detemine if a correlation exists between the ratio of votes for candidate/ 1st delegate votes to number of voters per precinct, in particular, for Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum? Specifically if you arrange the precincts in ascending order with respect to # of voters, how does this ratio look for the smallest precincts that represent the first 90k votes compared to the larger precincts?

----------


## Liberty1789

> Hey Liberty1789, can you detemine if a correlation exists between the ratio of votes for candidate/ 1st delegate votes to number of voters per precinct


Interesting. Done it for Gingrich: R^2=0.01 and Paul: R^2=0.03 so no apparent correlation between relative delegate vote discrepancy and precinct size.

----------


## dsw

> So what we need to focus on is rational, realistic factors, that could shift hugely the mode of 1 candidate whilst leaving the 3 other untouched, something truly unique to Paul, as evidenced in the chart below. And that is a tall order.


If 10% (or 5% or 8% or any significant percentage) of voters had voted for all delegates, that would disproportionately affect the mode for Paul, correct?  Simply because Ron Paul got such a smaller percentage of the preference vote.  A 10% idiot rate added to Ron Paul's 5% (assuming no overlap, obviously) triples the potential number of votes in his delegate races.  For Santorum, it's a much smaller factor, especially if you assume that voting for Santorum and not understanding the directions are not independent variables.  

So as a start, can we agree that this is a potential factor that we need to consider very carefully as possibly *part* of the explanation?  It's the only thing I've seen suggested that could affect Paul's delegate race percentage disproportionately more than it would affect the other candidates. 




> By the way, if 10% of the voters had voted for all delegates, the 4 bell curves above would have shifted to the left. Only 1 did. Mathematical proof that parocks' debunk is kaput.


Now, I'm just a simple old retired engineer, and I don't have all the sophisticated statistical learning you've got.  And thanks for reminding us that there's no shame in this!

But your conclusion is only a mathematical proof that parocks is valid only if you assume that there are no other factors involved besides that hypothetical 10% idiot rate.  Can you show your work on that step of the proof, the part where you show that there are no other factors other than the hypothetical 10% idiot rate that could affect the other three candidates?  

BTW, I read back over the recent messages here and didn't see an explanation for the claim that only 27 out of over 600,000 voters marked a vote in the presidential preference poll and didn't vote in any delegate races.  Where did that data come from?  It wouldn't refute it entirely but it would take some of the wind out of the sails of parocks's explanation.

----------


## affa

> In the "flipping" threads, no one has really tried to understand that Romney does really really well in fast growing (therefore large) upscale suburbs of the major cities.


Because that's not what we're witnessing in that thread, at all.

And yes, we've spent tens of hours studying just that, and debunked it as an explanation.

----------


## affa

> You have 5 choices there, and you're clearly missing one.
> 
> Did you notice that the first delegate election for a candidate has the most votes in it?  And the the last delegate election for a candidate has the fewest votes in it?
> 
> How can you explain that?
> 
> Why, people got bored and stopped voting in those delegate elections.
> 
> There's #6 for you.
> ...


Um.  See #3, #4, and #6.  I didn't 'miss' it, I just broke it up into groups.  It looks like you responded before I added #6, but #3 and #4 are the lion's share of your suggested group.

1) Correctly voted
2) Voted 'down the line' for delegates for all candidates
3) Accidentally voted for a Gingrich delegate or two before realizing their mistake (due to his delegate's placement not only as first on list, but at top of second column)
4) Didn't vote for Santorum delegates because they didn't flip the ballot over.
5) Didn't vote for any delegates (note: Liberty has said this did not happen often; waiting on him for further info)
6) Some level of voter fatigue, however, Liberty has shown that voter fatigue did not seem to adversely affect Romney or Paul.

Your explanation DOES 'make sense'.  Until you look at the numbers, at which point it does not hold up well.  If you were right, Gingrich's numbers should have skyrocketed and Romney should be lower to account for RP's position.   Romney, certainly, should have more voters.

----------


## affa

Has anyone found 2008 results yet?  Same ballot configuration.  Do we see the same oddity?

----------


## dsw

> Has anyone found 2008 results yet?  Same ballot configuration.  Do we see the same oddity?


I could only find this:
http://www.sos.state.al.us/elections...nInfo2008.aspx
which doesn't have (as far as I could find) details about the delegate races.

----------


## Liberty1789

> If 10% (or 5% or 8% or any significant percentage) of voters had voted for all delegates, that would disproportionately affect the mode for Paul, correct?


Correct.





> For Santorum, it's a much smaller factor.


If you round up the 3 big guys at 200k votes each, you see that a 10% idiocy vote rate would shift the mode down by a good 20%. Did not happen for any of them.




> So as a start, can we agree that this is a potential factor that we need to consider very carefully as possibly *part* of the explanation?


Agreed and thanks to parocks for the original good idea. But I do not see how it is compatible with unmoved mode, so I see it as fully debunked for now.





> But your conclusion is only a mathematical proof that parocks is valid only if you assume that there are no other factors involved besides that hypothetical 10% idiot rate.  Can you show your work on that step of the proof, the part where you show that there are no other factors other than the hypothetical 10% idiot rate that could affect the other three candidates?


Woah. Hold your horses. A 10% idiot rate fills the 50k gap for Paul. It opens up a 40k+ gap for Romney and one for Santorum, so you end up with more gaps to explain, not less, and no justification provided to date. The 10% idiot rate displaces the modes. Does not fit the data. So instead of explaining why 1 mode moved, you need to explain why 3 did not, alleging impeccable compensation from other factors, totally unidentified to date, not affecting Paul, but only the 3 others.

The data shows that the position on the ballot has an impact on the behavior of 10-20% of the voters. It helps Gingrich's delegate vote count, is neutral to Romney, is detrimental to Santorum. It is all logical. It fits impeccably the skew of the bell curves of the 3 candidates. Paul's characteristics should be between Gingrich and Romney, but they are in total violation of that.

If for any factor put forward that does not fit the data, one claims an unknown offsetting factor that brings it all back in line, then fine, I cannot disprove anything. Ockham shaking his head in his grave though. Lol.





> BTW, I read back over the recent messages here and didn't see an explanation for the claim that only 27 out of over 600,000 voters marked a vote in the presidential preference poll.


Sorry, I have to go back, not sure what you mean (or what I meant) as I have only precinct data.

----------


## dsw

> Your explanation DOES 'make sense'. Until you look at the numbers, at which point it does not hold up well.


What numbers are you looking at to reach that conclusion?  Even if Liberty is right that only 27 out of over 600k voters marked none of the delegate races, what about the ones who marked just a few Newt races then quit?  The difference between Newt's first delegate race and his third is about 30k votes.  And when you get to his third delegate race we're down to a number very close to his preference vote.  Some of those 30k who started out voting for Newt's delegates and then stopped may have gone on to find the section of races for their own candidate, some may have quit right there.    And there are other effects to take into account too.  What is it that you're finding compelling about the analysis so far?

----------


## drummergirl

> Here's some data from the Mary Phelps Center.
> 
> Ron Paul didn't do well here, less than 4%.  That means there were overages in the delegate vote.
> 
> Let's see how many people, of the 1105, partially voted.  The difference between the most and least popular delegate races for each candidate.
> Or, the "range"
> 
> Total pres votes - 1105
> Gingrich - range - 270 - 211 (59 people partial)
> ...


I think it is far more likely that after starting voting for the delegates, that voters reread the directions, realized they did not need to vote in these races in order to vote for president (because it's always difficult to vote when you don't even know the names of the people on the ballot), and stopped voting for delegates.

Your theory that so many voters are stupid seems unlikely (not to mention insulting to the people of Alabama).  In order to vote, you have to 1) register, 2) know when the election is 3) care enough about the outcome to go out of your way for a half an hour 4) know where your polling place is 5) actually get yourself to the polling place on election day.

In my experience, the voters that actually turn out to vote in primaries are a more committed group than we see in the general election.

Your premise that 20% voted completely wrong (10% voting in all delegate races, 10% voting in none) seems way too high.

----------


## Liberty1789

> BTW, I read back over the recent messages here and didn't see an explanation for the claim that only 27 out of over 600,000 voters marked a vote in the presidential preference poll and didn't vote in any delegate races.  Where did that data come from?  It wouldn't refute it entirely but it would take some of the wind out of the sails of parocks's explanation.


Ok I now see what you are referring to. This is what I wrote:

Out of 1,864 precincts, number of occurences with presidential preference vote and no delegate vote:

Gingrich
7

Paul
0

Romney
11

Santorum
9



I am talking precincts, not voters. "Out of 1,864 precincts". Sorry it was not clearer. I have counted, for each candidate separately, the number of precincts where you have at least 1 presidential preference vote and no delegate vote. I use it as a detector that it is not happening frequently. It would show in the low vote count precincts otherwise.

----------


## dsw

> A 10% idiot rate fills the 50k gap for Paul. It opens up a 40k+ gap for Romney and one for Santorum, so you end up with more gaps to explain, not less, and no justification provided to date. The 10% idiot rate displaces the modes. Does not fit the data. So instead of explaining why 1 mode moved, you need to explain why 3 did not, alleging impeccable compensation from other factors, totally unidentified to date, not affecting Paul, but only the 3 others. 
> 
> [...]
> 
> If for any factor put forward that does not fit the data, one claims an unknown offsetting factor that brings it all back in line, then fine, I cannot disprove anything. Ockham shaking his head in his grave though. Lol.


But we know that there are multiple effects at work here, so rejecting the hypothesis without taking those multiple effects into account isn't what Ockham's razor would tell you to do.  I don't see why you think you can analyze that one effect in isolation.  After all, it only represents (in the hypothesis) 10% of the vote.  To take that in isolation, and treat the other 90% of the vote as if it were not skewed in any way, falls short of the "mathematical proof" you're claiming.   If debunking were that easy there wouldn't be thousands of posts in the algorithm flipping threads.  

You had a table that I (and others) had understood to be showing that only 27 people didn't mark any delegate races.  I'm not sure what that meant now if you're saying it came from precinct data.  If that was a misunderstanding of what you posted, and it's reasonable to assume that a significant percentage of voters would not be motivated enough to find the delegate races, then (assuming Ron Paul's supporter will tend to be better informed and more motivated) isn't that a valid compensating factor?


A 10% idiot rate fills a 50k gap for Paul and opens up a 40k gap for Santorum.  But to put it another way, a 10% idiot rate erases a 200% surplus for Paul and replaces it with a 30% surplus for Santorum.   But that's only a 30% surplus if we assume that 91% of Santorum's supporters found their way to the back of the ballot, to vote in the first of Santorum's delegate races.  Are we to take it for granted that Santorum's supporters showed that level of diligence and motivation?

----------


## The Man

Someone please post the link to the delegates data in Alabama.

----------


## dsw

> Ok I now see what you are referring to. This is what I wrote:
> 
> Out of 1,864 precincts, number of occurences with presidential preference vote and no delegate vote:
> 
> Gingrich
> 7
> 
> Paul
> 0
> ...


So in a small number of cases, there were delegate races with zero votes, corresponding to candidates with non-zero votes?  

Sorry, I don't get it.   Let's say 20% of Santorum voters didn't vote for Santorum delegates.  A precinct that shows non-zero votes for Santorum in the preference race, but zero for Santorum in some delegate race, should be rare.  If we looked at precincts with only five Santorum votes, for example, the odds of zero votes in a  Santorum delegate race would be  .2^5 or .003%.  I don't know how large those 9 precincts with Santorum votes but no delegate votes were, but they wouldn't have to be very large in order for that to be an argument that a significant percentage of Santorum voters didn't vote in Santorum delegate races.

What am I misunderstanding?

----------


## dsw

> Someone please post the link to the delegates data in Alabama.


Is this what you're looking for?
http://results.enr.clarityelections....n/summary.html
You can click on the "Results by County" tab at the top, and from there get to the precinct data.

----------


## Liberty1789

> But we know that there are multiple effects at work here, so rejecting the hypothesis without taking those multiple effects into account isn't what Ockham's razor would tell you to do.  I don't see why you think you can analyze that one effect in isolation.  After all, it only represents (in the hypothesis) 10% of the vote.  To take that in isolation, and treat the other 90% of the vote as if it were not skewed in any way, falls short of the "mathematical proof" you're claiming.   If debunking were that easy there wouldn't be thousands of posts in the algorithm flipping threads.


Thank you for this: it allows me to understand where we do not connect (and probably where parocks is coming from).

You think that parocks' explanation has a lot of merit because it reduces the numbers in the yellow cells below drastically, and therefore there is much less to explain if you accept it.



And, as you would have guessed by now, I am looking at the green cells, thinking that you are out of your mind as you only have made the discrepancy twice bigger.

Is that it?

----------


## affa

> What numbers are you looking at to reach that conclusion?  Even if Liberty is right that only 27 out of over 600k voters marked none of the delegate races, what about the ones who marked just a few Newt races then quit?  The difference between Newt's first delegate race and his third is about 30k votes.  And when you get to his third delegate race we're down to a number very close to his preference vote.  Some of those 30k who started out voting for Newt's delegates and then stopped may have gone on to find the section of races for their own candidate, some may have quit right there.    And there are other effects to take into account too.  What is it that you're finding compelling about the analysis so far?


I'm referring to this post:




> Paul Over Vote	53702		
> 
> If we blame 'down the line' voters, and assign misvoters evenly to all other candidates			
> 	        Votes-----Percent of Votes-----Bad 'Down the line' Voters
> Gingrich	177030-----29.26%-----15712
> Romney	176065-----29.10%-----15626
> Santorum	208255-----34.42%-----18483
> Others	13512-----2.23%-----1199
> 
> ...



You want me to accept 'down the line' voters explain Paul's out of whack numbers.  Fine.   But if so, we should see the others benefit to some degree.   Gingrich especially, since if we're assuming mis-voters, he'd get plenty of extra delegate votes since he's first on the list and first in the second column.

But he does not get the amount we'd expect him to get based on Ron Paul's 'down the line' voter surge.
Nor does Romney (who doesn't get any)
Nor does Santorum.

Now, lets forget about Santorum, and decide his missing delegate votes (50k total -- 20k to get up to snuff, 32k+ of 'bonus votes) are completely attributable to 10% his supporters not turning over the ballot, and ALL of of the 'down the line' voters not turning over the ballot.  Fine.  

We still need to explain Gingrich, who did not get his share of 'down the line voters'.   And he was supposed to get 'first on list' voters too!  So he's down from what we'd expect.

And Romney? He didn't get any 'bonus' voters.   

So the 'down the line' theory really only explains Paul well.  It falls apart both before and after that. It barely, sort of explains Gingrich, if we ignore that he didn't get nearly enough bonus votes, and that some of the bonus votes he's supposed to be getting aren't just from 'down the line voters', but also 'first on the list voters'.   It doesn't explain Romney at all.   And it only explains Santorum if we exclude him entirely since he was on page 2 of the ballot.

If we want to blame 53k+ votes for Ron Paul on down the line votes, Gingrich should be up at least 34k, but isn't, and Romney should be up some number too.  Even if 'fatigue' lost some of his expected 34k+ bonus votes, he should have gotten some, correct?  But this 'down the line' theory doesn't bare scrutiny -- the explanation only works if we magically assume misvoters misvoted perfectly for Ron Paul... often skipping Gingrich's delegates, and stopping as soon as they misvoted  for Paul's.

Again, I'm still not convinced this is fraud.  I absolutely agree the ballot is confusing.   But we need to look at the 'confusing' ballot, and base our assumptions on likely mistakes (extra votes for Gingrich, not turning ballot over hurting Santorum, vote fatigue, etc) and not just throw our hands up in the air and accept that 'random voting' explains this.

And if we come up with a possible reason, we actually need to run the numbers to see if it makes sense, and not just say it does.   And when I run the numbers, I see that the 'down the line' voter theory does not explain any candidate well other than Paul.

----------


## Liberty1789

> Is this what you're looking for?
> http://results.enr.clarityelections....n/summary.html
> You can click on the "Results by County" tab at the top, and from there get to the precinct data.


Trust me, you do not want to go thru it manually. Here is the raw data on a silver tray:

http://www.filedropper.com/alabamadelegateraces

----------


## The Man

Thanks Liberty1789!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## The Man

> Trust me, you do not want to go thru it manually. Here is the raw data on a silver tray:
> 
> http://www.filedropper.com/alabamadelegateraces


Where are Santorum's delegates 1 thru 6? Don't see 'em

----------


## Liberty1789

> Where are Santorum's delegates 1 thru 6? Don't see 'em


Not contested (only one Santorum volunteer!) therefore not on ballot.

----------


## The Man

Ha Ha. Of course!

----------


## affa

dsw - to put it plainly, based on the math I've already shown, the 'down the line voter' theory leaves us with this to explain:

Amount each Candidate is off (actual)
Gingrich 27719
Paul 53702
Romney 297
Santorum -19172

Assuming 'Down the Line' voters explain Paul's 53,702 votes, and applying those Down the Line Voters (DLVs) proportionately to other candidates, we now need to explain these numbers:
Gingrich			
34109 DLVs - 27719 = now short 6390
Paul 
53702 DLVs - 53702 = 0  (explained)
Romney			
34195 DLVs - 297 = now short 33898
Santorum			
31338 DLVs - (-) 19172 = now short 50510

Parocks suggests this is because of ballot placement.

So... fine.  if 9% of Santorum voters failed to flip the ballot over and vote for delegates, AND not one 'down the line' voter ever turned the ballot over and voted Santorum, then we've 'explained away' his 50k.   A bit heavy handed, but sure.  Due to his ballot placement, I'm ready to ignore Santorum's results as a fluke.

Gingrich.  Well, he's supposed to get even more 'bonus votes' because he should:
a) get 'bonus' down the line voters before fatigue sets in
b) get 'accidental' voters who realize their mistake then vote for their guy's delegates.
But... he's actually 'short' 6k+ votes from the 'down the line' theory when put to paper, when, according to the theory's precepts, he should be 'up' votes based on ballot placement.
But okay. Even though this doesn't fit the theory, I guess it's 'close enough', right? Sort of? Even though it flys in the face of voter fatigue and ballot placement, let's ignore Gingrich too.

Romney -- even assuming a dropoff of 50% from Paul's down the line voters, he should still get at least 15k 'bonus voters'.  But he doesn't get any.  

And this is why the 'down the line' theory doesn't work for me.  Running the numbers, it just doesn't explain anyone well but Paul.  Romney isn't explained at all - in fact, he's thrown out of whack by it.  A over the top explanation does explain Santorum.  And Gingrich is wrong, but close enough to forgive. 

Again, I don't know that fraud caused this.  I'm just saying Parock's explanation (which he doesn't actually run numbers on) doesn't, when you actually do run the numbers.  It does 'make sense', and it does 'seem to fit at first glance', but it doesn't when you put pen to paper and work it out.  Gingrich doesn't benefit enough, Romney at all, and Santorum's just a massive fluke.

----------


## dsw

> Thank you for this: it allows me to understand where we do not connect (and probably where parocks is coming from).
> 
> You think that parocks' explanation has a lot of merit because it reduces the numbers in the yellow cells below drastically, and therefore there is much less to explain if you accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> And, as you would have guessed by now, I am looking at the green cells, thinking that you are out of your mind as you only have made the discrepancy twice bigger.
> 
> Is that it?


Looking at just the green cells or just the yellow cells is way too simplistic.  But if there's any factor that has a large effect then the easiest way to see it would be by looking at the percentages, especially when the whole point is that it affects one candidate disproportionately.    But I still wouldn't just look at the overall average.  (Actually I can't figure out where the yellow numbers came from.  And the green seem to be the sum of the columns, but that isn't helpful is it?  They could sum to zero, if some were positive and some negative, while having huge anomalies.)

What stands out to me in column (9), ignoring the green/yellow row entirely, is that there's a huge anomaly, namely Ron Paul with 178% too many delegate race votes.  We *know* that the idiot rate, no matter what it is, is not the only thing skewing the results.  But taking the idiot rate into account (at 10%, just as a starting point) gives us column (8) which now no longer has the huge anomaly.  Now when I look at column (8) what matters is they're all in a smaller range so *potentially* explained by some secondary effect.  And again, we *know* that the idiot rate isn't the only thing skewing the results.  

One thing I notice about column (8) is that the remaining discrepancy is increasing with ballot order.  Which makes sense if you've got apathetic/uninformed voters who voted in the preference race and didn't bother with the delegate races, offset in Newt's case by the advantage of being first and in Paul's case by the intelligence and motivation of his supporters.

----------


## Liberty1789

> Actually I can't figure out where the yellow numbers came from.


My bad. It is the standard deviation of the column above.

----------


## dsw

> My bad. It is the standard deviation of the column above.


Then, again, you could have a very small standard deviation with huge anomalies, so as with the green values it doesn't seem like a useful metric for figuring out whether the anomalies have been explained.

----------


## Liberty1789

> So in a small number of cases, there were delegate races with zero votes, corresponding to candidates with non-zero votes?  
> 
> Sorry, I don't get it.   Let's say 20% of Santorum voters didn't vote for Santorum delegates.  A precinct that shows non-zero votes for Santorum in the preference race, but zero for Santorum in some delegate race, should be rare.  If we looked at precincts with only five Santorum votes, for example, the odds of zero votes in a  Santorum delegate race would be  .2^5 or .003%.  I don't know how large those 9 precincts with Santorum votes but no delegate votes were, but they wouldn't have to be very large in order for that to be an argument that a significant percentage of Santorum voters didn't vote in Santorum delegate races.
> 
> What am I misunderstanding?


They are independent voters indeed, which somehow I totally failed to take into account. So my point is utter crap, and you are right indeed.

----------


## drummergirl

We should have some interesting data coming in tonight; no doubt it will be interesting.

----------


## Liberty1789

The 50k people voting for all delegates have no voter fatigue. They would be a much larger proportion of Paul's delegate vote than Romney's. Paul and Romney voters exhibit the same fatigue pattern. Hypothesis again does not fit data.

----------


## drummergirl

> The 50k people voting for all delegates have no voter fatigue. They would be a much larger proportion of Paul's delegate vote than Romney's. Paul and Romney voters exhibit the same fatigue pattern. Hypothesis again does not fit data.


New hypothesis:

with some people not voting for any delegates (because you don't have to vote for specific delegates to indicate presidential preference), each candidate's expected mode would be a bit >1.0  say, 1.1 or so...

Since Romney's distribution is so pointed and right at 1.0, and Gingrich and Santorum are both wide distributions, apparently shifted slightly left.  And since Paul's mode is very low with the entire distribution shifted left...

Perhaps votes are flipped from Paul from the beginning, and then the flipper turns on for Gingrich and Santorum at a slower pace mid race.

----------


## dsw

> They are independent voters indeed, which somehow I totally failed to take into account. So my point is utter crap, and you are right indeed.


There's a precinct with 4 votes for Santorum, and zero delegate votes.  Santorum had an apparent 91% of his preference voters voting in the delegate races, but if that were really the case then the odds of that precinct having no delegate votes is 0.09^4 = not damn likely.  That's a small number but then there's another precinct with 2 votes, and several others with one vote.  It would be fancier statistics than I know how to do but isn't there some useful information here for estimating just how likely it was that voters didn't vote in delegate races for their own candidate?

----------


## dsw

> The 50k people voting for all delegates have no voter fatigue. They would be a much larger proportion of Paul's delegate vote than Romney's. Paul and Romney voters exhibit the same fatigue pattern. Hypothesis again does not fit data.


That's the best argument against it that I've seen.  I'd be curious to see what parocks makes of this.  For Paul and Romney to show the same rate of voter fatigue overall, including the idiot voters marching their way through every single race, Paul voters would actually have to have *greater* voter fatigue to compensate.  If it were the other way around, with Romney voters showing greater fatigue, it might make some sense.

----------


## Liberty1789

I wanted to plot the data differently, as dividing delegate vote by presidential preference vote (or the other way around) does not allow to capture the data when the denominator is zero. So here I switch to simply the difference between the votes cast in the 1st-listed delegate race and the presidential preference vote in an histogram of precinct frequency. I do it separately for each candidate and I do not include precincts where no vote was cast in either race.

First, Romney. Textbook bell curve. Mode at zero, little skew. Nothing bizarre.



Now Gingrich. First on the ballot list. Voter fatigue shows that he's got 15% more votes for his 1st delegate than for himself in the presidential vote, and that this bonus is gone by the 2nd-listed delegate as voters quickly realize their mistake. The impact of this simple, coherent and perfectly rational explanation is a modest shift in the mode to the right and a skew to the right (=delegate overvote). All logical.



Santorum is just as logical: the only guy with his delegate races only on the back of the ballot. Voter laziness means you lose delegate votes vs presidential votes and that is exactly what is happening: the bell curve is skewed to the left: delegate undervote.



And now Paul. We know his vote count violates voter laziness (people vote 3x more in the least important races), it violates the ballot order impact (he should fit between Gingrich moderate delegate overvote and Romney neutrality and doesn't, to say the least) and as can be seen below, his chart has lost the entirety of its left tail, the mode peak is just gone totally and the histogram does not look at all like a bell curve anyway. And nothing so far has come close to explain those difformities.

----------


## affa

Liberty -- odd request, if you have the time:

Assuming I'm understanding your chart correctly, can you, for all precincts where Gingrich's difference between Presidential and delegate total is 'positive' by more than 1 can you make an 'Adjusted Paul' column by subtracting Gingrich's extra delegate votes from Pauls?   If Gingrich is <=1 then just make Paul's adjusted number his actual number (I include 1 since we don't want to grab voters who mistakenly voted only for Gingrich's first delegate.

[NOTE - the goal here is to grab any possible 'down the line voter' for Gingrich and adjust Paul by that number. If I'm misunderstanding your chart, but you see a way to accomplish this, then if you see a superior method go with it.] 

This is meant to be a way of being super nice to Parock's theory -- it grabs every possible 'down the line voter' and takes them away from Paul, and then we can see how the 'Adjusted Paul' column charts/looks, and how much it 'fixes' Paul's results by. 

If i'm wording my request wrong, but you understand what i'm getting at, feel free to modify as you see fit.

----------


## parocks

> Because that's not what we're witnessing in that thread, at all.
> 
> And yes, we've spent tens of hours studying just that, and debunked it as an explanation.


No, I saw an explanation of "urban" and "rural".  You didn't correct for rate of growth of the precincts.  I saw the debunk thread, and it was better than your thread.  Explained more, better.  Demographic factors explained those things.

----------


## parocks

> I think it is far more likely that after starting voting for the delegates, that voters reread the directions, realized they did not need to vote in these races in order to vote for president (because it's always difficult to vote when you don't even know the names of the people on the ballot), and stopped voting for delegates.
> 
> Your theory that so many voters are stupid seems unlikely (not to mention insulting to the people of Alabama).  In order to vote, you have to 1) register, 2) know when the election is 3) care enough about the outcome to go out of your way for a half an hour 4) know where your polling place is 5) actually get yourself to the polling place on election day.
> 
> In my experience, the voters that actually turn out to vote in primaries are a more committed group than we see in the general election.
> 
> Your premise that 20% voted completely wrong (10% voting in all delegate races, 10% voting in none) seems way too high.


Nope, 20% I think is too low.  Probably much higher than that.

I mentioned all the factors in another post.

----------


## dsw

> So here I switch to simply the difference between the votes cast in the 1st-listed delegate race and the presidential preference vote in an histogram of precinct frequency.


Can you explain what the -20 to +20 scale means?

----------


## drummergirl

> Nope, 20% I think is too low.  Probably much higher than that.
> 
> I mentioned all the factors in another post.


Do you have some historical data that you are basing this on?  Or just sort of a "Alabama is in the south and full of hicks who can't read" theory?

----------


## The Man

I see the Alabama delegate discrepancy as a simple case of electronic vote manipulation. As we have seen in other states, Gingrich and Paul's votes are reassigned to Romney. However, it appears this is a case where Paul's votes are reassigned to Santorum regardless of the precinct size:


This is a case where Paul directly feeds Santorum and Gingrich directly feeds Romney via large precinct vote flipper. I seriously question anyone who has read this thread and still believes that there's any honest way that Paul received 50k more delegate votes than candidate votes.

----------


## affa

> No, I saw an explanation of "urban" and "rural".  You didn't correct for rate of growth of the precincts.  I saw the debunk thread, and it was better than your thread.  Explained more, better.  Demographic factors explained those things.


now you're just having a laugh, right?

the dude weighted his graphs with whatever he felt like to make it look how he wanted, regardless of their statistical insignificance and ignored every criticism leveled at his methodology. 

not to mention, his charts actually made the case for fraud, as The Man pointed out, since even his weighted charts didn't explain, by his own admission, the largest precincts, which are the ones we're discussing.

----------


## RonRules

Is anybody from Alabama in this thread?

The above post should be enough to take this to the authorities (election clerk first), but then to the district attorney and attorney general.

I'm pretty far from Alabama. Will someone step up for this task?

----------


## shane77m

I am from Alabama. The campaign had us go and take pictures of the results at the precincts after they were posted.  They know the numbers. I haven't heard anything back from them though. People that voted for the wrong delegates broke the rules as is stated on the ballots. Nothing will ever come of this and nothing will change.

----------


## Revolution9

> You'd think in alabama of all places the ballots would be a little more user friendly.


I heard the library burned down there..both books burned and one of the books wasn't even colored in yet.

*ducks*
Rev9

----------


## RonRules

> I am from Alabama. The campaign had us go and take pictures of the results at the precincts after they were posted.


OK good, that's an important first step. Did you check if the individual votes for each candidate match what is reported on the State of Alabama website?
http://results.enr.clarityelections....n/summary.html
(Click on the tab "Results by county")

I know this seems obvious, but I don't see much of that follow up after all the watch the vote efforts.

That's irrespective of the delegate vote anomaly. I just want to know if there was any flipping going on. Please check all candidates. It's quite possible that there was no flipping against Ron Paul because he was already too low.

----------


## The Man

So were the results at each precinct recorded BEFORE the numbers were transmitted to the central tabulator? From the thermal tape?


> I am from Alabama. The campaign had us go and take pictures of the results at the precincts after they were posted.  They know the numbers. I haven't heard anything back from them though. People that voted for the wrong delegates broke the rules as is stated on the ballots. Nothing will ever come of this and nothing will change.

----------


## The Man

There's not much mystery in the results of Alabama. Yes- Ron Paul's delegate vs. candidate totals were ridiculously off by 50k+, but could there be any question as to where the votes ended up? The graph below compares vote percentages to delegate percentages received for the sum of Santorum and Paul. If you compare either Paul or Santorum's candidate to vote percentages, it makes no sense. But when you add together, the only difference between the two is likely caused by the voter error. Precincts are arranged in ascending order. Note that each precinct, regardless of vote total, is weighted equally to all others on the X-Axis. 
There's only two possible explanations here and really only ONE logical explanation:
1. Either (net) 53,000 of Santorum's voters voted for Paul's delegates or
2. 53,000 of Paul's (net) votes were reassigned to Santorum's totals.

----------


## parocks

Here you go.

Most can be explained by "fatigue" happening to people who intended to vote for all.

Basically, 

6.4% voted for all delegates.
4.2% started to vote for all delegates.
= 10.8 of gingrichs first vote being wrong.

6.4% voted for all delegates.
2.6% started to vote for all delegates and got to Ron Paul
= 9% of pauls first vote being wrong.

6.4% voted for all delegates.
.5% started to vote for all delegates and got to Romney
= 6.9% of romneys first vote being wrong.

6.4% voted for all delegates.
.0% started to vote for all delegates and got to Santorum
= 6.4% of santorums first vote being wrong.

********************************************
original
gingrich range 6092-4819 Votes 5559 (overvote 533) (range number 1273)
paul range 2575-2082  Votes 1046 (overvote 1529) (range number 493)
romney range 5669-4606 Votes 6086 (undervote 417) (range number 1063)
santorum range 6409-5892 Votes 7295 (undervote 886) (range number 517)
**************************************
******************************
12 - 2456
11 - 2252
Gingrich top 2201 - 10.8
10 - 2048
9 - 1844
Gingrich bottom 1843 - 9%
Paul top - 1843 - 9%
8 - 1640
7.6 - 1560
Paul bottom - 1500 - 7.3%
7 - 1436
Romney top - 1409 - 6.9%
Romney bottom - 1303 - 6.4%
Santorum top - 1303 - 6.4%
Santorum bottom - 1303 - 6.4%
6 - 1232
5 - 1028
************************
here,  the top number from above is subtracted from original.  The top number is 70% of vote.
gingrich range 3891-2976 Votes 5559 (range - 70% - 53%)
top fixed by 2201
bottom fixed by 1843
paul range 732-582  Votes 1046 (range - 70% - 55%) 
top fixed by 1843
bottom fixed by 1500
romney range 4260-3303 Votes 6086 (range - 70% - 54%)
top fixed by 1409
bottom fixed by 1303
santorum range 5106-4589 Votes 7295 (range - 70% - 62%) 
top fixed by 1303
bottom fixed by 1303
Santorums range is tighter, because he only had 3 delegate races.
**************************************

These are Tuscaloosa County numbers.

----------


## parocks

http://results.enr.clarityelections....n/reports.html

----------


## RonRules

> There's not much mystery in the results of Alabama. Yes- Ron Paul's delegate vs. candidate totals were ridiculously off by 50k+, but could there be any question as to where the votes ended up? The graph below compares vote percentages to delegate percentages received for the sum of Santorum and Paul. If you compare either Paul or Santorum's candidate to vote percentages, it makes no sense. But when you add together, the only difference between the two is likely caused by the voter error. Precincts are arranged in ascending order. Note that each precinct, regardless of vote total, is weighted equally to all others on the X-Axis. 
> There's only two possible explanations here and really only ONE logical explanation:
> 1. Either (net) 53,000 of Santorum's voters voted for Paul's delegates or
> 2. 53,000 of Paul's (net) votes were reassigned to Santorum's totals.


I have a possible explanation for the great Alabama anomaly! 
I pick your option #1, but suggest an actual way it was done.
"1. Either (net) 53,000 of Santorum's voters voted for Paul's delegates"

If they used ballot scanning equipment, here's something that's easy to screw up. The physical location on the ballot where you're supposed to put your mark (dash line in AL's ballot case) is defined in a matrix of coordinates points that the scanner uses to determine to whom to assign the votes. There is a configuration file that defines which groups of pixels correspond to what candidate. Based on the amazingly close total that The Man has shown above, I think this is simply a screw-up on the part of who configured the ballot scanning equipment. The configuration file assigned the wrong pixels for Santorum delegates to Ron Paul. I'll have to determine exactly which scan areas were misprogrammed, but that's where my thoughts are now.

Just another "honest" mistake!

It's of course very likely that they copied this single wrong configuration file to ALL ballot scanners for the entire state.

This paper explains how complex (and error prone) the whole scanning process is:
http://www.divms.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/optical/

BTW, this also explains why Santorum voters had such an acute case of voter fatigue. They didn't! Instead the real reason is that you're seeing Ron Paul delegates there.

----------


## RonRules

> http://results.enr.clarityelections....n/reports.html


And why are they still only reporting 83.58% 
Counties Percent Reported:	 83.58 %
Website last updated 3/26/2012 1:15:00 PM CDT

----------


## The Man

Honestly, I don't want to dismiss what you are saying, but I have found a very simple explanation. You simply cannot dismiss my graph above that clearly shows the delegate and candidate graphs of (the sum of Paul and Santorum) very closely follow one another throughout all 1860 precincts. The anomaly HAS to be caused by an exclusive relationship between Santorum's and Paul's delegate and candidate's votes... period. I would consider your theory IF the two curves above were not dead ringers for each other.  


> Here you go.
> 
> Most can be explained by "fatigue" happening to people who intended to vote for all.
> 
> Basically, 
> 
> 6.4% voted for all delegates.
> 4.2% started to vote for all delegates.
> = 10.8 of gingrichs first vote being wrong.
> ...

----------


## drummergirl

> And why are they still only reporting 83.58% 
> Counties Percent Reported:	 83.58 %
> Website last updated 3/26/2012 1:15:00 PM CDT


That part is simple to answer; 16.42% of county election admins won't certify their election results.  Those folks have got to be under tremendous pressure.

----------


## The Man

Hey- you could be right. Ever wonder why none of these "honest" mistakes ever benefits our candidate?


> I have a possible explanation for the great Alabama anomaly! 
> If they used ballot scanning equipment, here's something that's easy to screw up. The physical location on the ballot where you're supposed to put your mark (dash line in AL's ballot case) is defined in a matrix of coordinates points that the scanner uses to determine to whom to assign the votes. There is a configuration file that defines which groups of pixels correspond to what candidate. Based on the amazingly close total that The Man has shown above, I think this is simply a screw-up on the part of who configured the ballot scanning equipment. The configuration file assigned the wrong pixels to Santorum and Paul vice-versa. I'll have to determine exactly which scan areas were misprogrammed, but that's where my thoughts are now.
> 
> Just another "honest" mistake!
> 
> It's of course very likely that they copied this wrong configuration file to ALL ballot scanners for the entire state.
> 
> This paper explains how complex (and error prone) the whole scanning process is:
> http://www.divms.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/optical/

----------


## parocks

> That's the best argument against it that I've seen.  I'd be curious to see what parocks makes of this.  For Paul and Romney to show the same rate of voter fatigue overall, including the idiot voters marching their way through every single race, Paul voters would actually have to have *greater* voter fatigue to compensate.  If it were the other way around, with Romney voters showing greater fatigue, it might make some sense.



Since you mentioned my name here, see my analysis of "voter fatigue" among people who intended to vote for all delegates.

Basically, the numbers become pretty normal when you realize that the "vote for all" group can be broken down into 

A) successfully voted for all delegates
B) started to vote for all delegates, got fatigued, and quit.

Total started - 10.8% of all
Total finished - 6.4% of all
Total incomplete - 4.4% of all.

Gingrich - 10.8%
Paul - 9%
Romney - 6.9%
Santorum - 6.4%

This is pretty much the "top to bottom" factor that I was talking about earlier.

Because Gingrich was at the top of the ballot, more people voted in his delegate elections than in Santorums.  I have the detailed numbers in other posts.

It is easy enough (except for Santorum), to come up with very reasonable numbers.

6.4% voted in all delegate elections.  Reasonable.

4.4% additional people started to vote in all delegate elections, but didn't get to the end.  Reasonable.

Of that 4.4%, 1.8% started with Gingrich, didn't get to Paul.  2.1% got to Paul, didn't get to Romney.  .5% got to Romney, didn't get to Santorum.  0% did get to Santorum, didn't finish.  All of those numbers are reasonable.

When you make those changes, and also make corrections to the bottom of the range, you will see that everyones top delegate becomes exactly 70% of the candidates vote total, the bottom delegate becomes approximately 54% of the of the candidates vote total (53-55, except for Santorum, who was higher, because he didn't have a lot of delegates, only 3, less fatigue, and he was at the end).

The numbers work out almost perfectly.

----------


## dsw

> If they used ballot scanning equipment, here's something that's easy to screw up. The physical location on the ballot where you're supposed to put your mark (dash line in AL's ballot case) is defined in a matrix of coordinates points that the scanner uses to determine to whom to assign the votes.


Can you tell if that happened by looking at all of the ballot images?  

http://alabamavotes.gov/ElectionInfo....aspx?a=voters
BTW there appear to be at least two kinds, broken lines and ovals.  And variations for local races too. Autauga and Winston are examples of the two styles I saw.  Chilton and Cherokee are examples of variations of the broken line style.

----------


## RonRules

> Can you tell if that happened by looking at all of the ballot images?  
> 
> http://alabamavotes.gov/ElectionInfo....aspx?a=voters
> BTW there appear to be at least two kinds, broken lines and ovals.  And variations for local races too. Autauga and Winston are examples of the two styles I saw.  Chilton and Cherokee are examples of variations of the broken line style.


I've never worked on scanning equipment or their configuration files. My guess is that there are different levels of data association in the file. For example each "Vote Target" area (that's how it's actually called) is probably assigned an intermediate number and at another level of data association in the file, these groups of targets are assigned to a candidate.

It is possible that the first level of data association is pretty much fixed based on the type of ballot that's read. (Ovals or lines, for example).  The other configuration would change at each election. It's probably a simple table that assigns the candidates to each Vote Target groups.

The "honest mistake" may have been made at the higher level, where a whole group of "Vote Target" areas (The delegates) were cross assigned between Santorum and Ron Paul.

I see all these complex PhD technical papers about scanning technology and how to exactly determine if a vote is a vote based on how the mark covers the spot, but I have YET to find clear instructions or admonishments that read like:

Hey Mr. Election Clerk. BE VERY CAREFUL on how you assign candidate names in that configuration file. You could really screw up the elections if you do it wrong.

I'm out for today and tomorrow.

Can someone figure out Gingrich with this theory? I'm ready to go to bed and I don't plan on dreaming about Gingrigh.

----------


## The Man

The following graphs each compare 1)Santorum candidate% vs. delegate% 2) Ron Paul candidate% vs. delegate% and 3) Santorum+Ron Paul candidate% vs. delegate%. The main point is that neither individual candidate's graphs, candidate% vs. delegate%, shows much similarity. But when Santorum and Paul's percentages are summed (#3), the two are almost perfect matches throughout the 1860 precincts.

----------


## The Man

Gingrich loses 3% to Romney due to high vote-total precinct vote flipping. My contention is that all of the candidates are affected similarly by the true voter "error". There is no legitimate reason why any single candidate's (vote total minus delegate total) is substantially different than another (substantially- more than 1.5% of the total vote). 


> I've never worked on scanning equipment or their configuration files. My guess is that there are different levels of data association in the file. For example each "Vote Target" area (that's how it's actually called) is probably assigned an intermediate number and at another level of data association in the file, these groups of targets are assigned to a candidate.
> 
> It is possible that the first level of data association is pretty much fixed based on the type of ballot that's read. (Ovals or lines, for example).  The other configuration would change at each election. It's probably a simple table that assigns the candidates to each Vote Target groups.
> 
> The "honest mistake" may have been made at the higher level, where a whole group of "Vote Target" areas (The delegates) were cross assigned between Santorum and Ron Paul.
> 
> I see all these complex PhD technical papers about scanning technology and how to exactly determine if a vote is a vote based on how the mark covers the spot, but I have YET to find clear instructions or admonishments that read like:
> 
> Hey Mr. Election Clerk. BE VERY CAREFUL on how you assign candidate names in that configuration file. You could really screw up the elections if you do it wrong.
> ...

----------


## parocks

It's pretty amazing how this can all be explained by people getting tired of voting as they move their way down the ballot.

10.8 Gingrich
9 Paul
6.9 Romney
6.4 Santorum

Yup, typical voters voting in a normal way led to those results.

No need to say "wow, those graphs look somewhat alike, therefore, fraud".

Basically "people were more likely to vote in the races at the top of the ballot, and less likely to vote in the races at the bottom the ballot".

Pretty simple.  No complicate vote flipping algorithms.

4.4% of the people filled out some delegate votes, but didn't finish.

Really simple.

6.4% of the people filled out all the delegate votes.

Really simple.

10.8% then voted "wrong".

89.2% voted "right".

Of those that voted "right", of that 89.9%, 30% did not vote in any delegate races, 70% voted in at least one of the delegate races for the "right" candidate, and about 54% voted in all the delegate races for the "right" candidate.  

And that, or something very similar to that, is what happened.

Because we can explain what happened without using fraud, there's no reason to assume fraud.

----------


## Liberty1789

> It's pretty amazing how this can all be explained (..)
> 
> Really simple.
> 
> 6.4% of the people filled out all the delegate votes.
> 
> Really simple.


Dang. Brilliant. 1 voter in 16 goes there and decides: "I am gonna tick all the delegate boxes. ALL OF THEM. THE 46 OF THEM. Do you hear me? Got nothing else to do in Alabama anyway."

And then we checked the premise of 6.4% minimal vote in all delegate races in Tuscaloosa's 54 precincts. Doesn't get easier than this, really.

And we get that:

CARROLLS CREEK BAPTIST
FALSE

ECHOLA VFD
FALSE

TUSCALOOSA ACAD
FALSE

TUSCAL CRTHOUSE ANX
FALSE

UNITY BAPTIST
FALSE

COTTONDALE METH CH
FALSE

RALPH FIRE DEPT.
FALSE



And we think that parocks debunk is kaput. Again.

----------


## Liberty1789

> Can you explain what the -20 to +20 scale means?


-20 is the bin containing all the precincts where the 1st-listed delegate vote was 20 votes below the presidential vote. So I do a simple substraction, no division. It has pros and cons, but I sure want to look at it.

Mathematically, the major plus is that the bins are equidistant without built-in frequency biais. Let me explain. Go back to the 1st chart of the thread: do you see the red spikes in Paul's bell curve. They come from the fact that you plot a lot of fractions of small numbers, and that creates a huge frequency biais: when dividing a small number by a small number, you are much more likely to get 2 than 11/7, and it distorts the bell curve in a complex way. Turning to substraction solves this but, as often in statistics, at a cost: you get a very good and clean snapshot of what is going on around 0 (no under/overvote) but large precincts with large absolute differences are pushed far away to the fringes of the bell curve and do not contribute to the information anymore. Going by divisions, the big precincts populate the center of the bell curve like the rest, but all the precincts with zero presidential vote are gone...

----------


## Liberty1789

Another chart with likely material implications... but what are they? 



Top county / bottom county = 5.5 times... Oh boy...

----------


## The Man

When looking at all these "anomalies" and variances and given that Paul's reported vote percentage cumulatively stays at 5% with very small deviation, OBVIOUSLY there was an algorithm that was "fixing" Paul's vote percentage at 5% in terms of cumulative vote. Your chart is simply the result of this algorithm. It represents 1) Voter error and 2) votes siphoned to Santorum.   


> Another chart with likely material implications... but what are they? 
> 
> 
> 
> Top county / bottom county = 5.5 times... Oh boy...

----------


## RonRules

> Another chart with likely material implications... but what are they? 
> 
> 
> 
> Top county / bottom county = 5.5 times... Oh boy...


Is this scaled by county size?

My answer, basted on the scanner configuration file issue would be to check the percentage of scanners in each county. Those that have the bad configuration file would give you a lower ratio of vote/delegates.

----------


## Liberty1789

> Is this scaled by county size?


No: just vote count divided by vote count.

----------


## Intoxiklown

This election process has made me so incredibly ashamed of our government and my southern states.....

----------


## Liberty1789

Ron Rules, is it what you are saying?



It is not power to who votes, it is not power to who counts the votes, but it is power to who aligns the pixel recognition zone... What a world...

----------


## Liberty1789

> When looking at all these "anomalies" and variances and given that Paul's reported vote percentage cumulatively stays at 5% with very small deviation, OBVIOUSLY there was an algorithm that was "fixing" Paul's vote percentage at 5% in terms of cumulative vote. Your chart is simply the result of this algorithm. It represents 1) Voter error and 2) votes siphoned to Santorum.


Remember those charts of vote difference distributions. Only 1 mode (most frequent observation) has materially shifted: Paul's. Vote flipping would shift at least 2. So no vote flipping for me here.

----------


## The Man

Remember that Paul's shift in relation to Paul's reported percentage is HUGE and much more pronounced. In relation to his reported received votes (30k), 1.6 times that (50k) are shifted. If ALL of these 50K are reassigned to Santorum as I contend, they represent only aound 20- 25%, or 0.25 times, Santorum's total votes. These extra votes are there in your distribution charts, but extremely less apparent than in the Paul distribution chart. Remember that the magnitude of each bar is relative to 5% of the total vote whereas the magnitude in Santorum's chart is relative more to 35%. So when those votes appear in Santorum's totals, they have 1/7th the visual impact in your representation as they did in the Paul chart.

----------


## Liberty1789

> Liberty -- odd request, if you have the time:
> 
> Assuming I'm understanding your chart correctly, can you, for all precincts where Gingrich's difference between Presidential and delegate total is 'positive' by more than 1 can you make an 'Adjusted Paul' column by subtracting Gingrich's extra delegate votes from Pauls?   If Gingrich is <=1 then just make Paul's adjusted number his actual number (I include 1 since we don't want to grab voters who mistakenly voted only for Gingrich's first delegate.
> 
> [NOTE - the goal here is to grab any possible 'down the line voter' for Gingrich and adjust Paul by that number. If I'm misunderstanding your chart, but you see a way to accomplish this, then if you see a superior method go with it.]


I have a problem as I then get a lot of negative values for Paul: his vote count is not high enough to absorb the substraction of Gingrich surplus of delegate votes. If I zero those values, I end up with 52k votes in the 1-st delegate race vs 82k previously and 30k in the presidential. I have used an extreme assumption and I still end up with a huge mountain to climb.

----------


## affa

> It's pretty amazing how this can all be explained by people getting tired of voting as they move their way down the ballot.
> 
> 10.8 Gingrich
> 9 Paul
> 6.9 Romney
> 6.4 Santorum
> 
> Yup, typical voters voting in a normal way led to those results.


You do realize this doesn't explain it, right?

Ron Paul got 53702 overvotes.

By your own math, this is a weighting of '9'.

So...

10.8 Gingrich = 64468 overvotes at 10.8 weight  -- he actually got 27719, which is LESS than Paul 
9 Paul  =  53702 overvotes at 9 weight.
6.9 Romney =  41171 overvotes at 6.9 weight  -- he actually got 297
6.4 Santorum = 38188 overvotes -- he actually got -19172 (that's negative)

TO BE CLEAR:
in any weighting system you come up with based on 'fatigue' and 'ballot placement', Gingrich should get the most 'bonus' votes because he is first.
However, he gets significantly less than Paul, which will wreck any and every 'weighting' system you come up with because 'weighting' does not and can not explain Paul getting more bonus votes than Gingrich, ever, based on the ballot and fatigue.  It's impossible, since Gingrich gets less 'bonus' votes but should get more.


"Of those that voted "right", of that 89.9%, 30% did not vote in any delegate races, 70% voted in at least one of the delegate races for the "right" candidate, and about 54% voted in all the delegate races for the "right" candidate. "

Wait... so your theory requires that
30% of 'right' voters didn't vote for delegates
and 54% of 'right' voters that did vote for delegates MESSED UP and voted 'down the line'?

yea. okay.

----------


## affa

> I have a problem as I then get a lot of negative values for Paul: his vote count is not high enough to absorb the substraction of Gingrich surplus of delegate votes. If I zero those values, I end up with 52k votes in the 1-st delegate race vs 82k previously and 30k in the presidential. I have used an extreme assumption and I still end up with a huge mountain to climb.


Hmm. Ok.  I was thinking that since Paul is up 53k delegate votes, and Gingrich is only up 28k, we should be able to 'subtract' safely.

----------


## Liberty1789

> Remember that Paul's shift in relation to Paul's reported percentage is HUGE and much more pronounced. In relation to his reported received votes (30k), 1.6 times that (50k) are shifted. If ALL of these 50K are reassigned to Santorum as I contend, they represent only aound 20- 25%, or 0.25 times, Santorum's total votes. These extra votes are there in your distribution charts, but extremely less apparent than in the Paul distribution chart. Remember that the magnitude of each bar is relative to 5% of the total vote whereas the magnitude in Santorum's chart is relative more to 35%. So when those votes appear in Santorum's totals, they have 1/7th the visual impact in your representation as they did in the Paul chart.


Yes, all very correct: 1/7. But 1/7 of a huge shift is a very detectable shift and I cannot detect it.

I can actually easily simulate the transfer of Paul's 30k remaining presidential votes to Santorum and see the impact (40% smaller than shifting 50K). The mode shift is very clear. Definitely looks too big. No hard proof of anything of course...

----------


## Liberty1789

// double post

----------


## affa

//checking math

----------


## affa

Ok, I defined the 'Bad Voter' count per precinct as 

If (Paul's Average Votes Per Delegate > Paul's Actual Vote)
Bad Voters = Paul's Average Votes Per Delegate- Paul's Actual Vote
Else 
Bad Voters = 0  

Only about 10% of precincts have no bad voters based on this, and they're heavily weighted towards the very smallest precincts with only a couple of votes (many with none).

This basically makes the Paul voter the 'golden voter' - always voting perfectly.  I then adjusted all candidate's delegate votes by this amount.  In many ways, this does appear to make the anomaly go away.  However, on closer inspection it really blows some other things out of the water.  I'm not really sure how to present this data; a chart with 1865 points is ugly.  However, during this I discovered something else.

Any study of 'bad voters' by precinct results in some seriously bizarre findings, in my opinion.
For example... the percentage of 'bad voters' per precinct is all over the place.   It jumps from about 1% to 15%, no matter what the size of the precinct is.

Here's a chart of the 300 largest precincts (with 1800, you just get a blur since there are so many plots to point)



NOTE: Most precints are 2000 total voters or under; a few at the end quickly ramp up, with only 4 of 1865 over 3k: 3158, 3310, 3494, 5316 that make it harder to read the chart labels at the end.


It's clear that different precincts had wildly different 'bad voter' rates, if we define bad voters as those who 'overvoted' for Paul's delegates.

Why is it so different per precinct?

Here are four precincts of similar size to give a sense of what I'm talking about**:
Jefferson	
Total Candidate Votes:  795	
Total Paul Votes:	39	
Average Paul Delegate Votes: 55.1875
'Bad Voters'  = 16
*Bad Voters as percent of total voters: 2.01%*

Winston	
Total Candidate Votes:  800
Total Paul Votes:	27	
Average Paul Delegate Votes: 165.625
Bad Voters: 139
*Bad Voters as percent of total voters: 17.38%*

Winston
Total Candidate Votes:  868
Total Paul Votes:	62	
Average Paul Delegate Votes: 215.3
Bad Voters: 153
*Bad Voters as percent of total voters: 17.63%*

Lee
Total Candidate Votes:  871
Total Paul Votes:	83	
Average Paul Delegate Votes: 103.1
Bad Voters: 20
*Bad Voters as percent of total voters: 2.3%*

Some significantly larger precincts:

Madison
Total Candidate Votes:  1615
Total Paul Votes:	140	
Average Paul Delegate Votes: 182.7
Bad Voters: 43
*Bad Voters as percent of total voters: 2.66%*

Baldwin
Total Candidate Votes:  1630
Total Paul Votes:	80	
Average Paul Delegate Votes: 309.5
Bad Voters: 230
*Bad Voters as percent of total voters: 14.11%*

As the chart above shows, this isn't cherry picking the only oddities... the percent of Paul overvotes by precinct is all over the map and there are tons of examples.


Why do we have some Precincts with extremely low error rates, yet others over 15%?  Do we now need to correlate this with precinct literacy rates (/jk)?

Could we be on to a ballot coding discrepancy as suggested?   Precincts with low error rates coded correctly, precincts with high error rates coded incorrectly?

----------


## parocks

Are you deranged?

You seem to think that every single precinct is going to act in exactly the same way.

Obviously it isn't.







> Dang. Brilliant. 1 voter in 16 goes there and decides: "I am gonna tick all the delegate boxes. ALL OF THEM. THE 46 OF THEM. Do you hear me? Got nothing else to do in Alabama anyway."
> 
> And then we checked the premise of 6.4% minimal vote in all delegate races in Tuscaloosa's 54 precincts. Doesn't get easier than this, really.
> 
> And we get that:
> 
> CARROLLS CREEK BAPTIST
> FALSE
> 
> ...

----------


## parocks

A Chart!

Must Be Important!

Must Prove Vote Flipping In Some Way!

How?

No Idea?

But Let's All Stare At It!






> Another chart with likely material implications... but what are they? 
> 
> 
> 
> Top county / bottom county = 5.5 times... Oh boy...

----------


## shane77m

http://www.flickr.com/photos/76071612@N08/7046177757/
Here is a picture of the Ron Paul votes and a picture of the delegates for Place 1. This was at my voting place the Curry Community Center in Walker county.

----------


## affa

> Are you deranged?
> 
> You seem to think that every single precinct is going to act in exactly the same way.
> 
> Obviously it isn't.


Whereas you cherry pick one precinct, explain it with weights you picked out of the sky, and expect the same explanation explains all, when it doesn't?

The entire point is your 'answer' really needs to fit more than one precinct, else it isn't an answer.  To ridicule Liberty for actually doing math is kind of silly.

The entire cornerstone of your debunk was that 6.4% voted for all candidate's delegates, remember?




> 6.4% voted for all delegates.
> SNIP
> 6.4% voted for all delegates.
> SNIP
> 6.4% voted for all delegates.
> SNIP
> 6.4% voted for all delegates.


Liberty showed you this assumption is false.  

Therefore, you're wrong.  Sorry if you don't like that.  To insult him and call him 'deranged' because he actually checked your numbers is, well, out of line.

----------


## affa

> http://www.flickr.com/photos/76071612@N08/7046177757/
> Here is a picture of the Ron Paul votes and a picture of the delegates for Place 1. This was at my voting place the Curry Community Center in Walker county.


These are correct, but if it's a ballot recognition error as some suspect it wouldn't report incorrect tallies.

----------


## shane77m

I think it is all just people not knowing how to mark a ballot. I could be wrong though. Just bugs me that it is clearly marked on the ballot that it is against the rules to vote for the wrong delegates and the republican party counts the ballots anyway.

----------


## affa

> I think it is all just people not knowing how to mark a ballot. I could be wrong though. Just bugs me that it is clearly marked on the ballot that it is against the rules to vote for the wrong delegates and the republican party counts the ballots anyway.


See my recent post:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4335086

In many, many precincts, people did seem to mark their ballot correctly.  However, then the error rate (established based on Paul overvotes) jumps around massively, regardless of precinct size.  The range is tremendous, and there are a large number of precincts with a very low overvote rate, and then a large number with a huge overvote rate.

To me, that indicates some ballot readers might have been mis-keyed.

The ballot is either confusing as hell, or it isn't.   Why many large precincts were full of voters that read and understood the directions, while many large districts were full of manic overvoters is beyond me.  However, as RonRules pointed out, a simple ballot reading misconfiguration would explain it.

Note that this wouldn't even necessarily be fraud; if this is the case, it's possible it actually hurt someone else at the expense of Paul. 

That is, assuming results are in error, I can think of two possibilities:
1) Candidate votes are off, and delegate votes are right.
2) Candidate votes are correct, and delegate votes are off.

Paul's candidate votes don't seem to have a high correlation with precincts that had high delegate error rates, so to my mind it's possible it was the delegate vote that was off, and those votes were supposed to go elsewhere.

However, that's just one quick interpretation; it's still possible Paul's actual votes are off, too.

----------


## drummergirl

> See my recent post:
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4335086
> 
> In many, many precincts, people did seem to mark their ballot correctly.  However, then the error rate (established based on Paul overvotes) jumps around massively, regardless of precinct size.  The range is tremendous, and there are a large number of precincts with a very low overvote rate, and then a large number with a huge overvote rate.
> 
> To me, that indicates some ballot readers might have been mis-keyed.


I'm also curious about procedures for handling spoiled ballots.  Early on, someone from Alabama mentioned voting in an incorrect delegate race and being told by an election judge to just keep going and see if the machine takes it.  I've clerked a lot of elections and hearing someone say that just chafes my behind because that is a completely inappropriate response.  A ballot where a voter realizes they've made a mistake is what's called a "spoiled ballot".  There are specific procedures to follow in case of a spoiled ballot (there's a form to fill out, spoiled ballot is placed in an envelope and sealed, extra forms at the end of the day, etc.) and it sounds to me like there may have been some precincts where the judges were lazy and/or overwhelmed by the number of spoiled ballots and just tried to get the machine to take them anyway.

----------


## parocks

> I think it is all just people not knowing how to mark a ballot. I could be wrong though. Just bugs me that it is clearly marked on the ballot that it is against the rules to vote for the wrong delegates and the republican party counts the ballots anyway.


Not knowing, not caring, not thinking that they're doing it wrong at all.

In Tuscaloosa County, 10.8% of the voters marked the ballot wrong, according to one analysis with an assumption of 30% of the voters who didn't mark the ballot wrong not voting in delegate races.  That really isn't that high a number.  Not a number that is really all that unreasonable. 

Because every person is different, different people act differently.  Some areas simply do have smarter people than other areas.  Some areas have older people with poor eyesight.  I can imagine that 10-20-30 percent of people, anywhere could just not be all that worried about the directions, and just charge through the ballot filling in ovals until they got bored with doing that.  I don't think there was a tremendous number of people who read the directions, thought about the directions, and were unable to understand what the directions meant.  I would guess that most of the overvotes were people who didn't read the directions, because it was pretty easy to understand that you're supposed to fill in one oval next to the name.

A key to understanding various disparities anywhere is that people aren't the same.  People are different.  No precincts have the same people in them.  No precincts should be acting the same.  All precincts should be different.  Because people are different.  And then after you realize that people are different, then you can try to find similarites.  Old people don't have as good eyesight as young people.  You'd expect more errors with old people.  On the other hand, young people aren't as experienced at voting.  Rich people tend to be smarter than poor people.  You'd probably find more errors in poorer areas.  And on and on and on.  If there's an area that has a lot of overvotes, and a different area has fewer overvotes, that isn't something that's particularly odd.  If the same exact people voted in both places, I'd be surprised.  But an entirely different group of people voted.

----------


## drummergirl

> No precincts should be acting the same.  All precincts should be different.  Because people are different.


If there were truly that great of disparity from one place to another, exit polling would never work.  Exit pollsters get about a thousand voters polled and will often project an election winner from that.  And they are right a lot.

----------


## affa

Walker - Curry 
Total Voters: 500
Paul votes: 15	
Average Paul Delegate Votes: 60.4	
Bad Voters: 45
*Bad Voting Rate: 9%*

However, right near you:

Walker	--- JASPER MALL
Total Voters: 976	
Paul votes: 48	
Average Paul Delegate Votes: 96.8	
Bad Voters: 49
*Bad Voting Rate: 5.02%*

Walker - Twilley nailed it:
Total Voters: 144	
Paul votes: 10
Average Paul Delegate Votes: 10.6	
Bad Voters: 1
*Bad Voting Rate: .069%*


Walker county, overall, ranges from .069% error rate alllll the way up to 21.5%.  (note- I've removed all super small precincts from my table because they blow out the numbers and make it look even worse;  the precincts I'm looking at all have at least 100 voters)

You see high, low, and medium error rates in precincts of all sizes.

----------


## parocks

> Whereas you cherry pick one precinct, explain it with weights you picked out of the sky, and expect the same explanation explains all, when it doesn't?
> 
> The entire point is your 'answer' really needs to fit more than one precinct, else it isn't an answer.  To ridicule Liberty for actually doing math is kind of silly.
> 
> The entire cornerstone of your debunk was that 6.4% voted for all candidate's delegates, remember?
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty showed you this assumption is false.  
> ...


No, you need to understand that the numbers aren't going to be identical everywhere.

I took Tuscaloosa county.

Don't you understand that not every precinct is not going to be the same?

Or is that an assumption that you're making?

That all precincts should be the same?

It seem that you do hold that ridiculous assumption.

It isn't true at all, and I really shouldn't have to tell you that.  You have had it explained to you, over and over, and you still resist common sense.

No 2 precincts should be identical.  No 2 counties should be identical.
You seem to think the opposite.  Your assumptions are based on that clearly flawed assumption, that precincts and counties should be identical.

Different people behave differently.  They don't vote the same way everywhere.

I looked at the numbers and determined (pretty closely) what the Voters Actually Did.  

You simply ignore the fact that voters behave differently, you assume they all act the same, and when the real results, the things that actually happened, don't meet with your approval, you yell "fraud" or "vote flipping".

Actual people, actually voting, determine these numbers.  

All of my assumptions are reasonable, and I showed, in Tuscaloosa County, what basically happened.   

I am not claiming that the percentages in every single precinct would be identical.
That would be CRAZY.  And that's what he was claiming, and what you seem to think should happen.  It shouldn't happen.  The opposite of what your claiming should be true.  The numbers shouldn't match.  You think they should.  

It would be extremely odd if exactly 10.8 of the voters in every single precinct voted wrongly in Gingrich's first delegate election.  Yet you seem to think that those numbers should apply in every single precinct.  You have it backwards.  There IS always that variation from precinct to precinct and there should be that variation.  It's normal to have that variation,  it's not normal to not have that variation.

----------


## affa

Your entire argument boils down to 'people do random $#@!'.  It's pretty funny, really, if you weren't so dead set serious and insulting to other people.

If you're able to make up random weights and reasons per precinct, you can explain ANYTHING away. Period.  Absolutely anything.  

If your assertions were correct, polls and statistics would be less than meaningless.

Look at the error rate diversity I'm showing in just one, interconnected county.  That's odd.  It really is. Is there an non-fraudulent explanation?  Actually,my current belief isn't that it's fraud, but a simple ballot counting mistake that actually -helps- Ron Paul.   

But your explanation is tantamount to just saying '$#@! happens, I'm sure something explains it'. And that isn't an explanation, it's gobbledygook.

----------


## parocks

> If there were truly that great of disparity from one place to another, exit polling would never work.  Exit pollsters get about a thousand voters polled and will often project an election winner from that.  And they are right a lot.


Exit pollsters have an understanding of the precincts that they poll.  They aren't just going to random precincts.  They understand what makes a specific precinct different in some ways and similar in others.  But none are identical.

----------


## Liberty1789

No worries, parocks. You are passionate about debunking and that is a very good justification. Keep it polite if you can. If you cannot, well, enjoy letting the steam out!

Let's look at your favorite county with the 2 charts below. I just plot the gap between the vote count in the delegate and the presidential race for the 46 delegate contests, in the order of their ranking on the ballot.

You can see a lot on the first chart already: you see that Gingrich's first blue bar is out of line, too high: artificial top of the list benefit. You see how fast people realize their mistake and stop voting for his delegates. You see for all candidates much less votes for their last delegates than for their first: fatigue #1. You see, if you forget for a minute Paul, that there is a noticable "overall ballot order" fatigue #2: Santorum does worse than Romney who does worse than Gingrich.

And you see Paul's mad anomaly. It is incomprehensibly misaligned. You say: his score is just due to idiots who have started to vote for all. 6.4% of voters in Tuscaloosa. Really? Let's substract them from the second chart. Is the anomaly gone? Nope.

In the 1st chart, to go from the last blue to the first red column, you need a 2,200 vote swing: 2,200 "idiots" filling Gingrich's delegate races carrying thru, out of 4,700 voting for his last, 9th delegate, almost half of them? Okay. Fine. Let's assume so for a moment. Why not? Then you go thru the red column with normal fatigue and then what? Not a single idiot carries on to Romney? 100% of them suddenly vanish? That makes no sense whatsoever.

The second chart is just the nail in the coffin. Just proves again that the idiot-votes-for-all fallacy applied to "redress" the data does nothing to explain Paul's anomaly. It shinks the red columns. I grant you that. Well done. And it does nothing else. The anomaly just remains there, glaringly.

----------


## dsw

> If there were truly that great of disparity from one place to another, exit polling would never work.  Exit pollsters get about a thousand voters polled and will often project an election winner from that.  And they are right a lot.


In all fairness exit polls aren't quite that simple.  If they just took 1000 people at one location and reported the percentage of votes reported from that sample they'd be wrong a lot of the time.  If they could pick 1000 voters *randomly* from all of the people voting across the state then they could just report the percentage directly with high confidence, but they can't get a genuinely random sample. There can be huge differences from one precinct to another so they often sample from multiple locations, and also augment that with recent phone polling and other data, and then they have to look carefully at the demographics of their samples to make adjustments to try to compensate for any biases, comparing the demographics of their samples with what their models predict about the demographics of the overall turnout.  Only after all of that do they have a prediction that might be pretty good.

----------


## dsw

> http://www.flickr.com/photos/76071612@N08/7046177757/
> Here is a picture of the Ron Paul votes and a picture of the delegates for Place 1. This was at my voting place the Curry Community Center in Walker county.


Thanks for posting that.  FWIW it agrees with the official results, 15 for Ron Paul and a total of 67 in the place 1 delegate race.  

The slip shows 520 votes total compared to 513 total (when you include Bachmann, Perry, etc.) on the official site.  Probably doesn't mean anything big but I thought I'd mention it.

----------


## shane77m

I talked to one guy at work that said he accidentally voted for a Gingrich delegate because he wasn't paying really close attention. Right after the presidential candidates Newt's delegate slots were on the ballot. I do wonder how so many people could be incapable of reading a ballot and figuring it out. But hey, this is Bama.

----------


## affa

> I talked to one guy at work that said he accidentally voted for a Gingrich delegate because he wasn't paying really close attention. Right after the presidential candidates Newt's delegate slots were on the ballot. I do wonder how so many people could be incapable of reading a ballot and figuring it out. But hey, this is Bama.


Yea, lots of people apparently did that.  See the first column in Liberty's chart 3 or 4 posts up.  Gingrich has one big positive 'bump' before he drops; that's people like your coworker.

However, that chart also makes clear that people tended to immediately realize their mistake, and it doesn't explain the anomaly.

----------


## affa

has anyone been able to find delegate level voting records for 2008?  I tried and failed. 

They had the same ballot configuration that year, and if we can get our hands on the delegate data we'll see if this is a new phenomenon or if 'idiot voters' existed in 2008.  Well, Paul didn't win, so we know they do, but you know what I mean.

----------


## parocks

> I talked to one guy at work that said he accidentally voted for a Gingrich delegate because he wasn't paying really close attention. Right after the presidential candidates Newt's delegate slots were on the ballot. I do wonder how so many people could be incapable of reading a ballot and figuring it out. But hey, this is Bama.


In Tuscaloosa county, 10.8% wrongly voted in Gingrich's first delegate election, 9% wrongly voted in Paul's first delegate election 6.9% wrongly voted in Romney's first delegate election 6.4% wrongly voted in Santorum's first delegate election.

----------


## parocks

> No worries, parocks. You are passionate about debunking and that is a very good justification. Keep it polite if you can. If you cannot, well, enjoy letting the steam out!
> 
> Let's look at your favorite county with the 2 charts below. I just plot the gap between the vote count in the delegate and the presidential race for the 46 delegate contests, in the order of their ranking on the ballot.
> 
> You can see a lot on the first chart already: you see that Gingrich's first blue bar is out of line, too high: artificial top of the list benefit. You see how fast people realize their mistake and stop voting for his delegates. You see for all candidates much less votes for their last delegates than for their first: fatigue #1. You see, if you forget for a minute Paul, that there is a noticable "overall ballot order" fatigue #2: Santorum does worse than Romney who does worse than Gingrich.
> 
> And you see Paul's mad anomaly. It is incomprehensibly misaligned. You say: his score is just due to idiots who have started to vote for all. 6.4% of voters in Tuscaloosa. Really? Let's substract them from the second chart. Is the anomaly gone? Nope.
> 
> In the 1st chart, to go from the last blue to the first red column, you need a 2,200 vote swing: 2,200 "idiots" filling Gingrich's delegate races carrying thru, out of 4,700 voting for his last, 9th delegate, almost half of them? Okay. Fine. Let's assume so for a moment. Why not? Then you go thru the red column with normal fatigue and then what? Not a single idiot carries on to Romney? 100% of them suddenly vanish? That makes no sense whatsoever.
> ...



No, here's what you have to do.

10.8% - voted for Gingrich's first, wrongly
9% - voted for Paul's first wrongly
6.9% - voted for Romney's first wrongly
6.4% - voted for Santorum's first wrongly.

That 4.4% is the voters who got "fatigued".

The slopes you're looking at are "voter fatigue". In each one of the candidates cases, you can see the slope, the voter fatigue.

Don't just add the 6.4% to all, make the full corrections.

Again, take

Top Gingrich, down by 10.8%
Top Paul, down by 9%
Top Romney, down by 6.9%
Top Santorum, down by 6.4%

----------


## dsw

> 10.8% - voted for Gingrich's first, wrongly
> 9% - voted for Paul's first wrongly
> 6.9% - voted for Romney's first wrongly
> 6.4% - voted for Santorum's first wrongly.


I was trying to replicate this but I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean.  Is it that 10.8% of non-Gingrich voters wrongly voted for Gingrich's first delegate race, and 9% of non-Paul voters wrongly voted in Paul's first race, etc?  And then there's some fatigue factor within each of those sets of votes?

Or is it that 10.8% of *all* voters started out voting in every delegate race (so that's 10.8% of Gingrich voters, who were actually not voting wrongly at that point, and 10.8% of Paul voters, etc).  And these 10.8% gradually got fatigued and stopped at various points, with 1.8% stopping over the range of Gingrich delegates, then 2.1% more fading over the range of Paul delegates, etc?   *And* there's a separate fatigue factor for the 89.2% of each candidate's supporters who started with the correct first race but didn't get all the way to the end?

----------


## affa

> The slopes you're looking at are "voter fatigue". In each one of the candidates cases, you can see the slope, the voter fatigue.


You do realize he clearly states this, right?

"You can see a lot on the first chart already: you see that Gingrich's first blue bar is out of line, too high: artificial top of the list benefit. You see how fast people realize their mistake and stop voting for his delegates. You see for all candidates much less votes for their last delegates than for their first: fatigue #1. You see, if you forget for a minute Paul, that there is a noticable "overall ballot order" fatigue #2: Santorum does worse than Romney who does worse than Gingrich."

We know we're seeing an initial burst for Gingrich, voter fatigue from candidate to candidate, and within each candidate.  However, that does not explain the anomaly.

----------


## parocks

> I was trying to replicate this but I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean.  Is it that 10.8% of non-Gingrich voters wrongly voted for Gingrich's first delegate race, and 9% of non-Paul voters wrongly voted in Paul's first race, etc?  And then there's some fatigue factor within each of those sets of votes?
> 
> Or is it that 10.8% of *all* voters started out voting in every delegate race (so that's 10.8% of Gingrich voters, who were actually not voting wrongly at that point, and 10.8% of Paul voters, etc).  And these 10.8% gradually got fatigued and stopped at various points, with 1.8% stopping over the range of Gingrich delegates, then 2.1% more fading over the range of Paul delegates, etc?   *And* there's a separate fatigue factor for the 89.2% of each candidate's supporters who started with the correct first race but didn't get all the way to the end?



See this post - post 123 in this thread for greater detail.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4333891


Remember the first guess was 10% of all voters voted in every delegate race?
That was the first guess.  But it wasn't right.

10.8% of all voters started to fill out every race.  That's Gingrich's number.

10.8% of all voters wrongly voted in the first Gingrich race.

The math on that is.  Total number of votes in the presidential preference.
X .108 = number of people who wrongly voted in the first Gingrich race.
Take that number, and subtract it from the actual number of votes in the first gingrich race.  You will find that that number is almost exactly 70% of the votes for Gingrich in the presidential poll.

Do the same for Paul, Romney and Santorum.,  with 9%, 6.9%, 6.4%.

9% is the percentage (of all voters) who wrongly filled out Paul's first delegate race.

6.9% is the wrong Romney, 6.4% is the wrong Santorum.

*******

This is a tricky question that you're asking though.  

I started out by dividing "wrong" and "right" voters.  

And I was looking for reasonable numbers that worked.  

You mentioned a problem with "range", and I picked numbers that gave me a great range.  I wanted all the candidates to have a similar range (here, the range is good and tight) - 70% was the figure I picked for the Top of the range.

I determined what the number of votes in the top delegate election would be 70% of the votes that were cast for the candidate.

I started with votes in presidential contest x .70 = votes in first/top delegate election for the candidate.  Then, after I got that number, I figured out how many "wrong" votes there had to be to get the numbers.  And then I figured out the percentage after that.

And, the numbers work out well.  In each case, the number of votes that needed to be subtracted to get the top delegate number at 70% of candidate vote total fit an expected, reasonable pattern.  

4.4% of the total voters, people who intended to complete all, quit before the end.
6.4% of the total voters,  ... didn't quit.

Also, the bottom of the range, and all the precinct totals actually, could/should be normed as well.

The reason why this is being done is simply to show that there's a very reasonable explanation for the results that we're seeing.  I'm not arguing that my numbers are accurate.  I'm just saying that my numbers are reasonable, and they fit.

If I changed the 70% assumption, I'd have to change the wrong voter %s.

There are a lot of reasonable sets of assumptions that can give those figures that we see.  But, the very very reasonable assumptions that I made resulted in figures that fit really well.
Gingrich top % wrongvote is higher than
Gingrich bottom % wrongvote is higher than
Paul top % wrongvote is higher than
Paul bottom % wrongvote is higher than
Romney top % wrongvote is higher than
Romney bottom % wrongvote is higher than
Santorum top % wrongvote is higher than
Santorum bottom % wrongvote is higher than

and that is exactly what we would expect when we're trying to determine the relevance of the fatigue factor.

And that leaves a very nice tight range - 70% - 54%.  I didn't want to play around with the bottom of the range too much, but, except for Santorum (who had a tighter range because he only had 3 races) they came in 52,53,54,55.  

These are guessed to how people actually behaved, and they come pretty close to explaining it really well.

 Your 2nd paragraph is almost right, and it might be 100% right.  Yes, there are separate fatigue factors, for the "wrong" and for the "right"

The numbers do fit nicely.

----------


## parocks

> You do realize he clearly states this, right?
> 
> "You can see a lot on the first chart already: you see that Gingrich's first blue bar is out of line, too high: artificial top of the list benefit. You see how fast people realize their mistake and stop voting for his delegates. You see for all candidates much less votes for their last delegates than for their first: fatigue #1. You see, if you forget for a minute Paul, that there is a noticable "overall ballot order" fatigue #2: Santorum does worse than Romney who does worse than Gingrich."
> 
> We know we're seeing an initial burst for Gingrich, voter fatigue from candidate to candidate, and within each candidate.  However, that does not explain the anomaly.


No Affa, he needs to make a 3rd chart.  The 2nd chart is a partial correction of the first chart.  He needs to take it one step further, and take an additional 4.4% off the top of Gingrich, an additional 2.6% off the top of Paul, an additional .5% off the top of Romney, and none off the top of Santorum.

(He also would need to correct the other delegate races, I only looked at top and bottom).

Then, after he did that, we could look at the results, and see if anything odd still existed.

He just needs to go one step further.

******************************

Actually, he needs to go one step more than that.  He needs to change from raw numbers to percentage.  Santorum, because he had the most votes, will have the most undervotes,  Paul will have, by far, the least undervotes.  Because his numbers are much smaller.

I'll make a little graphic in photoshop to show you what you're going to try to do.

----------


## parocks

Here's the modified chart, where the additional wrong votes / overvotes, are taken into account.


****************************

number adjustments to his chart.
I have 1303 as 6.4%, or I used 1303,  so I'll assume he used 1303 as 6.4%
Gingrich top adjusted down by 898 (4.4% approx to equal 10.8% approx)
Gingrich bottom adjusted down by 540 (2.6% approx to equal 9% approx)
Paul top adjusted down by 540 (2.6% approx to equal 9%)
Paul bottom adjusted down by 197 (.8% approx to equal 7.2%)
Romney top adjusted down by 91 (.5 approx to equal 6.9%)
Romney bottom adjusted down by 0
Santorum top adjusted down by 0
Santorum bottom adjusted down by 0

*****************************************

*****************************************

Ron Paul numbers explained (Tuscaloosa County)

Votes - 1046

Delegate Votes

Top delegate vote = 2575
Bottom delegate vote = 2082

Who voted for Ron Paul's delegates?
of 2575

1303 (6.4 percent of ALL Voters - voted for ALL delegates)
540 (2.6 percent of ALL Voters - voted wrongly for Ron Paul, did not vote for ALL delegates - got fatigued)
732 (70 percent of Ron Paul voters - voted for the first Ron Paul delegates)
1303+540+732=2575

of 2082

1303 (6.4 percent of ALL Voters - voted for ALL delegates)
197 (.9 percent of ALL Voters - voted wrongly for Ron Paul in his final race, did not vote for ALL delegates - got fatigued)
582 (55 percent of Ron Paul voters (approx) - voted for ALL Ron Paul delegates)
1303+197+582=2082

These are numbers based on Tuscaloosa County numbers.  Not a mathematical formula that fits other counties.
Different things happened in different counties.  Much in the way that in some counties more people voted for Romney, and
in others more people voted for Santorum, this is merely an approximation of what happened in Tuscaloosa County.
There could be other counties that are not as easily explained.

**********************************************

**********************************************

Voted ALL delegates + Voted SOME delegates, got fatigued + Right votes

Gingrich top - 1303 (the 6.4%, from ALL that voted ALL) + 898 (4.4% from ALL, that voted SOME) + 3891 (70% of 5559 candidate vote total) = 6092
Gingrich bottom - 1303 + 540 (2.6%) + 2976 (53% of 5559 candidate vote total) = 4819
Paul top - 1303 + 540 (2.6%) + 732 (70% of 1046 candidate vote total) = 2575
Paul bottom - 1303 + 197 (.9%) + 582 (55% of 1046 candidate vote total) = 2082
Romney top - 1303 + 91 (.5%) + 4260 (70% of 6086 candidate vote total) = 5654
Romney bottom - 1303 + 0 + 3303 (54% of 6086 candidate vote total) = 4606
Santorum top - 1303 + 0 + 5106 (70% of 7295 candidate vote total) = 6409
Santorum bottom - 1303 + 0 + 4589 (62% of 7295 candidate vote total) = 5892


************************

----------


## parocks

here's another chart

----------


## Liberty1789

Here is your chart, as per your pressing instructions. I took the liberty to linearily interpolate the "fatigue"
 between the start and end point provided by you for each candidate.



You see already a problem with fatigue: Paul displays none after his 3rd delegate. Gingrich and Romney still do. This aberration is due to the fact that you have substracted an identical-size block of voters (6.4%) with no fatigue from all candidates. We had coherent fatigue pattern before. We do not anymore. Red flag.

So you start by multiplying the number of presidential votes by 0.7. As per this:




> You mentioned a problem with "range", and I picked numbers that gave me a great range.  I wanted all the candidates to have a similar range (here, the range is good and tight) - 70% was the figure I picked for the Top of the range. I determined what the number of votes in the top delegate election would be 70% of the votes that were cast for the candidate.


A bit out of thin air, but ok, let's call it a working assumption. Then you add 6.4% of total votes. As I said before, it is such a huge shift, especially with a candidate barely at 5% that a sanity check is called for it: what does it means at precinct level? If I substract the 6.4% average from all Paul's precincts, it sends 14 out of 54 = 26% of them into negative vote count territory, with a cumulative negative vote of 2,155.

"Hold on, deranged Liberty1789, it is not happening evenly. Does not happen in low count precincts obviously."

I see, so I need to substract 2,155 votes from the precinct races with numerous votes only. Where do I stand? 54 precincts x 16 delegate races= 864 races. 184 already in the red at 1st blush. If I put all of them back at zero only, I need to lose a combined 2,155 votes in (864-180)=680 races left. That would be an average of 3.2 per race. Darn. Not good. 308 precincts out of the remaining 680 have 3 votes or less. If I do not want to send the vote tally to 0 for 60% of the precincts, I must really concentrate the idiotic vote-for-all on the large precincts. Why would vote-for-all idiots live more frequently in large precincts and never in small one (otherwise the math stops working)?? Can I test that because it sounds absurd.

We sure can because we have a brilliant no-so gifted voter detector: the vote count in the 1st delegate race of Gingrich. The excess vote in that delegate race over the presidential vote is a very cool indicator of a struggling-with-instructions voter. How does that correlate with precinct vote tally? The correlation coefficient is 0.02. Precinct vote tally and vote-for-all idiocy have zero correlation and therefore your explanation collapses. Red flag.

Now if you adjust your model per precinct to fit, then as you cautiously mentioned you might have to do, for each county with different equations so that they fit, well, yeah, you gonna explain a lot. It is called force-fitting and the statistical validity will be nil though.

----------


## dsw

> 


Is this with the assumption that the non-idiot voters all voted in their own candidate's delegate races?   If that's not included it would explain some of the deficit, but for Tuscaloosa if I'm reading this right it would take something close to 40% of voters not voting in any delegate races to compensate which seems rather high even for a confusing ballot.  But we know it happens to a significant degree, at least for Mitt, Newt and Santorum voters, so it should be factored in here somehow.  

BTW, what graphing software do you use?

----------


## Liberty1789

> Is this with the assumption that the non-idiot voters all voted in their own candidate's delegate races?


As per parocks assumptions, ie, 30% of non-idiots voted in the preference vote, but not in any delegates races (if I've got that right!).

Excel does wonders when pushed a bit

----------


## Liberty1789

Working on something at the moment that you might enjoy...

Just a small, tantalizing excerpt:

2008 Ron Paul delegate votes/ presidential votes
1st-listed delegate 75.5%
2nd-listed delegate 71.9%

----------


## dsw

> As per parocks assumptions, ie, 30% of non-idiots voted in the preference vote, but not in any delegates races (if I've got that right!).
> 
> Excel does wonders when pushed a bit


I can't get the numbers to match up, but I'm probably just misunderstanding the scenario.  

I'm amazed that you can get so much out of Excel!  I've tried gnuplot and matplotlib (for python) and can't seem to get all the right libraries installed.  Very frustrating.

----------


## affa

> Working on something at the moment that you might enjoy...
> 
> Just a small, tantalizing excerpt:
> 
> 2008 Ron Paul delegate votes/ presidential votes
> 1st-listed delegate 75.5%
> 2nd-listed delegate 71.9%


Liberty, what you don't understand is that in 2008 voters were 73% more fatigued than in 2012.  So you need to multiply these numbers by 23.4%, then divide by 3, then add 15x and use a weighing factor of 62.   If you do this, and the numbers are still off, you probably just did your math wrong, or are using a chart which doesn't show it correctly, because these numbers look right to me.   but again, if not, just do an exponential of the square root of 3, then add another 7.7 percent for good measure.

PS -- for those that remember, 2008 in Alabama used the same ballot set up.




> Okay, the Alabama 2008 ballot looked just as ridiculous.
> http://www.co.baldwin.al.us/uploads/...ballot_Rep.pdf
> 
> So, did we have the same problem that year?

----------


## RonRules

> Liberty, what you don't understand is that in 2008 voters were 73% more fatigued than in 2012.  So you need to multiply these numbers by 23.4%, then divide by 3, then add 15x and use a weighing factor of 62.   If you do this, and the numbers are still off, you probably just did your math wrong, or are using a chart which doesn't show it correctly, because these numbers look right to me.   but again, if not, just do an exponential of the square root of 3, then add another 7.7 percent for good measure.


The price for Liberty is eternal number fudging!

So, why are we still here when The Man clearly demonstrated five pages ago that Ron got Santorum's delegates.  I also explained how it happened (scanner configuration file problem)

----------


## parocks

> I can't get the numbers to match up, but I'm probably just misunderstanding the scenario.  
> 
> I'm amazed that you can get so much out of Excel!  I've tried gnuplot and matplotlib (for python) and can't seem to get all the right libraries installed.  Very frustrating.


Have you looked at the most recent additions, my more recent graphs?

It's spelled out extremely clearly.

----------


## parocks

> As per parocks assumptions, ie, 30% of non-idiots voted in the preference vote, but not in any delegates races (if I've got that right!).
> 
> Excel does wonders when pushed a bit


Right, 30% was an assumption that I made.  It seemed like a reasonable assumption to make.  I can probably make the numbers work with other assumptions.  

I personally don't vote when I don't know the people on the ballot, especially in cases like this.  These delegate races only determine who the Ron Paul delegate is IF Ron Paul gets a delegate.  If I lived in Alabama, I would know that Ron Paul wasn't going to get any delegates, and I probably wouldn't waste my time.  Unless I was actively involved with the campaign, I probably wouldn't know who all the Ron Paul supporters were.  So I'd probably skip it entirely,  instead of jumping in, and making completely uninformed choices.  I think that 30% of each of the candidates supporters would understand that's what this is all about, and skip it.  

Can't have question marks there.

----------


## parocks

> The price for Liberty is eternal number fudging!
> 
> So, why are we still here when The Man clearly demonstrated five pages ago that Ron got Santorum's delegates.  I also explained how it happened (scanner configuration file problem)


Yes, you also explain when the polls close that "vote flipping" starts immediately.

The first results that come in are the "right" results, and if the results ever differ from the first, "right" results, the reason for that is vote flipping.  You do this by showing screencaps from the CNN website.  Sometimes you're right, and the votes change in the direction you predict, and sometimes you're wrong, and the votes go in the opposite direction.  

No matter what people say about "rural" and "suburban", you are certain that you're looking at vote fraud.

----------


## dsw

> So, why are we still here when The Man clearly demonstrated five pages ago that Ron got Santorum's delegates.  I also explained how it happened (scanner configuration file problem)


I can't speak for anyone else, but if you're talking about post #115 he starts out with "After considering all prior arguments in this thread, it is believed that the delegates' percentages are extremely close to the ACTUAL untampered candidate vote percentages."   That's an assertion not an argument.  Liberty responded by looking at what TM's hypothesis would have done to the distribution for Santorum.  

Your hypothesis of scanner configuration is, as I understand it, that the pixel area for Ron Paul was intentionally shifted (it had to be intentional to show up on both the oval and arrow ballot designs, right?) so that some percentage of his votes were ignored.  That avoids one problem, because it would affect Ron Paul's vote without affecting Santorum's vote, but then how do you reconcile it with Liberty's chart in #138?

I took both of those suggestions as merely suggestions, without much in the way of arguments to support them.  And at first glance neither one seems to fit the data very well, but they haven't been fleshed out in detail enough to tell.  That doesn't mean they aren't worth further attention if someone wants to do the analysis.

----------


## parocks

> here's another chart


this one here.  explain how this is "wrong"

----------


## dsw

> Have you looked at the most recent additions, my more recent graphs?


Tell me if this is the right sort of calculation:
19347 total votes in Tuscaloosa
10.8% idiots = 2089 voters
Leaving 17258 non-idiot voters

Mitt got 5815 votes
Of which 628 (10.8%) are idiots
And 5187 are non-idiots

If 30% of non-idiots are lazy (no delegate votes)
then Mitt had 3630 non-lazy, non-idiot voters

Mitt's first delegate race had 5454 votes
Which is 1824 more than the non-lazy, non-idiot Mitt voters
There are 13532 non-Mitt voters
Of whom only 6.9% (933 voters) were both idiots and not fatigued
So we still have an excess of 891 to explain.

And does your theory have to be adapted to each individual county?  Because if that calculation is what you had in mind, the unexplained difference for Mitt's first delegate is even greater for the state overall.

----------


## parocks

> Is this with the assumption that the non-idiot voters all voted in their own candidate's delegate races?   If that's not included it would explain some of the deficit, but for Tuscaloosa if I'm reading this right it would take something close to 40% of voters not voting in any delegate races to compensate which seems rather high even for a confusing ballot.  But we know it happens to a significant degree, at least for Mitt, Newt and Santorum voters, so it should be factored in here somehow.  
> 
> BTW, what graphing software do you use?


It's not 40%, it's 30%.  And the 30% is an assumption,  and if I changed that assumption, I'd just change the other numbers, the 6.4, the 4.4, the 2.6, the .9 and the .5.  I don't think that any of those numbers that I picked are exactly right.  But they're REASONABLE assumptions about normal voter behavior.  

It's not unreasonable to think that 6.4% of All Voters voted in every delegate race.  It's not unreasonable to think that 30% of the people who cast a presidential preference vote didn't bother with the delegate vote.  It's not unreasonable to think that an additional 4.4% of the people would start and not complete filling out all the delegate ballots.  

Normal people behaving normally - in this way or in a somewhat different way - explains what's happening.

Not - "oh, 2 graphs look somewhat similar, therefore, vote flipping"

----------


## affa

> Your hypothesis of scanner configuration is, as I understand it, that the pixel area for Ron Paul was intentionally shifted (it had to be intentional to show up on both the oval and arrow ballot designs, right?) so that some percentage of his votes were ignored.  That avoids one problem, because it would affect Ron Paul's vote without affecting Santorum's vote, but then how do you reconcile it with Liberty's chart in #138?


Actually, no, this isn't necessarily the case.   Using my somewhat crude 'bad voter' count (based soley on Paul's overvote), you find that a great number of precincts had very accurate results, and a great number of precincts had wildly inaccurate results. (Accuracy defined as, say, only 1% mistakenly voting for Paul delegates vs., say, 15%)   There were tiny, small, medium, and large precincts at all levels of accuracy.

This could be explained by an absolutely unintentional ballot reading misconfiguration that mistakenly gave extra votes to RP delegates.   The areas that got 'bad' machines gave Ron Paul bonus delegate votes.  

This actually makes more sense to me than 'idiot voters', since if it's idiot voters you've got some extremely, extremely dumb precincts that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, and many others that are sharp shooters.  The ballot is either confusing or it isn't.  Neighboring precincts of similiar size, one getting it right, and one getting it terribly, terribly wrong suggests, to me, it may be a problem with the ballot reader - seems a cleaner answer than 'oh, this precinct of 1000 voters is full of idiots, but the other one isn't'.

Anyway, the point is -- your assumption that it must be 'intentional' is wrong, as is your assumption that it had to to show up on both arrow and bubble forms... based on the massive 'bad voter' rate spread, I think many, many precincts were spared from it.  Assuming ballot misconfiguration, those would be the correctly coded ones.  It could just be a subset of one type being miscoded, for all we know.  I'm not sure how to explain midrange error rates (since looking at just precincts over 100 voters, the error rate ranged from <1% to >20%, but perhaps the 8-10% range had a mix of correctly and incorrectly coded ballot machines?  Pure speculation, though.

I'm not saying it's definitely a ballot reading issue; I'm still working on it.  I do know 'idiot voters' doesn't really make sense based on the data I'm looking at, though.

----------


## RonRules

> Your hypothesis of scanner configuration is, as I understand it, that the pixel area for Ron Paul was intentionally shifted (it had to be intentional to show up on both the oval and arrow ballot designs, right?) so that some percentage of his votes were ignored.  That avoids one problem, because it would affect Ron Paul's vote without affecting Santorum's vote, but then how do you reconcile it with Liberty's chart in #138?


No. It's not a slight pixel shifting problem or anything like that. The candidate name assignment for ALL of Santorum delegate "scanner vote targets" we simply done wrong and assigned to Ron Paul instead. That's just a single mistake that can easily be done. I actually believe that it was an honest mistake or simply carelessness. Otherwise why in the world would they want to assign more delegates to Ron Paul than he was entitled to.

For example to explain in more detail. Here is what a scanner configuration file could look like:

Romney:  Pixel box (X-192, Y-37, +/- 5 pixels) (repeat for each delegate)
Gingrich:  Pixel box (X-256, Y-12, +/- 5 pixels) (repeat for each delegate)
Santorum:  Pixel box (X-43, Y-67, +/- 5 pixels) (repeat for each delegate)
Paul:  Pixel box (X-97, Y-46, +/- 5 pixels) (repeat for each delegate)

Mistake could have simply been that the name assigned to each group of pixel boxes like this:

Paul:  Pixel box (X-43, Y-67, +/- 5 pixels) (repeat for each delegate) Switched from Santorum above
Santorum:  Pixel box (X-97, Y-46, +/- 5 pixels) (repeat for each delegate) Switched from Paul above.

That *one single mistake* (deliberate or not), if copied to all scanners used in the election would explain 99% of of what this thread is trying to figure out.

----------


## dsw

> Anyway, the point is -- your assumption that it must be 'intentional' is wrong, as is your assumption that it had to to show up on both arrow and bubble forms... based on the massive 'bad voter' rate spread, I think many, many precincts were spared from it. Assuming ballot misconfiguration, those would be the correctly coded ones.


If it happened for both the bubble and arrow styles, and only for Ron Paul, that would make me tend to think it was intentional.   If it were unintentional I'd expect there to be a distinct difference between the bubble counties and the arrow counties, but spot checking a dozen or so makes me think that's not the case.  I'm not saying it's impossible just that so far I haven't seen any evidence to support it.

----------


## dsw

> No. It's not a slight pixel shifting problem or anything like that. The candidate name assignment for ALL of Santorum delegate "scanner vote targets" we simply done wrong. That's just a single mistake that can easily be done.
> 
> For example a scanner configuration file could look like this:
> 
> Romney:  Pixel box (X-192, Y-37, +/- 5 pixels) (for each delegate)
> Gingrich:  Pixel box (X-256, Y-12, +/- 5 pixels) (for each delegate)
> Santorum:  Pixel box (X-43, Y-67, +/- 5 pixels) (for each delegate)
> Paul:  Pixel box (X-97, Y-46, +/- 5 pixels) (for each delegate)
> 
> ...


There were two styles of ballots, and variations within that of where the different races ended up on the page.  Romney had some delegate races that were on the front in some ballots and on the back in others, for example.  So if there were errors affecting Ron Paul across all or most of those variations isn't it hard to see how it could not be intentional?

But I really don't quite understand what your'e saying would have happened with the error you're describing.  Santorum had fewer delegate races than Ron Paul, so swapping the pixel box definitions would have really messed things up, wouldn't it?  Can you describe, in terms of percentage of votes affected and so on, what effect you think would explain things so well?

----------


## RonRules

> I can't speak for anyone else, but if you're talking about post #115 he starts out with "After considering all prior arguments in this thread, it is believed that the delegates' percentages are extremely close to the ACTUAL untampered candidate vote percentages."   That's an assertion not an argument.  Liberty responded by looking at what TM's hypothesis would have done to the distribution for Santorum.


I was referring to THIS chart. In my opinion, this is the most important chart in this entire thread. It totally explains the problem.

----------


## RonRules

> There were two styles of ballots, and variations within that of where the different races ended up on the page.  Romney had some delegate races that were on the front in some ballots and on the back in others, for example.  So if there were errors affecting Ron Paul across all or most of those variations isn't it hard to see how it could not be intentional?


It does not matter what kind of ballot is used. It's the configuration file candidate assignment. The entire thing can be switched by a single easy mistake to make.

----------


## dsw

> It does not matter what kind of ballot is used. It's the configuration file candidate assignment. The entire thing can be switched by a single easy mistake to make.


Sorry, not getting it.  There would be one configuration file for all the various ballot configurations?  And what exactly would it be switching?  Santorum had three delegate races, Ron Paul had fifteen.  What exactly is being switched?

----------


## RonRules

> Sorry, not getting it.  There would be one configuration file for all the various ballot configurations?  And what exactly would it be switching?  Santorum had three delegate races, Ron Paul had fifteen.  What exactly is being switched?


ALL the delegate races for each candidate have to have an association. Ron has his delegates, Santorum has his delegates. They were switched.

Please search the net for one such configuration file. I'll analyze it.

----------


## drummergirl

> Working on something at the moment that you might enjoy...
> 
> Just a small, tantalizing excerpt:
> 
> 2008 Ron Paul delegate votes/ presidential votes
> 1st-listed delegate 75.5%
> 2nd-listed delegate 71.9%


What do you know? The voters are not idiot monkeys after all.

----------


## parocks

> Tell me if this is the right sort of calculation:
> 19347 total votes in Tuscaloosa
> 10.8% idiots = 2089 voters
> Leaving 17258 non-idiot voters
> 
> Mitt got 5815 votes
> Of which 628 (10.8%) are idiots
> And 5187 are non-idiots
> 
> ...


http://results.enr.clarityelections....n/summary.html

1) You need to start with 20,484 votes in the presidential preference vote.

2) Mitt got 6086 votes.

3) Don't adjust the idiots at the point you did. Where you say 

"Of which 628 (10.8%) are idiots"

Just don't do that step.

You have to make assumptions.  And the key assumption to make the numbers work is the 30% yes preference poll / no delegate voters.

You just Make That Assumption.  The 30% is not calculated.  It's an assumption.

So, now that you've made that assumption, you determine, from the vote total, and from the assumption, the number of votes Romney should have.

In Romney's case, it's 6086 (votes) x (.7, or 1-.3) the number of non lazy = 4260.

Now that you have that number 4260, you will want to determine the relationship between the number of people that should be voting in the various races (4260)
and the number of people who actually did vote in those races.  Romney's top was 5669.  So, then you take the 5669 and subtract the 4260.  That leaves 1409.

Those 3 numbers, now, are
5669 - Romney top delegate vote
4260 - Romney voters who weren't lazy
1409 - People who intended to vote for all / wrong voters / idiots.

Then you'd do the same math with all 4 candidates, to find the "intended / wrong / idiots" number for each.

After doing that math, you'll find that 
Gingrich's number is 2201
Paul's number is 1843
Romney's number is 1409
Santorum's number is 1303

1303 - the people who "finished" by getting to Santorum.
1303 (the number of people who got to Santorum) / total votes in presidential 20,484, is .0636, or 6.4%

Then you can continue to do the math, and get 
1409/20484 or .0687, or 6.9% for Romney
1843/20484 or .0899, or 9% for Paul
2201/20484 or .1074, or 10.8% for Gingrich.  Ok, the 10.8 should probably be a 10.7%, but the only percentage that's actually used in the calculations is the 30% Assumption.

You'll see those numbers in the graphs.  Instead of 2201, there's 1303+898, 1303+540 for Paul, 1303+91 for Romney, 1303 +0 for Santorum.

I think that you would've gotten this a lot easier if you started with the 20484 number.

----------


## drummergirl

> Liberty, what you don't understand is that in 2008 voters were 73% more fatigued than in 2012.  So you need to multiply these numbers by 23.4%, then divide by 3, then add 15x and use a weighing factor of 62.   If you do this, and the numbers are still off, you probably just did your math wrong, or are using a chart which doesn't show it correctly, because these numbers look right to me.   but again, if not, just do an exponential of the square root of 3, then add another 7.7 percent for good measure.
> 
> PS -- for those that remember, 2008 in Alabama used the same ballot set up.

----------


## dsw

I took another look at that chart (from  here).  I guess I didn't pay a lot of attention to it because I wasn't exactly sure what was being calculated, or why the similarity of the graphs (with the smoothing done by the cumulative averaging) should be so conclusive that really not much in the way of details was needed to make the case.

Now that I have Liberty's data set, I thought I'd try to replicate the result.  And right away I'm back to not being real sure of what's calculated.  Santorum has three delegate races, and Ron Paul fifteen or so.  Is he adding up all the votes in all of the delegate races?  Hopefully not because that would just be bogus from the get go.  Averaging them?  I don't know.  If he explained it I missed it.

So I looked at the first delegate race of each.  In each precinct I added the preference votes for Santorum and Paul, and added the delegate race totals for the first delegate race of each.  I took the difference between these, and ... if there's a pattern, it's not obvious.

He said at one point (without a real argument to support it) that the delegate vote was the actual, untampered vote for Ron Paul.  So subtracting the vote reported for Paul from the vote reported in the first delegate race (for lack of a clearer definition of what he meant) would give the number of votes allegedly stolen from Paul and given to Santorum.  So I can calculate what Santorum's actual vote would have been by subtracting the stolen vote.  Now the rato of Ron Paul's delegate vote to his preference vote is 1.0 by definition (because we're taking his delegate vote as being the untampered vote for Paul himself).  But I can calculate Santorum's ratio under this theory.  

For precincts with over 1000 votes total, what this does is take Santorum from having about 10% fewer delegate votes than Santorum himself got, to having about 15% too many votes in the delegate race.  That's a lot of votes.

If you can clarify what the theory is I could take another look, but a vague hypothesis, and a graph that after smoothing ends up looking similar to another graph, and without a detailed look at how that change would affect everything else, doesn't add up to a compelling argument.  







> I was referring to THIS chart. In my opinion, this is the most important chart in this entire thread. It totally explains the problem.

----------


## drummergirl

Other than being illegible and apparently designed to create migraines?  I can't say since it doesn't seem to mean anything.




> this one here.  explain how this is "wrong"

----------


## dsw

> ALL the delegate races for each candidate have to have an association. Ron has his delegates, Santorum has his delegates. They were switched.


But Ron has 16 delegate races (I was wrong when I said 15 earlier), and Santorum has three.  If you switch them wouldn't it be looking at the first three of Ron's delegate races and treating those as if they were Santorum's?  Then what about the next 13 delegate races that are Ron Paul's?   

Similarly if the configuration says that to find Ron Paul's races you look where Santorum's actually are, then you start looking for 16 races but there are only three marked on the ballot there.  So I'm not sure what you think is being switched.

----------


## RonRules

> Now that I have Liberty's data set, I thought I'd try to replicate the result.  And right away I'm back to not being real sure of what's calculated.  Santorum has three delegate races, and Ron Paul fifteen or so.  Is he adding up all the votes in all of the delegate races?  Hopefully not because that would just be bogus from the get go.  Averaging them?  I don't know.  If he explained it I missed it.
> 
> So I looked at the first delegate race of each.  In each precinct I added the preference votes for Santorum and Paul, and added the delegate race totals for the first delegate race of each.  I took the difference between these, and ... if there's a pattern, it's not obvious.


Add all of Paul + Santorum votes. Add all of Paul + Santorum delegates. Chart and see how close they match.

----------


## dsw

> Add all of Paul + Santorum votes. Add all of Paul + Santorum delegates. Chart and see how close they match.


You mean add all three Santorum delegate races and all sixteen Ron Paul delegate races?  Not only is that a meaningless calculation in terms of the flipping theory, the sum is not close at all to Paul + Santorum in the preference voting.

----------


## RonRules

> You mean add all three Santorum delegate races and all sixteen Ron Paul delegate races?  Not only is that a meaningless calculation in terms of the flipping theory, the sum is not close at all to Paul + Santorum in the preference voting.


I don't have his data. Try it with just three or ask him to explain / label his charts better.

----------


## dsw

> I don't have his data. Try it with just three or ask him to explain / label his charts better.


Adding the first three of Ron Paul's delegate races (ignoring 13 others) and all three of Santorum's still gives you a total WAY too high.  Adding all nineteen together is even worse obviously.  And neither of these sums have anything to do with the flipping theory.  It doesn't even work out if you just look at the first delegate race.  It didn't seem like a convincing argument when it was first posted, and testing the theory that Paul votes were flipped to Santorum (even just on the larger precincts) makes me even less impressed with its potential.  

Besides, you looked at the standard sort of flipping analysis:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4331033
and wasn't the conclusion that there was no evidence of flipping?  Or that there was flipping but not against Ron Paul?  Isn't the fact that that graph doesn't level out (for Romney) supposed to be proof of fraud?  (I disagree with that conclusion, but isn't that what the algorithmic flipping theory is supposed to say when the graph doesn't flatten out?)

----------


## Liberty1789

First I want to post a large picture of a sample 2008 ballot in Alabama, so that one can see that the mechanism, rules, layout are identical to 2012. You vote in the presidential preference poll first, then if you comply, you only vote for the delegate contests of your presidential choice.

----------


## Liberty1789

Second, I have found the official 2008 Presidential Preference Primary vote canvass of the Baldwin County with precinct and delegate race details right here:

http://www.co.baldwin.al.us/Pageview.asp?edit_id=17

----------


## Liberty1789

Third, well, you know: import data and plot.

Here we go: dsw's inspired chart for Baldwin in 2008 and 2012



Kaboom.

And the cumulative distribution function for the math cracks:



One detail for parocks: Giuliani had 98 votes in the presidential vote in 2008. His 1st delegate contest, the very first on the ballot, garnered 84 votes. No idiots voting for everybody in sight. Terminal debunk. But your idea was very ingenious and well worth exploring, so thank you again and kudos to you.

----------


## RonRules

> Adding the first three of Ron Paul's delegate races (ignoring 13 others) and all three of Santorum's still gives you a total WAY too high.  Adding all nineteen together is even worse obviously.


Since I don't have this specific data that produced Liberty's chart, it's probably best if he could explain it.

I was trying to say: Exchange Paul's top three delegates with Santorum's three. See if that adds up.

----------


## dsw

Awesome stuff, Liberty.  Do you have the data uploaded somewhere by any chance?

Can you rule out the possibility that in 2008 they enforced the rule about only voting in the right delegate races?  That seems like the most obvious question to ask first.  Independent of any fraud or idiot voters or whatever, it seems clear that a significant percentage of voters (in 2012) cast a vote in that first delegate race below the preference vote, which in 2012 was a Gingrich delegate race.  It's hard to believe that a similar percentage of voters wouldn't make a similar mistake in 2008, unless of course they enforced the rule that time.  It should have shown up even more clearly in 2008 because the first delegate race happened to be for a candidate who got very few votes.

----------


## dsw

> I was trying to say: Exchange Paul's top three delegates with Santorum's three. See if that adds up.


The first few delegate race totals for Ron Paul look like this:  82940, 78279, 74595, 75322, 74683, 72226 ...

Santorums (only) three delegate races look like this:  186628, 177884, 174670

If there was swapping of just the first three of Paul's races with Santorums, then the theory is that the actual untampered votes were:
Ron Paul:  186628, 177884, 174670, 75322, 74683, 72226 ...
Santorum:   82940, 78279, 74595

And the challenge would then be to explain why Ron Paul got more than twice as many delegate votes in his first three races than he did in any of the other thirteen.  And why Santorum's three delegate races are, in contrast, consistent with those other thirteen races of Ron Paul's.  I'm not buying it.

----------


## The Man

This PROVES exactly what happened PERIOD. I will post and then explain how the 3 were generated.



The blue curve is the sum of Santorum and Paul's reported totals- graphed cumulative percent via ascending vote total precincts
The purple curve is the sum of Santorum and Paul's reported delegate totals- graphed same way as above
The red curve is the sum of Santorum and Paul's ADJUSTED* delegate totals- graphed same way as above

ADJUSTED- Subtract 15,732 from each candidate's delegate total (1/4th of the difference between total reported candidate votes and total reported delegate votes). The total number of candidate votes AND adjusted delegate votes is 582,874. The reported delegate totals is 645,803. Santorum's REPORTED delegate graph looks NOTHING like his candidate graph (cumulative%) and Ron Paul's Reported delegate graph looks NOTHING like his candidate graph, but the sum of the two are dead ringers... PERIOD!

Plain and simple as possible, ALL candidates receives excess delegate votes in very similar proportions. This graph PROVES that Santorum received excess Paul votes. It was OBVIOUS the first time I saw the resultes of Alabama that Paul's totals were totally unnatural. Santorum received ALL PAul votes in excess of 5% cumulatively. The reason that you are having such trouble figuring this out with your methods Liberty1789 is EVERY Candidate loses approximately 15,732 votes and it make your distribution skewed; it's hard to see that Santorum is GAINING candidate votes at the same rate that Paul is losing votes until you work in percentages.

Clarification: on adjusted delegates for each, I used the following factors to alter precinct vote totals for each candidate:
Newt .922, Paul .81, Romney .91, and Santorum .916.

Please duplicate for me and add/ debunk. I will be out for a couple of hours.

----------


## dsw

> This PROVES exactly what happened PERIOD. I will post and then explain how the 3 were generated.
> 
> 
> 
> The blue curve is the sum of Santorum and Paul's reported totals- graphed cumulative percent via ascending vote total precincts
> The purple curve is the sum of Santorum and Paul's reported delegate totals- graphed same way as above
> The red curve is the sum of Santorum and Paul's ADJUSTED* delegate totals- graphed same way as above
> 
> ADJUSTED- Subtract 15,732 from each candidate's delegate total (1/4th of the difference between total reported candidate votes and total reported delegate votes). The total number of candidate votes AND adjusted delegate votes is 582,874. The reported delegate totals is 645,803. Santorum's REPORTED delegate graph looks NOTHING like his candidate graph (cumulative%) and Ron Paul's Reported delegate graph looks NOTHING like his candidate graph, but the sum of the two are dead ringers... PERIOD!
> ...


Ron Paul had sixteen delegate races.  So what exactly do you mean by "Paul's reported delegate totals"?   And is the "proof" here that the red line is closer to the blue line than the purple line?  Why would that indicate anything interesting?  At the right hand side aren't they all within 2% of each other?   After your adjustment what are the ratios of delegate vote totals in the individual races to the (adjusted to remove tampering) totals for the corresponding candidates in the preference vote?

If I wanted to go through the precinct data and, for each precinct, apply some calculation to derive the untampered vote numbers, what calculation am I supposed to be doing?  I'm not sure from your description exactly how you think the precinct numbers were manipulated.  

Is this a flipping algorithm that kicks in at some point and causes the cumulative graphs not to flatten out?  If so, why doesn't the standard graph used by people "proving" the flipping algorithm show it in this case?  If not, why graph cumulatively by precinct size?

----------


## The Man

I used the lowest (first if applicable) delegate position period.

----------


## dsw

> I used the lowest (first if applicable) delegate position period.


And what about the rest of the questions?  It's not clear what you think is happening exactly (i.e, what calculation could be applied to the precinct data to "undo" the fraud) or why two lines on the graph being a percent or two closer than two other lines is supposed to prove anything.   

If you can explain the calculation to perform, and I can apply that to the precinct data, I'll run it and see if the anomaly goes away (or is simply replaced by a different one).

----------


## RonRules

> I used the lowest (first if applicable) delegate position period.


OK then, still using the scanner theory we can still explain this.

I just need to know how many scanners are used and of what type.  

For example if three different types of scanners were used in varying proportions, if one (group) had a bad configuration file unfavorable to Paul Presidential vote (not the delegate vote), and those presidential votes would go to Santorum, this would explain the bias.

Note that we didn't witness the classic vote flipping effect (as a function of cumulative vote tally) on Ron. What instead may have happened is a straight swap to his vote regardless of precinct size. 

It would be nice to chart on the X-Axis the precinct name or number. Voting machines are generally grouped together by precincts as we saw in VA.

To the Alabama data holders (Liberty, The Man, DSW), could you please make one more chart with precinct name or number on the X-axis.

Thanks.

----------


## affa

> Third, well, you know: import data and plot.
> 
> Here we go: dsw's inspired chart for Baldwin in 2008 and 2012
> 
> 
> 
> Kaboom.
> 
> And the cumulative distribution function for the math cracks:
> ...


I KNEW 2008 data would answer this.

Thank you for finding it; I looked and looked but couldn't.

So there is DEFINITELY something wrong, and now it's just sorting out what.   

Definite anomaly.

----------


## affa

> Plain and simple as possible, ALL candidates receives excess delegate votes in very similar proportions. This graph PROVES that Santorum received excess Paul votes. It was OBVIOUS the first time I saw the resultes of Alabama that Paul's totals were totally unnatural. Santorum received ALL PAul votes in excess of 5% cumulatively. The reason that you are having such trouble figuring this out with your methods Liberty1789 is EVERY Candidate loses approximately 15,732 votes and it make your distribution skewed; it's hard to see that Santorum is GAINING candidate votes at the same rate that Paul is losing votes until you work in percentages.


Extremely interesting theory, and explains something that's been puzzling me for awhile -- in many of my 'trash' charts (the ones i just generate for myself while working out theories) i've seen something really odd -- a downward slope for Romney!  Silly, of course, because obviously sometimes that's expected with the charts I'm creating, and I only found it 'funny' because of the other fraud thread... we just never see that.   Anyway, getting to the point, in many of my charts I've seen the only candidate with an upward slope being Santorum, I wrote it off since that's not what I was trying to look at.   Now I'm going to have to go back and look at everything again... that could very well explain it.

----------


## dsw

> So there is DEFINITELY something wrong, and now it's just sorting out what.


I'm still waiting to see whether the explanation for 2008 might be that they were enforcing the rule, i.e., a ballot on which you marked a delegate race you weren't allowed to vote on would be rejected (or the incorrect delegate votes were rejected).   Considering how many people in 2012 marked the first delegate race incorrectly, it doesn't seem likely that none would make that mistake in 2008.  And since Giuliani got so few votes it's really obvious that this very clear effect in 2012 wasn't happening in 2008.  Or at least that's how it looks at first glance, I'll be interested to see what Liberty has to say about it and/or to get a look at the data files myself.

----------


## RonRules

> Extremely interesting theory, and explains something that's been puzzling me for awhile -- in many of my 'trash' charts (the ones i just generate for myself while working out theories) i've seen something really odd -- a downward slope for Romney!


Please take that chart out of the trash, because I don't have an upward slope for Santorum. (except at the beginning)

----------


## RonRules

FYI, I pulled up the exit polls:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/pr...ama/exit-polls
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elec...-13/exit-polls
The polls were conducted by Edison Research of Somerville for both Fox and NYTimes.
Both news sources reported the polls identically.

----------------------Newt--Paul--Mitt--Rick	
Male (50% of voters)--	34%	5%	28%	31%	-
Female (50% of voters)	25%	5%	30%	38%	-
Overall (average) ------30%	5%	29%	35%

What's interesting to me is that the candidates exit polling end up exactly at the flipped result (last points on the graphs). I've got to go hmmmm for a while.

----------


## dsw

> OK then, still using the scanner theory we can still explain this.
> 
> I just need to know how many scanners are used and of what type.  
> 
> For example if three different types of scanners were used in varying proportions, if one (group) had a bad configuration file unfavorable to Paul Presidential vote (not the delegate vote), and those presidential votes would go to Santorum, this would explain the bias.
> 
> Note that we didn't witness the classic vote flipping effect (as a function of cumulative vote tally) on Ron. What instead may have happened is a straight swap to his vote regardless of precinct size. 
> 
> It would be nice to chart on the X-Axis the precinct name or number. Voting machines are generally grouped together by precincts as we saw in VA.
> ...


So the theory is that in some subset of precincts, Ron Paul lost some percentage of his preference vote because of misalignment of the pixel box, and the delegate votes were accurate?   That's a theory we might be able to test if there were some way to try to detect which precincts were affected.  

But how would those votes have gone to Santorum instead?  They weren't even adjacent on the ballot.  And why a swap?   There's an anomaly for Ron Paul, which started this whole thing, and minor anomalies for Newt (first delegate race especially) and Mitt where they got more delegate votes than the rule would have allowed.  Santorum had somewhat less, but not a lot less and being stuck on the back of the page could easily explain it.  I'm not saying there couldn't have been a swap, but I don't see anything that needs explaining beyond ballot position.  I think it's easier to make sense of the numbers if you just suppose that some percentage of Ron Paul's vote was stolen -- not that I'm arguing for that conclusion, just saying that there's a mountain that needs to be leveled without a corresponding hole that needs to be filled, so the swap idea doesn't grab me.  

And besides that, from your graph (#46) it's Mitt gaining at Newt's expense.  By vote-flipping-algorithm theory, since the graph lines don't flatten out this must be proof of fraud.  (I think the math is wrong about this being a proof of anything but non-independence of the variables, but I'm curious to know why the claim about graphs not flattening out doesn't make the inference in this case automatic.)

----------


## dsw

> Overall (average) ------30%	5%	29%	35%
> 
> What's interesting to me is that the candidates exit polling end up exactly at the flipped result (last points on the graphs). I've got to go hmmmm for a while.


Huh?  The exit polling agreed with the official results.  What's to go hmmm about?   Exit polls are only noteworthy after the fact when they *disagree* significantly with the official results.

----------


## RonRules

> Huh?  The exit polling agreed with the official results.  What's to go hmmm about?   Exit polls are only noteworthy after the fact when they *disagree* significantly with the official results.


The reason I'm going Hmmm is that if we are making the claim that Paul lost tons of vote through fraud, I want to check the exit polls. If there was massive fraud, exit polls should be different than the final results and they are not. (the Edison polls that is). 

Edit check the next exit poll. It's vastly different than the final results.

----------


## RonRules

> So the theory is that in some subset of precincts, Ron Paul lost some percentage of his preference vote because of misalignment of the pixel box, and the delegate votes were accurate?   That's a theory we might be able to test if there were some way to try to detect which precincts were affected.


I've never, never said "misalignment" of the pixel boxes. It's instead a wholesale change due to the wrong name typed in configuration file. Names in that file can easily be switched through an "honest" mistake. Misalignment errors can happen, but machine manufacturers are very careful with that, based on the scientific papers I've read on the subject. 

However, dumb/careless election clerks can easily make the error in the configuration file.

But looking at the fact that the exit polls match the actual results, then maybe not.

If the fraud conspicacy involves Edison Research, then of course they would match. I'll go find another exit poll that's not done by Edison.

----------


## RonRules

WOW, just WOW.

That exit poll had Paul nailed at 15%!!




And sure enough, like The Man said Santorum gained 10% of Ron Paul votes. Santorum appears to have gotten an extra couple of % each from Mitt and Newt. (This could be in the noise, based on this exit poll I just posted). 10% missing from Paul is not noise!

I really need this chart that has poling station name/number on the X-Axis. Also the distribution of voting machines in Alabama.

Can the Alabama guy on this thread find out for us? It's your state after all!

----------


## affa

> Please take that chart out of the trash, because I don't have an upward slope for Santorum. (except at the beginning)


I have to figure out what I was even charting; like I said, they were just work charts.   Usually of things like 'adjusted' delegate proportions based on various this, that's, and the other things.  Only notable in retrospect, now, because Santorum had the only upward slope;  but meaningless (even to me) until I figure out exactly what I was charting.  They were all 'chart and delete' type charts, so I have no record of them and will have to reconstruct what I was doing at the time.

----------


## dsw

> I've never, never said "misalignment" of the pixel boxes. It's instead a wholesale change due to the wrong name typed in configuration file. Names in that file can easily be switched through an "honest" mistake.


Ah, sorry I misunderstood.  But since the reported totals have Santorum outnumbering Paul by something like seven to one, swapping the entire vote for the two of them in enough places to transfer a net of 10% of the vote from Paul to Santorum would have shown up with some hugely anomalous precincts.  The problem of Ron Paul's delegate racing having an average of about 3x too many votes is also too widespread for that kind of mistake to make sense.

----------


## dsw

Re: exit polls

That's an interesting question.  I remember someone on dp arguing that the exit pollsters must be in on the fraud because of how well the exit polls match the final results.  Others suspect the exit polls because they report results so soon after the polls close, with few or even no precincts reporting, but that's just a misunderstanding of how exit polls work.  

Here's one that more-or-less agrees with the final results:
http://www.billspetrino.com/2012/03/...mary-march-13/



> Our final polling data from Spetrino polling one of the most accurate polling agencies for GOP primaries shows a virtual tie between Newt Gingrich at 32, Mitt Romney at 31 , and Rick Santorum at 30 with Ron Paul at 7
> 
> This race has all 3 men virtually even which is surprising given the large amount of evangical Christians
> 
> WE will have updated exit polling starting at 1230 AM EST
> 
> Gingrich 34 Romney 31 Santorum Paul 4
> 
> Next update at 430 EST
> ...


The part about "Late breaking voters moved towards Romney and Santorum and away from gingrich" agrees with your chart, doesn't it?  

CNN exit polls usually seem to be pretty close, but that's just an impression not from keeping records or anything:
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/al

Here's another one from Edison:
http://www.edisonresearch.com/home/a...er-in-both.php

I can't figure out what CPCTCSS (the one that video came from) really is.  Their web page http://cpctcss.org/News.php has a bunch of Ron Paul news items.  The video at the bottom of that page has a New Hampshire poll with Ron Paul winning with 31%.   Lots more here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/2012happens
They say "Cap Cats Polling and Tracking Agency is committed to improving the truthfulness in data and poll tracking. Through hard work and dedication, we can make a difference! We regularly send pollster out to collect data from active voters and provide this information free to the public and political committees. Recently we have expanded our operations. We have been successful in collecting data that has spurred efforts to stamp out election fraud and voter manipulation by the mainstream media."  
More here: http://cpctcss.org/Mission.html

----------


## affa

Ok. Think I reconstructed my odd chart.

Now, I'm not saying this says anything useful. Heck, it'll probably take 10 minutes to figure out.   It was just a scratch chart at the time.

It was originally done while disproving the 'down the line' voter theory.

1) I'm only looking at precincts with total votes > 100.  Mostly because the tiny precincts with only a handful of votes tend to either be extremely 'right', or extremely wrong, and just warp the charts, not to mention the divide by zero issue (a candidate getting 0 votes but 3 delegate votes, say).

2) Bad Voter Count = (Average Votes for Paul's Delegates) - (Votes for Paul)
Note - this basically assumes Paul's voters are godlike, and just vote for his delegates.  Anything over that is a 'bad voter'.  We could actually probably pull even more people into the 'Bad Voter column' since no candidate would get 100%, but this gets the job done.

3) Adjusted Delegate Count = Average Delegate Count - Bad Voter Count

This basically gave me a rough estimate of what every candidate's delegate count would be assuming we had 'Down the Line Voters', by defining Down the Line Voters as Paul's overvoters.  This doesn't take fatigue into account.

Anyway.  I then sorted precincts by Bad Voter Rate (Bad Voter Count/Total Voters) to see if anything interesting showed up.   Note that Bad Voter rate ranges from 0% to 25.5%!

The chart is interesting because only Santorum rises... and Romney crashes (with a high r2, to boot).  In fact, I don't know that this means anything.  I just found it odd at the time.   

Romney's crash must be because he was already so 'correct' in terms of his delegate performance, so subtracting the overvote in the precincts showing the highest error rate destroyed him?  I guess?  Not sure if that is meaningful.

 Paul's near flatline is because I used him as the baseline for the 'adjustment' factor, bringing his adjusted votes perfectly in line with his actual votes as a candidate.

What I mostly find interesting is that using a very crude 'Down the Line Voter' theory seems to correct Paul, Gingrich, and Santorum to some degree... but simply doesn't make any sense for Romney whatsoever.

I'm not totally sure why the other candidates are affected like this.

WORDING MISTAKE ON CHART: in subtitle, it should say: 
...where Bad Voter Count = (Average Votes for Paul's Delegates) - (Votes for Paul)

----------


## RonRules

> Re: exit polls
> The part about "Late breaking voters moved towards Romney and Santorum and away from gingrich" agrees with your chart, doesn't it?


Reminder. Our main charts are NOT time based. The X-Axis is Cumulative Precinct Vote Tally.

----------


## dsw

> I really need this chart that has poling station name/number on the X-Axis. Also the distribution of voting machines in Alabama.


But again, the anomaly for Ron Paul isn't localized.  It's all over the state.   If the kind of swap you've been talking about had happened, either with delegate numbers or with preference poll numbers, and had only happened with some subset of voting machines and not others, the data would look very different.

----------


## dsw

> Reminder. Our main charts are NOT time based. The X-Axis is Cumulative Precinct Vote Tally.


Oh I know that, but the tendency for larger precincts to report later ...

----------


## The Man

In response to DSW:
Ron Paul had sixteen delegate races. So what exactly do you mean by "Paul's reported delegate totals"?    Use the first one- Gingrich- 2, Paul- 1, Romney- 1, Santorum- 7. 

And is the "proof" here that the red line is closer to the blue line than the purple line? It proves a few things:
1. The delegate overvotes were fairly evenly spread between the four candidates' delegates- positively to the first delegate position before "fatigue" takes over.
2. Because Paul's reported vote total graph looks nothing like his delegate votes graph (talking cumulative % here) and Santorum's are way off as well, the fact that when you add Paul and Santorum together in reported vote totals AND in delegates (reported AND adjusted) you get a RIDICULOUS correlation means one of two things
      a. Either Paul picked up Santorum's delegate votes or
      b. Santorum was the beneficiary of Paul's vote above 5%  

Why would that indicate anything interesting? Look at these 2 graphs comparing (1) Santorum's delegates to candidate vote by cumulative percent and (2) Paul's delegates to candidate vote by cumulative percent. They simply DON'T compare. The % of each averages a difference of 8- 9%. Paul's candidate and delegate comparisons show very little correlation in slope and magnitude as do Santorum's. Compare those to graph 3, which does the same comparison for the sum of Paul and Santorum. The adjusted delegates line IS the candidates' reported total line for about 50% of the x-axis! 
 

At the right hand side aren't they all within 2% of each other? ANY % difference represents the slight difference of distribution of the excess delegate votes due to voter error. The Adjusted delegates graph ends within 1/2%.

After your adjustment what are the ratios of delegate vote totals in the individual races to the (adjusted to remove tampering) totals for the corresponding candidates in the preference vote? Bear with me Here is what were the REAL cumulative vote percentage graph:

If I wanted to go through the precinct data and, for each precinct, apply some calculation to derive the untampered vote numbers, what calculation am I supposed to be doing? I'm not sure from your description exactly how you think the precinct numbers were manipulated. It's simple- THE DELEGATE VOTES WERE NOT MANIPULATED BY ANYONE. THERE IS MASSIVE VOTER ERROR WHICH I STRONGLY BELIEVE, BECAUSE OF GRAPHS 1, 2, AND 3 ABOVE, HAS BEEN EVENLY DISTRIBUTED TO ALL 4 CANDIDATES. We have been given a huge gift! Here is how to recreate the true vote totals from the reported delegate numbers:
1. In you spreadsheet, adjust the delegate vote totals in each precinct using the following factors: Gingrich delegate #2 X 0.922, Paul delegate #1 X 0.81, Romney delegate #1 X0.91, and Santorum delegate #7 X 0.916. These factors are required to subtract 15,732 off each delegate's total votes by the final vote count. 

Is this a flipping algorithm that kicks in at some point and causes the cumulative graphs not to flatten out? Watch how it is done:
Start with the true vote totals derived by adjusting the delegate votes as described above:

Then the manipulator decides to flatline Paul at 5% and give any excess to Santorum:
 
If so, why doesn't the standard graph used by people "proving" the flipping algorithm show it in this case? If not, why graph cumulatively by precinct size?  And now for the Newt-Mitt Flip that kicks in at 120k votes to give the desired result:

And THAT is what you need to know.

----------


## affa

> Ah, sorry I misunderstood.  But since the reported totals have Santorum outnumbering Paul by something like seven to one, swapping the entire vote for the two of them in enough places to transfer a net of 10% of the vote from Paul to Santorum would have shown up with some hugely anomalous precincts.  The problem of Ron Paul's delegate racing having an average of about 3x too many votes is also too widespread for that kind of mistake to make sense.


There *are*  some hugely anomalous precincts.

Compare these:

Great Voters!

Bad Voter Rate: 0.3%---Votes for Ron Paul: 137---Avg. Delegate Votes for RP: 140.6---Total Voters: 1323---Lee---DEAN ROAD REC. CTR. 
Bad Voter Rate: 0.4%---Votes for Ron Paul: 36---Avg. Delegate Votes for RP: 40.3---Total Voters: 1090---Jefferson---4708 VEST HILLS UMC

Terrible voters!

Bad Voter Rate: 14.5%---Votes for Ron Paul: 108---Avg. Delegate Votes for RP: 345.7---Total Voters: 1636---Marion---ET SIMS JR. BUILDING 
Bad Voter Rate: 14.1%---Votes for Ron Paul: 80---Avg. Delegate Votes for RP: 309.5---Total Voters: 1630---Baldwin---BAY MINETTE CIVIC CENTER
Bad Voter Rate: 12.2%---Votes for Ron Paul: 47---Avg. Delegate Votes for RP: 209.9---Total Voters: 1336---St Clair---PELL CITY CIVIC CENTER

'Random voting' and 'people are different!' does not explain this level of variance.  It just doesn't.  It's either fraud, or a ballot reading mistake, or perhaps some districts threw out bad ballots and others accepted them, but there is definitely -something- wrong, somewhere.   Something big, though not necessarily something fraudulent (though The Man is starting to win me over with his case).  But it is definitely, definitely NOT Parock's magic assortment of numbers.

----------


## The Man

It's obvious that the manipulator intentionally flat-lined Paul at 5%. The instant I saw this when the results were reported and after looking at hundreds of graphs, it was obvious that something wasn't right. His Paul's cumulative score doesn't budge throughout the entire count. I'm not sure an "accident" in the optical scanner is smart enough to do this.


> OK then, still using the scanner theory we can still explain this.
> 
> I just need to know how many scanners are used and of what type.  
> 
> For example if three different types of scanners were used in varying proportions, if one (group) had a bad configuration file unfavorable to Paul Presidential vote (not the delegate vote), and those presidential votes would go to Santorum, this would explain the bias.
> 
> Note that we didn't witness the classic vote flipping effect (as a function of cumulative vote tally) on Ron. What instead may have happened is a straight swap to his vote regardless of precinct size. 
> 
> It would be nice to chart on the X-Axis the precinct name or number. Voting machines are generally grouped together by precincts as we saw in VA.
> ...

----------


## The Man

Edison exists solely to reinforce in the public psyche fraudulent election results. They're worthless. Cap Cats Polling Alabama Exit Poll had Romney 33%, Gingrich 33%, Santorum 19%, Paul 15%. The truth lies in between.




> FYI, I pulled up the exit polls:
> http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/pr...ama/exit-polls
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elec...-13/exit-polls
> The polls were conducted by Edison Research of Somerville for both Fox and NYTimes.
> Both news sources reported the polls identically.
> 
> ----------------------Newt--Paul--Mitt--Rick	
> Male (50% of voters)--	34%	5%	28%	31%	-
> Female (50% of voters)	25%	5%	30%	38%	-
> ...

----------


## RonRules

Alabama uses the* ES&S AccuVote-OS* optical scan system *statewide* and offers the ES&S AutoMARK for disabled voters.

The AccuVote-OS is the machine that was proven so hackable by Harri Hursti.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hursti_Hack

You can download the user guide here
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/7659/2276.html

I'm looking for the configuration file. It think it's called the "Contest Data" file.

----------


## dsw

> And is the "proof" here that the red line is closer to the blue line than the purple line? It proves a few things:
> 1. The delegate overvotes were fairly evenly spread between the four candidates' delegates- positively to the first delegate position before "fatigue" takes over.
> 2. Because Paul's reported vote total graph looks nothing like his delegate votes graph (talking cumulative % here) and Santorum's are way off as well, the fact that when you add Paul and Santorum together in reported vote totals AND in delegates (reported AND adjusted) you get a RIDICULOUS correlation means one of two things


I'm having a hard time following this, so I'm going to start here at the beginning.  

1. I don't see how you get that the delegate overvotes were fairly evenly spread between the four candidates.  Correct me if this isn't what you meant but subtracting the number of delegate votes in the first race from the number of votes for the candidate, I get:
Newt:  177,030 - 204,749 = -27,719
Paul: 30,211 - 83,913 = -53,702
Romney: 176,065 - 176,362 = -297
Santorum: 208,255 - 189,083 = 19,172

Given the obvious overvote associated with being at the top of the ballot, using Newt's first delegate race might not make as much sense as using, say, his third, in which case the difference would be positive at 3,242.  Either way these aren't relatively evenly spread out across the four candidates.

2. Paul's preference vote looks nothing like his delegate race votes, period.  Putting it on a cumulative graph doesn't add any clarity.  

Santorum's numbers are not "way off".  Looking at the ratio of delegate votes to preference votes, Santorum is at 0.88 compared to 0.91.  Ron Paul is way out around 3.0.  The small difference for Santorum (even smaller if you discount the very first position on the ballot for Newt) is so small that just being on the back of the ballot would be enough to explain it.





> THE DELEGATE VOTES WERE NOT MANIPULATED BY ANYONE. THERE IS MASSIVE VOTER ERROR WHICH I STRONGLY BELIEVE, BECAUSE OF GRAPHS 1, 2, AND 3 ABOVE, HAS BEEN EVENLY DISTRIBUTED TO ALL 4 CANDIDATES. We have been given a huge gift! Here is how to recreate the true vote totals from the reported delegate numbers:
> 1. In you spreadsheet, adjust the delegate vote totals in each precinct using the following factors: Gingrich delegate #2 X 0.922, Paul delegate #1 X 0.81, Romney delegate #1 X0.91, and Santorum delegate #7 X 0.916. These factors are required to subtract 15,732 off each delegate's total votes by the final vote count.


So if the delegate counts (ignoring fatigue) are accurate, why would I be adjusting them to get back to the true vote numbers in the popular vote?  Or are you describing here an adjustment that's supposed to take out the fatigue factor (but then it wouldn't be a constant multipler)?

It sounds elsewhere like your theory is that the delegate counts weren't tampered with, but Paul's actual total should be changed to be equal to his delegate vote count, and Santorum's total should be adjusted downward by the same amount.   Is that it?  If so that's a very easy change to make and test.

----------


## RonRules

> And THAT is what you need to know.


Are you Ben Swan?  

I'm glad you're on this figuring this out. It's hard enough to just understand the posts, I'm amazed you're discovering it.

----------


## parocks

> Other than being illegible and apparently designed to create migraines?  I can't say since it doesn't seem to mean anything.


so, you're basically saying you don't understand it?

----------


## RonRules

> There *are*  some hugely anomalous precincts.
> It's either fraud, or a ballot reading mistake, or perhaps some districts threw out bad ballots and others accepted them, but there is definitely -something- wrong, somewhere.   Something big, though not necessarily something fraudulent (though The Man is starting to win me over with his case).  But it is definitely, definitely NOT Parock's magic assortment of numbers.


I'm also leaning on the outright fraud right now. If some districts threw out bad ballots, then Ron would not have higher delegate counts in those districts. He seems to have higher delegate counts everywhere to a varying extent.

Note that they use the same voting machine Accuvote OS scanner everywhere.  This will be useful eventually when we want to nail this hard and prosecute. 

Back in 2010 they had to go back and update the numbers because someone had left ballots in the machine: (It was a very tight race and there was a recount)
http://www.sos.alabama.gov/downloads...uitPlace20.pdf

Here's an error that happened in Alabama in 2003:
Baldwin County, AL:
A *voting machine programming error* was discovered after general election.  The electronic machine *had labeled an unopposed Republican County Commissioner as a Democrat.*. The error only occurred when voters attempted to cast straight-ticket Republican ballots.

That's the type of error that's actually easy to make and can have devastating effects.

----------


## RonRules

> so, you're basically saying you don't understand it?


I'll second that. Your stuff is either pulled out of nowhere or impossible to understand. I had trouble with the chart too.  And I'm no monkey brain.

----------


## drummergirl

First off, HOLY COW!

Second,  that is just plain sexy.




> And the cumulative distribution function for the math cracks:
> 
> 
> 
> .

----------


## parocks

> Second, I have found the official 2008 Presidential Preference Primary vote canvass of the Baldwin County with precinct and delegate race details right here:
> 
> http://www.co.baldwin.al.us/Pageview.asp?edit_id=17


Good find.  The 2008 results look to me like what the 2012 results would look like if they didn't accept overvotes in 2012.   If the ballot machines kicked out any ballots that had marks in more than one candidates delegate election this year, we would've had numbers that looked like 2008.  In 2008, somewhere around 25-30 percent didn't vote in the delegate elections.  That's in line with my assumptions about what the voters did this year.

----------


## dsw

> I'll second that. Your stuff is either pulled out of nowhere or impossible to understand. I had trouble with the chart too.  And I'm no monkey brain.


I'll third that.  The basic idea of some number of voters indiscriminately voting in delegate races other than for their own candidate is intriguing because (given the percentage reported for Paul compared to the others) it could go a long way toward explaining the biggest anomaly.   And a second adjustment for people not bothering to vote in delegate races they could legitimately have voted in also makes sense, and fits the data.  

But then the details of how you are applying this are very hard to follow.  On the other hand I can't make sense of exactly what The Man is trying to say either, so maybe it's me and not you.  I mean, I get the basic idea.  But when it comes to trying to turn that into something I could implement in software to test the theory it's a lot of confusion followed by assertions of PROOF!!!!1!!

----------


## parocks

> I'll second that. Your stuff is either pulled out of nowhere or impossible to understand. I had trouble with the chart too.  And I'm no monkey brain.


For instance, what number did you have trouble understanding?  Any particular anything?  maybe the bits are getting mixed up somewhere, scrambled in the internet?

I can tell you exactly what every number on that graph means.

----------


## parocks

> here's another chart


Welcome challenges to this.

----------


## drummergirl

> And now for the Newt-Mitt Flip that kicks in at 120k votes to give the desired result:
> 
> And THAT is what you need to know.


That does look remarkably like the actual data plot for Alabama.

----------


## dsw

> Welcome challenges to this.


At a high level, are you wanting to do this to every precinct?  Why?  You've made the thing so complicated that I don't know why I should care whether it ends up fitting the data or not.  Do this to every precinct and you've got nearly as many variables to tweak as there are values to explain.  Of course you can make it fit.  
The way it's written is still very confusing, but I'm going to let other people try to figure it out.

----------


## parocks

Your graph is getting pretty close.

You need to make just 1 more correction.

Instead of the vertical axis being "Vote Count Difference Between Delegate and Presidential Race"  as measured in votes,  it should be  "Vote Count Difference (as a percentage) Between Delegate and Presidential Race" .

Your 0, should be 100% and the lines below it should be 90%, 80%, 70%.

You're comparing candidates with 6000+ votes with candidates with approx 1000+ votes.  Because of that, the charts look odd.  

If you compare apples with apples, you'll find fairly similar patterns with all 4 candidates.  

Your graphs look good, almost as if you didn't do them by hand with photoshop.






> Here is your chart, as per your pressing instructions. I took the liberty to linearily interpolate the "fatigue"
>  between the start and end point provided by you for each candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> You see already a problem with fatigue: Paul displays none after his 3rd delegate. Gingrich and Romney still do. This aberration is due to the fact that you have substracted an identical-size block of voters (6.4%) with no fatigue from all candidates. We had coherent fatigue pattern before. We do not anymore. Red flag.
> 
> So you start by multiplying the number of presidential votes by 0.7. As per this:
> 
> ...

----------


## RonRules

"*Ballot Definition File"* Remember that!

http://www.votersunite.org/info/BallotProgramming.pdf
No Review Is Provided for a Key Component of Voting System Software

Some highlights from the report:

Accurate election results require accurate ballot definition data. Some counties have hundreds of ballot styles, and each one must be programmed correctly since human error at this point could be magnified by the number of voters. The process of creating *the ballot definition data is so complex that many counties contract the work to voting machine vendors or other programmers*, who then write the ballot data to chips, data packs, or memory cards used by the machines.

*The Ballot Definition File is an Unaudited System Component*
The ballot definition data is a crucial component of the recording/tallying process. Alterations in the ballot data affect the recording and tallying of votes, and commands given to the system software impact the way the ballot data is used. This means that the ballot definition data is as critical to the operation of the system as the underlying software. In fact, in the Compuware Report, encrypting the ballot data was considered to be as important as encrypting the vote data. In its list of serious concerns about hacking, the RABA team placed ballot definitions on a par with software and vote data. The report states:
Given physical access to the server, one can insert a CD that will automatically upload malicious software, modify or delete elections, or reorder ballot definitions

Since the only verification performed on ballot data is the completely inadequate L&A testing, it is not surprising that many election errors have been caused by flawed ballot data. 
For example:
♦ 67,000 absentee and early-voting ballots were counted incorrectly. (New Mexico, Nov. 2000)
♦ A difference in ballot data on different machines resulted in miscounts in 18 races. (Texas, April 2002)
♦ 2,642 Democratic and Republican votes were counted as Republican. (Florida, Sept. 2002)
♦ Victories for two commissioners were initially given to the wrong candidates. (Texas, Nov. 2002)
♦ 5,500 party-line votes, both Republican and Democrat, were uncounted. (North Carolina, Nov. 2002)

That's what I was talking about specifically:
"By simply changing the order of the candidates as they appear in the ballot definition, the results file will change accordingly. However, the candidate information itself is not stored in the results file, which merely tracks that candidate 1 got so many votes and candidate 2 got so many other votes. *If an attacker reordered the candidates on the ballot definition, voters would unwittingly cast their ballots for the wrong candidate."* 

Guess how it's done in Alabama:
*ES&S programs the ballots* and sends the county the memory packs and test decks. The county has no way of creating their own memory packs.

Conclusion:
The extreme complexity of election definition data, the astonishing lack of security procedures used to create them, the hopelessly inadequate testing, the impossibility of having a thorough independent review for every one of these election-specific components: these things make accurate electronic vote counting not just unlikely; they make it a fantasy.

----------


## drummergirl

> But again, the anomaly for Ron Paul isn't localized.  It's all over the state.   If the kind of swap you've been talking about had happened, either with delegate numbers or with preference poll numbers, and had only happened with some subset of voting machines and not others, the data would look very different.


You are correct; what we see with the gingrich/romney numbers is the classic vote flipping we've seen elsewhere.

What The Man is discussing and what we are looking at with the Paul/Santorum votes is something different and (I truly never thought I'd be saying this) even more disturbing.

Implications from having 2 apparently independent "bugs" in the system:

Are they introduced by the same person/ group?  If so why?

If they are introduced by different persons/ groups, just how many people have access and the ability to rig this ^%$#@ election anyway? And, do they know about each other?

My initial reaction is they have to be different people, because Romney gets no benefit from Santorum having a good showing in Alabama.  Also, the Paul vote discrepancy issue has been big enough and obvious enough that it drew the attention of election officials as early as election night and a substantial number are apparently refusing to certify their elections.  The flipper is more subtle (think difference between a guy walking out of a store with bulge in jacket vs. cat burglar sneaking in and out after hours).  Also could the pro-santorum bugger be aware of the flipper and have somehow turned off the flipper for Santorum votes?

I'm stunned.

----------


## parocks

> At a high level, are you wanting to do this to every precinct?  Why?  You've made the thing so complicated that I don't know why I should care whether it ends up fitting the data or not.  Do this to every precinct and you've got nearly as many variables to tweak as there are values to explain.  Of course you can make it fit.  
> The way it's written is still very confusing, but I'm going to let other people try to figure it out.


There is no mathematical equation here.  There is no formula.

The point is: 

This is a reasonable description of what the voters did in Tuscaloosa County.

Find the fraud, find the vote flipping.

Or tell me where my numbers are wrong.

Because we're trying to find the TRUTH of what happened, and my numbers are an extremely plausible explanation of what happened in Tuscaloosa County.

There is no mathematical formula to plug the data into. 

I have shown a very reasonable explanation for what happened.  Tell me where I'm wrong.  Tell me where there's the evidence of fraud in my graph.

My graph shows what happened without any hint of fraud.

Unless someone can tell me where I'm wrong with my numbers, I feel I have given A PERFECTLY reasonable explanation for why the vote totals were the way they were. No need to go any further.  

The mystery is solved.  

Unless you can tell me where I'm wrong.  And you might be able to do that.  I don't know.

----------


## The Man

dsw- I'm trying hard here. Assuming that the 63k delegate overvotes had the same net effect on each candidate's final delegate count, I first adjusted each candidate's delegate count using the first order delegate of each. Ron Paul's and Rick Santorum's resulting cumulative% curves look NOTHING like the reported candidate curves, often 8-9% deviation in 5 as well as non-correlating slopes (graphs 1&2 above). BUT when Paul and Santorum's adjusted delegate curves were added together, the resulting curve (for all practical purposes) BECAME the curve of the sum of Paul's and Santorum's candidate votes (graph below comparing blue line to red line). The corrrelation is simply way way beyond chance. The ONLY way this could occur is either 1) Paul received Santorum's delegate votes or 2) Santorum received Paul's votes above 5% cumulative.... period. There's NO other way.

Each candidate reported apprioximately 15,732 delegate votes that were unintended. This was caused by all sorts of voter error. So the true totals looked more like this:
                Votes        
Newt        186701
Paul          67,181
Romney   158,102
Santorum 170,951 

Santorum's numbers are not "way off". Looking at the ratio of delegate votes to preference votes, Santorum is at 0.88 compared to 0.91. Ron Paul is way out around 3.0. The small difference for Santorum (even smaller if you discount the very first position on the ballot for Newt) is so small that just being on the back of the ballot would be enough to explain it. It's simple really- All 4 candidates ended up with 15,732 (approximately) additional delegate votes. If a particular candidate had votes siphoned FROM him (Paul & Gingrich), then that candidate had a huge discrepancy between delegates and candidate votes (add thousands to delegates and subtract thousands from candidate votes= huge discrepancy). If the candidate had votes siphoned TO him(Santorum and Romney), then there's a potential for that candidate to have similar candidate and delegate totals (Romney siphoned almost the same numer of delegates from Gingrich as the extra delegates he received by voter error- 15,732, while Santorum siphoned around 35,000 votes from Paul which explains his reported 19,172 delegate deficit (19,171 + 15,732 = 34,904).

Given the obvious overvote associated with being at the top of the ballot, using Newt's first delegate race might not make as much sense as using, say, his third, in which case the difference would be positive at 3,242. Either way these aren't relatively evenly spread out across the four candidates. Newt MAY have received an additional 1% as a result, but that's all. It's time to move on from this- All of the candidate received comparable delegate overvotes... period.

So if the delegate counts (ignoring fatigue) are accurate, why would I be adjusting them to get back to the true vote numbers in the popular vote? Or are you describing here an adjustment that's supposed to take out the fatigue factor (but then it wouldn't be a constant multipler)? The ADJUSTED delegate counts are accurate (within 1%). Forget about "fatigue"- we're only using the first order delegate count- the one that was most likely to receive an intended delegate vote. 

It sounds elsewhere like your theory is that the delegate counts weren't tampered with, but Paul's actual total should be changed to be equal to his delegate vote count, and Santorum's total should be adjusted downward by the same amount. Is that it?  The delegate discrepancies are 100% honest voter error whose variance could be explained by many factors, especially the precinct workers giving good/ bad instruction. The totals of each candidate are equal to reported delegate totals minus 15,732. It aboslutlely NAILED Santorum + Paul, and it's within 1% of Gingrich and Romney.

If so that's a very easy change to make and test  That's what I have done and you can also.

----------


## drummergirl

If you could please stop with the hand waving, the data massaging, and the eyeballing it would be helpful.




> There is no mathematical equation here.  There is no formula.
> 
> The point is: 
> 
> This is a reasonable description of what the voters did in Tuscaloosa County.
> 
> Find the fraud, find the vote flipping.
> 
> Or tell me where my numbers are wrong.
> ...

----------


## parocks

Wow, you have realized yet that the machines malfunctioned this year but didn't in 2008.

You really haven't figured that out yet.

In 2008, the overvoters had their ballots kicked out.
In 2012, the overvoters DIDN"T have their ballots kicked out.

Wow.




> Third, well, you know: import data and plot.
> 
> Here we go: dsw's inspired chart for Baldwin in 2008 and 2012
> 
> 
> 
> Kaboom.
> 
> And the cumulative distribution function for the math cracks:
> ...

----------


## drummergirl

> Wow, you have realized yet that the machines malfunctioned this year but didn't in 2008.
> 
> You really haven't figured that out yet.
> 
> In 2008, the overvoters had their ballots kicked out.
> In 2012, the overvoters DIDN"T have their ballots kicked out.
> 
> Wow.


Ummm... have you read the other posts in this thread?  I think you might want to try reading the other posts in the thread, because then you would understand that obtaining and analyzing the 2008 data has been a high priority for several reasons.

It was hoped that being able to compare and contrast voting patterns from another election in the same state (same counties, same people) with a similar ballot would yield valuable information.  It has.  Cope.

----------


## parocks

> Awesome stuff, Liberty.  Do you have the data uploaded somewhere by any chance?
> 
> Can you rule out the possibility that in 2008 they enforced the rule about only voting in the right delegate races?  That seems like the most obvious question to ask first.  Independent of any fraud or idiot voters or whatever, it seems clear that a significant percentage of voters (in 2012) cast a vote in that first delegate race below the preference vote, which in 2012 was a Gingrich delegate race.  It's hard to believe that a similar percentage of voters wouldn't make a similar mistake in 2008, unless of course they enforced the rule that time.  It should have shown up even more clearly in 2008 because the first delegate race happened to be for a candidate who got very few votes.


In 2008 the machine did not take the spoiled ballots.
In 2012 the machine did take the spoiled ballots.

I'm pleased to see that my assumption about 30% not voting for delegates in 2012 is roughly comparable to the numbers in 2008.

----------


## dsw

> Unless you can tell me where I'm wrong.


Like I said before, you've got so many variables you could fit the data whether your theory is right or wrong.  Your model is nearly as complicated as the thing you're trying to explain.  Even if The Man's theory is correct, you could still fit the data with your model.  Maybe it's right, maybe it's merely overfitting.  There's no way to tell, no way to prove you wrong, no reason to believe it's right.  

A simple theory that could be applied to all of the precincts, yielding results that are approximately correct, would be far more convincing.

----------


## Tiso0770

> "By simply changing the order of the candidates as they appear in the ballot definition, the results file will change accordingly. However, the candidate information itself is not stored in the results file, which merely tracks that candidate 1 got so many votes and candidate 2 got so many other votes. If an attacker reordered the candidates on the ballot definition, voters would unwittingly cast their ballots for the wrong candidate."


I thought about this to, print out ballot sheets that are not in synch with the machines, for example....you have on the ballot sheet: 1. Mitt Romney 2. Newt Gingrich 3. Rick Santorum 4. Ron Paul.

The Machine reads it like this: 1. Ron Paul 2. Newt Gingrich 3. Rick Santorum 4. Mitt Romney

Or whatever combination they wish to tally it....So people casting their ballots for Ron Paul are actually casting it for Romney.

----------


## dsw

> Ummm... have you read the other posts in this thread?  I think you might want to try reading the other posts in the thread, because then you would understand that obtaining and analyzing the 2008 data has been a high priority for several reasons.
> 
> It was hoped that being able to compare and contrast voting patterns from another election in the same state (same counties, same people) with a similar ballot would yield valuable information.  It has.  Cope.


It was valuable information only in that it shows what happens if invalid ballots are rejected, all or nearly all the time.

If you think that invalid ballots were not rejected in 2008, then how do you explain the boost that Newt got from being first as a clearly visible effect in 2012 but not happening at all in 2008 (very clearly so, since the first race that time was someone who got almost no votes)?

----------


## Liberty1789

Excel file with Baldwin 2008 delegate races

http://www.filedropper.com/albaldwin2008raw

----------


## parocks

> WOW, just WOW.
> 
> That exit poll had Paul nailed at 15%!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And sure enough, like The Man said Santorum gained 10% of Ron Paul votes. Santorum appears to have gotten an extra couple of % each from Mitt and Newt. (This could be in the noise, based on this exit poll I just posted). 10% missing from Paul is not noise!
> 
> ...



Here's another "exit poll" "they" "did".  

It certainly is facinating stuff.  Their Mississippi exit poll had Ron Paul at 22%, and the youtube clip (the typical way exit polls are released nowadays, I guess) makes reference to a whole bunch of malfeasance that I hadn't heard at all anywhere else. These youtube "exit polls" are either total BS, or contain a tremendous amount of facinating new information.  I think BS, but they certainly are interesting to watch, to continue to waste time.




this is their website

http://cpctcss.org/  there are a bunch of other "exit polls" where Ron Paul does amazingly well at the site.

----------


## Liberty1789

> I'm still waiting to see whether the explanation for 2008 might be that they were enforcing the rule, i.e., a ballot on which you marked a delegate race you weren't allowed to vote on would be rejected (or the incorrect delegate votes were rejected).   Considering how many people in 2012 marked the first delegate race incorrectly, it doesn't seem likely that none would make that mistake in 2008.  And since Giuliani got so few votes it's really obvious that this very clear effect in 2012 wasn't happening in 2008.  Or at least that's how it looks at first glance, I'll be interested to see what Liberty has to say about it and/or to get a look at the data files myself.


Well, Giuliani was first on ballot but, getting 90 votes out of 30,000, I guess that his name was pretty offputting to Alabamians, unlike Gingrich's name, and that could have stopped the ink flowing right there. It's only speculation and answers require simple investigation on the ground: you'll know pretty fast from poll workers if the rule enforcement was different.

----------


## parocks

What?  Oh, I'm happy to have the data.  I was just reponding to the person who thought that the new data had any effect on my graph, my 100% Perfectly Plausible explanation of what happened in Alabama this year.

I think it's great that we have that data.  We can make more accurate estimations of exactly what percentage of people who voted in the presidential race also voted in the delegate races.  I had estimated 30%, the data from 2008 shows what the numbers look like when the machine doesn't count ballots that have too many markings on them, like what happened in 2012.  Clearly.

I wasn't arguing that he should've known what the data was going to show from 2008.  I too was curious.  But when he saw the numbers for the first time, without a graph or anything, he should've known right away that the results in 2008 were normal, due to bad ballots being kicked out, and in 2012, the bad ballots weren't kicked out.  


He still doesn't realize that the numbers for 2012 - with the bad ballots kicked out - look like the numbers for 2008.





> Ummm... have you read the other posts in this thread?  I think you might want to try reading the other posts in the thread, because then you would understand that obtaining and analyzing the 2008 data has been a high priority for several reasons.
> 
> It was hoped that being able to compare and contrast voting patterns from another election in the same state (same counties, same people) with a similar ballot would yield valuable information.  It has.  Cope.

----------


## affa

> Welcome challenges to this.


have you even tried to LOOK at your chart? 
it's absolutely unreadable.

----------


## Liberty1789

Cute and simple summary



EDIT corrected for originally inverted ratios in 2008

----------


## dsw

> dsw- I'm trying hard here. Assuming that the 63k delegate overvotes had the same net effect on each candidate's final delegate count, I first adjusted each candidate's delegate count using the first order delegate of each. Ron Paul's and Rick Santorum's resulting cumulative% curves look NOTHING like the reported candidate curves, often 8-9% deviation in 5 as well as non-correlating slopes (graphs 1&2 above). BUT when Paul and Santorum's adjusted delegate curves were added together, the resulting curve (for all practical purposes) BECAME the curve of the sum of Paul's and Santorum's candidate votes (graph below comparing blue line to red line). The corrrelation is simply way way beyond chance. The ONLY way this could occur is either 1) Paul received Santorum's delegate votes or 2) Santorum received Paul's votes above 5% cumulative.... period. There's NO other way.


I'm not sure where "the 63k delegate overvotes" came from.  It's not the number in Newt's first race (so you don't mean the "voting all races" idea).  It's not the sum of the overvotes on the first delegate race for each candidate.  I'm not sure why you're assuming it has the same net effect on each candidate's delegate count.  So maybe it is the idea of "voting all races" after all?  I don't know what "adjusted each candidates' delegate count using the first order delegate of each" means.  You said the first delegate was what you meant by the candidate's delegate count, so that would mean adjusting it by itself.  

You don't justify the assumption that the delegate counts were untampered with, other than something about how the discrepancies there "could be explained by many factors."  When you first stated that assumption you simply said that you were convinced from reading the previous pages of the thread up to that point.  Neither of these is an argument.  

Why compare them using the cumulative graph?  It tends to smooth things out the further you go to the right so unless you're thinking this is an effect that only applies to larger precincts (contrary to the pattern of the anomalies) the cumulative graph is only making it harder to see the comparison.  Why not do a precinct-by-precinct comparison, and show the distribution of errors?  You could just do the precinct-by-precinct comparison for the larger precincts for that matter.   The cumulative graph just obscures differences.   A graph like the one that Liberty started the thread with, after your adjustments are applied, would show something about whether your theory makes sense, or just pushes one anomaly out of the way and creates others to replace it.  

You don't explain why you think there could be no other explanation.  Basically you've looked at differences, applied adjustments based on those differences, made assumptions you don't substantiate, smoothed the result in a way that would obscure any problems with the theory, and then based on these adjustments causing the graphs to align you declare that there's no other possible explanation than the one you propose.  Why should this be any more convincing than parocks, who also has declared that his analysis is definitive?

----------


## drummergirl

> But when he saw the numbers for the first time, without a graph or anything, he should've known right away that the results in 2008 were normal, due to bad ballots being kicked out, and in 2012, the bad ballots weren't kicked out.


That is truly amazing Parocks.  Please forgive me; I did not realize that you have such a superior knowledge and innate analytical ability that you can simply look at raw data and know everything about it.  Are you related to Commander Data from Star Trek TNG ?

----------


## affa

> He still doesn't realize that the numbers for 2012 - with the bad ballots kicked out - look like the numbers for 2008.


You're missing one HUGE fundamental point.   If, as you claim, this is completely due to rules being followed in 2008, and not in 2012, then why is Paul the ONLY massive anomaly in those distribution charts?  Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, all 'follow the rules' in 2008 AND 2012.  Not Paul. 

These charts completely derail your argument for anyone even half paying attention.  That you simply roll with the punches and claim they 'prove' YOU right is just comical.





> Third, well, you know: import data and plot.
> 
> Here we go: dsw's inspired chart for Baldwin in 2008 and 2012
> 
> 
> 
> Kaboom.
> 
> And the cumulative distribution function for the math cracks:
> ...

----------


## drummergirl

That short red line sure does say, "smells fishier than the dumpster behind Red Lobster"




> Cute and simple summary

----------


## parocks

> Like I said before, you've got so many variables you could fit the data whether your theory is right or wrong.  Your model is nearly as complicated as the thing you're trying to explain.  Even if The Man's theory is correct, you could still fit the data with your model.  Maybe it's right, maybe it's merely overfitting.  There's no way to tell, no way to prove you wrong, no reason to believe it's right.  
> 
> A simple theory that could be applied to all of the precincts, yielding results that are approximately correct, would be far more convincing.


You aren't proving me wrong.  What you're saying is that you don't like it, because it's not a neat mathematical solution.

Yeah.  Life's messy.

To disprove the claim of vote flipping, or some other type of fraud,  one merely has to come up with an alternative scenario which is extremely plausible and reasonable.

And that's what I did.  You might not like it because it provides a completely 100% believable and plausible scenario of what happened in Alabama that day.  You do seem like a skeptic about the fraud claims.  So I'm not sure that "unhappy because no fraud" fits you particularly.

I know that I do have a lot of variables, and I know full well that I have a lot of wiggle room to get the numbers to work.  

What that means is that there are many many many many different plausible, believeable, reasonable specific scenarios with a wide variety of different numbers that could describe what happened in Alabama.

In order to disprove fraud, I need (1) One believeable scenario about how the voting went down.  I have that (1) One believeable scenario that describes what happened.

One doesn't claim fraud (and I note you haven't)  and then when a completely reasonable counter proposal comes in which doesn't include impossible (so far) to explain vote fraud, complain because the mathematical formulas aren't graceful or robust, a simple theory with full application.  Agreed, that theory would be great.  Needless.  A huge time kill.

My goal was to disprove fraud.  Not to come up with the greatest theory.  The bar just isn't that high to disprove fraud.  And I sailed over it.  Not trying to set the world record on the high jump here.

You might not like my theory (not simple enough, not fully applicable), but I was simply trying to get to a fully complete and plausible description.  And I did.  And it disproves the fraud claims, unless you can tell me where my numbers are wrong, where the fraud is, or where it might be.

----------


## parocks

Gingrich had overvotes in 2012.  That wasn't "following the rules".

If the machine is functioning properly, it is impossible for the number of votes in a delegate race to exceed the number of votes that a presidential candidate got.

The only people who can vote in a presidential candidates delegate races are the people who voted for that Presidential candidate.  The number of votes a candidate receives in the presidential race sets an upper limit on the number of votes in a delegate race.  With both Paul and Gingrich, that upper limit was exceeded.

Clearly, also, yes, everyone can see that 2012 and 2008 were vastly different.

I explained exactly why they were different.

Listen, the machines were broken in 2012.  On it's face, it's an error on the part of the Alabama GOP.  That's what you're looking at,  massive errors by the Alabama GOP.  Many people who shouldn't have been voting were voting.

Have you lost the storyline somehow?

There was someone earlier on this or another thread who shared his evidence, a woman screwed up her ballot, and the people working there said, basically, "well, let's just see if the machine takes it.  The machine shouldn't take it.  But it did.  The machine was broken.

It was figured out that in Tuscaloosa County, 20484 people voted in the presidential race, and approx 1303 (plausibly) voted in all the delegate races.  Why were they able to vote in all those races?  Because instead of rejecting those ballots, they accepted the ballots.  

Now, if I was looking to defend the "fraud" position, I would look closely at the 2008 numbers, trying to find any overvote anywhere, any instance where the number of votes in a delegate race exceeded the number of votes for the candidate in the presidential.

If there was any case of there being more votes in delegate than Presidential, then someone could say "hey, it wasn't that they weren't accepting wrong votes in 2008, it is that the wrong votes were so uncommon in 2008.  The machine would've accepted them in 2008 (the theory would go), they just weren't there.  And if they weren't there in 2008, why are they there now (the theory would go).

If you want to bust up my chart, which really can't be simply beaten by other charts that someone likes more, you will want to try to disprove the existence of a sizeable number of wrong votes in 2012.

Finding a small number of wrong votes in 2008 would seriously weaken my chart, because you could challenge the wrong votes / voted in all category.  

You could say "why are there so many this year"?  And I would be unable to say "because the machines were broken this year and working in 2008.  But right now,  that's what we're looking at and it's plain as day.  Unless you can find an over/wrong in 2008.





> You're missing one HUGE fundamental point.   If, as you claim, this is completely due to rules being followed in 2008, and not in 2012, then why is Paul the ONLY massive anomaly in those distribution charts?  Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, all 'follow the rules' in 2008 AND 2012.  Not Paul. 
> 
> These charts completely derail your argument for anyone even half paying attention.  That you simply roll with the punches and claim they 'prove' YOU right is just comical.

----------


## dsw

> Cute and simple summary


Am I misreading this?  If the Preference-to-Delegate ratio is less than 100%, that's an overvote (too many delegate votes).  Giuliani got 98 votes, his first delegate got 84.  So Preference-to-Delegate would be 98/84 = 1.17.   So isn't this chart actually showing Delegate/Preference?

Except ... pulling out Baldwin in the 2012 data I get the Delegate/Preference ratio for Paul as 1803 / 5393 = 0.334.  So if the rest are Delegate/Preference, shouldn't that one be 2.99?   It's late, so sorry if I'm getting some ratios backward here or something.  

If I'm right, the ratios in 2008 are all under 100% for Delegate/Preference, as the rule would require.  I won't say this is a kaboom level of proof of anything, but the simplest assumption here would seem to be that in 2008 they enforced the rule, and in 2012 they didn't.  Do you disagree?

Great work finding and analyzing the data!

----------


## dsw

> You aren't proving me wrong.  What you're saying is that you don't like it, because it's not a neat mathematical solution.
> 
> Yeah.  Life's messy.
> 
> To disprove the claim of vote flipping, or some other type of fraud,  one merely has to come up with an alternative scenario which is extremely plausible and reasonable.
> 
> And that's what I did.  You might not like it because it provides a completely 100% believable and plausible scenario of what happened in Alabama that day.  You do seem like a skeptic about the fraud claims.  So I'm not sure that "unhappy because no fraud" fits you particularly.
> 
> I know that I do have a lot of variables, and I know full well that I have a lot of wiggle room to get the numbers to work.  
> ...


I not only didn't prove you wrong, I said that you've constructed a theory that *cannot* be proven wrong.  Even if it is wrong.

Again:  you've got so much flexibility here that the wildest fraud theory could be true, with votes being siphoned off this way and that, and you could still fit the data.  So if you can fit the data when there's no fraud, and fit the data when there is fraud, then what are you proving by fitting the data?

That's why overfitting is something people doing this kind of thing are concerned about, and why complex scientific theories carry less weight than clean and simple ones generally speaking.

----------


## dsw

Good night everyone!

It's a fun little mystery we have here, and a pleasure to keep getting dragged back into it because there are so many smart people passionate about digging into it and coming up with new data and new ideas.  I'll see you tomorrow, unless I can muster up the will power to go work on the things I really ought to be working on instead.

----------


## Liberty1789

> Am I misreading this?  If the Preference-to-Delegate ratio is less than 100%, that's an overvote (too many delegate votes).  Giuliani got 98 votes, his first delegate got 84.  So Preference-to-Delegate would be 98/84 = 1.17.   So isn't this chart actually showing Delegate/Preference?
> 
> Except ... pulling out Baldwin in the 2012 data I get the Delegate/Preference ratio for Paul as 1803 / 5393 = 0.334.  So if the rest are Delegate/Preference, shouldn't that one be 2.99?   It's late, so sorry if I'm getting some ratios backward here or something.  
> 
> If I'm right, the ratios in 2008 are all under 100% for Delegate/Preference, as the rule would require.  I won't say this is a kaboom level of proof of anything, but the simplest assumption here would seem to be that in 2008 they enforced the rule, and in 2012 they didn't.  Do you disagree?
> 
> Great work finding and analyzing the data!


Looks like I have a ratio upside down indeed. Checking.

----------


## drummergirl

> If they could pick 1000 voters *randomly* from all of the people voting across the state then they could just report the percentage directly with high confidence, but they can't get a genuinely random sample.


Pollsters have their devices, but the bottom line is, they often project election results with a margin of error of 3%.  This means that 19 times out of 20 (95%) they expect the final vote tallies to be within 3 percent of their projection.  For example, if the exit poll says Romney will get 33% of the vote, they are 95% confident that his actual number will be between 30% and 36%.

----------


## parocks

> If you could please stop with the hand waving, the data massaging, and the eyeballing it would be helpful.


Why?

Knock my numbers.  Make a counter argument.

They describe what happened without fraud.

Knock my numbers out,  pick them apart. Demolish my description of what happened.
Go for it.  I'd like to find a flaw in my numbers.  

The 20 or so of you have thrown out pretty graph after pretty graph, and all I'm seeing is that you think some of the graphs might have fraud in them in some way that you can't tell yet.

I hacked my way to a 100% plausible description of what happened in Tuscaloosa.

Basically - the machines didn't work right this year.  The machines didn't remove or not count the ballots of people who voted in the wrong delegate races.  We see that in 2008, there were no overvotes counted (unless you can find one, and I suggest you try.  It'll really help your argument).  In 2012, there were overvotes counted.

By my calculations, merely one of many many plausible no fraud descriptions, 1303 people, approximately 6.4% of all voters tuscaloosa, voted in all delegate elections.
In 2008 there were no overvotes of any kind found.  Not fraud, broken machines.

----------


## Liberty1789

> Looks like I have a ratio upside down indeed. Checking.


The beauty of collaborative data check. Thanks dsw.

----------


## drummergirl

> To disprove the claim of vote flipping, or some other type of fraud,  one merely has to come up with an alternative scenario which is extremely plausible and reasonable.
> 
> And that's what I did.


No, you didn't do that.




> You might not like my theory (not simple enough, not fully applicable), but I was simply trying to get to a fully complete and plausible description.  And I did.  And it disproves the fraud claims, unless you can tell me where my numbers are wrong, where the fraud is, or where it might be.


Your charts are unreadable and your numbers seem to be pulled from thin air.  All you've proved is that you can't do math and that paintshop is not the best chart maker on the market.

----------


## drummergirl

> Why?
> 
> Knock my numbers.  Make a counter argument.


If there were numbers to consider, I'd be happy to.  




> I hacked my way to a 100% plausible description of what happened in Tuscaloosa.


Hack is definitely the correct term.  Where do you get 100% from?  Is that a confidence interval?




> By my calculations, merely one of many many plausible no fraud descriptions, 1303 people, approximately 6.4% of all voters tuscaloosa, voted in all delegate elections.


And how would I reproduce your results?  Nothing you've posted is remotely consistent, reproducible, or even legible.  Do you even know what we are talking about when we use terms like ratio, mean, standard deviation, margin of error, standard error, confidence interval, mode, cumulative?  Because those are just basics.  Do R-squared, T-test, f stat, mean anything to you?  If not, please stop; you are embarrassing yourself.

----------


## parocks

Please, give me an example of a number that you think was pulled from thin air.

I'll be able to tell you what that number means.

If you have a problem with a number I'll explain it to you.

You can't find any specific flaw with it, can you?  

Find it,  find the flaws in it.

Until you can tell me the specific flaws, you haven't picked it apart.

If it's wrong, you should be able to knock it down.  

Knock it down.

Until then, you are correct that photoshop is not good for graphing.





> No, you didn't do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your charts are unreadable and your numbers seem to be pulled from thin air.  All you've proved is that you can't do math and that paintshop is not the best chart maker on the market.

----------


## parocks

a better looking graph

----------


## drummergirl

> a better looking graph


That is a better looking graph. 

How are you determining the green, purple, and yellow sections?  What bearing does this graph have on the discrepancy between popular vote totals and delegate vote totals?  How does it demonstrate "no fraud"?

----------


## drummergirl

I know many of you are following both threads, but for those who are not, here is the latest version of the summary with technical addendum

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...1iE/edit?pli=1

It still needs work in many places, but it should communicate what we are seeing well enough to get people moving.  Non-mathoplhiles will want to stick to the first 10 pages.  The technical addendum presumes you know math well.

----------


## Liberty1789

> a better looking graph


That is a cool data visualization! +rep! You really see those vote-for-all "idiots" at work, right? Idiots is too nasty. Let's call them... unicorns...

Your chart is so cool. I can derive this simple one straight from it:



And then that one on unicorn fatigue, a sadly under-researched topic:



Wow: Paul has 2.2x the indefatigable unicorn content of Romney and he still exhibits the same fatigue trend... How could that be? Let me be bold here: unicorns do not exist.

And parocks' mathematical construct collapses.

Debunked, kaput, dead and buried.

----------


## Liberty1789

Remember this from the previous thread:




> Did I tell you I sent them an e-mail?
> 
> Response:
> 
> Hi -----,
>  Even though the rules state that no one should vote for delegates running to represent a candidate that they didn't vote for, the ballot machine counts all of the votes for all of the delegates, no matter what. 
> Shana J. Kluck
>  205-586-5751
> skluck@algop.org
> ...


So just checking with them or Alabama's Secretary of State Office should settle the matter on procedural change vs 2008 fairly quickly. The don't-bother-with-delegate-vote-rule-enforcement was the easy no-effort/no-trouble bureaucratic stance in 2012. I would reasonably expect the very same cop-out stand to have been taken by the same bureaucrats for the same ballot with the same electorate in 2008.

----------


## RonRules

> So just checking with them or Alabama's Secretary of State Office should settle the matter on procedural change vs 2008 fairly quickly. The don't-bother-with-delegate-vote-rule-enforcement was the easy no-effort/no-trouble bureaucratic stance in 2012. I would reasonably expect the very same cop-out stand to have been taken by the same bureaucrats for the same ballot with the same electorate in 2008.


Further to that, ES&S programs the machine. Not the Alabama Sec. of State office, not the GOP (thank God), but the machine vendor.

----------


## RonRules

> I thought about this to, print out ballot sheets that are not in synch with the machines, for example....you have on the ballot sheet: 1. Mitt Romney 2. Newt Gingrich 3. Rick Santorum 4. Ron Paul.
> 
> The Machine reads it like this: 1. Ron Paul 2. Newt Gingrich 3. Rick Santorum 4. Mitt Romney
> 
> Or whatever combination they wish to tally it....So people casting their ballots for Ron Paul are actually casting it for Romney.


Correct, and as was stated in post 259, *"The Ballot Definition File is an Unaudited System Component"*

----------


## RonRules

Is anybody telling the Alabama Secretary of State to NOT certify the election?! That should be the same for all states voted thus far.

Once these things are certified, it will be a lot more difficult to get things changed or even reviewed.  Report in the main vote flipping thread when you are successful.

----------


## The Man

In response to dsw: I'm not sure where "the 63k delegate overvotes" came from.  It's not the number in Newt's first race (so you don't mean the "voting all races" idea).  It's not the sum of the overvotes on the first delegate race for each candidate. I'm not sure why you're assuming it has the same net effect on each candidate's delegate count.  So maybe it is the idea of "voting all races" after all?  I don't know what "adjusted each candidates' delegate count using the first order delegate of each" means.  You said the first delegate was what you meant by the candidate's delegate count, so that would mean adjusting it by itself.  
Total # of lowest position delegate votes = 645,803 (Newt2+Paul1+Romney1+Santorum7)
Total # of reported candidate votes = 582,876
Difference delegates/ candidate votes= 62,927
Each candidate's share of delegate overvotes = 62,927 / 4 = 15,732

You don't justify the assumption that the delegate counts were untampered with, other than something about how the discrepancies there "could be explained by many factors."  When you first stated that assumption you simply said that you were convinced from reading the previous pages of the thread up to that point.  Neither of these is an argument.  
The FACT that when you assume even distribution of delegate overvotes, add Paul and Santorum's cumulative scores together and get this PROVES that IS what happened:


Why compare them using the cumulative graph?  It tends to smooth things out the further you go to the right so unless you're thinking this is an effect that only applies to larger precincts (contrary to the pattern of the anomalies) the cumulative graph is only making it harder to see the comparison.  Why not do a precinct-by-precinct comparison, and show the distribution of errors?  You could just do the precinct-by-precinct comparison for the larger precincts for that matter.   The cumulative graph just obscures differences.   A graph like the one that Liberty started the thread with, after your adjustments are applied, would show something about whether your theory makes sense, or just pushes one anomaly out of the way and creates others to replace it.  
BECAUSE THERE ARE VOTER ERRORS THAT FOLLOW NO PATTERN, EACH PRECINCT DELEGATE TOTALS ARE MEANINGLESS; EACH CANDIDATE INHERITS APPROXIMATELY 15,732 DELEGATE VOTES. And the 15,732 overvotes is a NET effect, meaning that some voters didn't cast a vote for ANY delegates, which further distorts the individual precinct data. The fact that these voting errors are RANDOM IS the very reason why each precinct total is distorted AND why the delegate overvotes were disributed evenly amongst the four candidates.

You don't explain why you think there could be no other explanation.  Basically you've looked at differences, applied adjustments based on those differences, made assumptions you don't substantiate, smoothed the result in a way that would obscure any problems with the theory, and then based on these adjustments causing the graphs to align you declare that there's no other possible explanation than the one you propose.  Why should this be any more convincing than parocks, who also has declared that his analysis is definitive?
I HAVE given only two possibilities here (for the third time): Either 1) Paul received a large portion of Santorum's votes OR 2) Santorum received Paul's votes above 5% cumulative. 
So YOU answer this: How could Paul's and Santorum's reported vote totals be so different from each's reported/ adjusted delegate totals cumatively, but the sum of the two are matches? See the graph above. I am extremely confident in my conclusion

----------


## dsw

> I am extremely confident in my conclusion


I can see that!

----------


## affa

> So YOU answer this: How could Paul's and Santorum's reported vote totals be so different from each's reported/ adjusted delegate totals cumatively, but the sum of the two are matches? See the graph above. I am extremely confident in my conclusion


It's stunning, really.  I'm actually very confident (from researching a completely different direction) that Paul's and Santorum's numbers are incorrect as well.   I was leaning towards a simple ballot misconfiguration and still haven't totally ruled that out.   But the 5% theory makes tons of sense; it explain's Paul's odd cumulative vote, it explains incongruity with exit polls (not including the one we consistently don't trust that all msm use), it explains Santorum, it explains the delegate mismatch...
I'm absolutely convinced something happened, and this solution solves all problems easier than even ballot misconfiguration.

----------


## Liberty1789

The Man and dsw, no need to bicker on cumulatives. It is far from trivial but the stability of Paul+Santorum's share of votes is invariant to the precinct order. The proof is to randomized several times the 1,864 precincts into 10 bins of 186 precincts and look at the average of each bin. This is what you get:



Ain't that cool? 

The Man, you owe me.

----------


## The Man

To make sure I understand, you demonstrate that the difference between delegates and candidate votes IS random- just like I am saying- right? I know you have found no relation to the precinct order or size.




> The Man and dsw, no need to bicker on cumulatives. It is far from trivial but the stability of Paul+Santorum's share of votes is invariant to the precinct order. The proof is to randomized several times the 1,864 precincts into 10 bins of 186 precincts and look at the average of each bin. This is what you get:
> 
> Ain't that cool? 
> 
> The Man, you owe me.

----------


## dsw

There's that word "proof" again.  What if 10% is a large enough random sample that you'll be close to the overall average?  Then it would be nearly constant just for that very uninteresting reason.  

I did the same experiment with Paul+Newt, Paul+Mitt and Paul+Santorum.  I don't have the fancy charts but what am I supposed to see here that convinces me you've proven something interesting?


```
p+m: 35.4 p+s: 40.5 p+n: 34.6
p+m: 34.5 p+s: 40.2 p+n: 35.1
p+m: 35.7 p+s: 39.9 p+n: 34.1
p+m: 34.4 p+s: 40.6 p+n: 34.9
p+m: 34.8 p+s: 39.9 p+n: 35.7
p+m: 33.2 p+s: 41.1 p+n: 35.7
p+m: 34.2 p+s: 40.5 p+n: 35.5
p+m: 33.4 p+s: 41.2 p+n: 36.0
p+m: 35.2 p+s: 40.4 p+n: 34.3
p+m: 34.4 p+s: 39.7 p+n: 35.5
p+m: 35.0 p+s: 39.4 p+n: 35.4
p+m: 36.2 p+s: 39.6 p+n: 35.1
p+m: 35.1 p+s: 39.5 p+n: 35.7
p+m: 35.1 p+s: 39.8 p+n: 35.3
p+m: 35.0 p+s: 38.4 p+n: 35.8
p+m: 33.1 p+s: 40.6 p+n: 35.7
p+m: 35.8 p+s: 39.8 p+n: 34.7
p+m: 36.4 p+s: 39.1 p+n: 34.7
p+m: 36.7 p+s: 39.6 p+n: 33.8
p+m: 35.0 p+s: 41.0 p+n: 34.8
p+m: 35.9 p+s: 38.7 p+n: 35.6
p+m: 32.5 p+s: 41.7 p+n: 35.3
p+m: 36.0 p+s: 38.7 p+n: 34.5
p+m: 34.4 p+s: 40.3 p+n: 35.3
p+m: 35.4 p+s: 40.1 p+n: 34.6
p+m: 32.6 p+s: 42.1 p+n: 36.4
p+m: 35.2 p+s: 40.3 p+n: 34.7
p+m: 34.6 p+s: 40.0 p+n: 35.8
p+m: 36.7 p+s: 38.5 p+n: 34.9
p+m: 33.1 p+s: 42.1 p+n: 35.3
p+m: 33.5 p+s: 40.8 p+n: 35.2
p+m: 35.6 p+s: 40.7 p+n: 34.1
p+m: 34.4 p+s: 40.4 p+n: 35.6
p+m: 34.6 p+s: 40.8 p+n: 34.7
p+m: 33.8 p+s: 41.6 p+n: 34.9
p+m: 34.9 p+s: 39.6 p+n: 35.7
p+m: 35.4 p+s: 39.8 p+n: 35.2
p+m: 33.5 p+s: 41.6 p+n: 35.6
p+m: 34.3 p+s: 40.8 p+n: 35.3
p+m: 34.2 p+s: 40.7 p+n: 35.7
p+m: 33.4 p+s: 41.3 p+n: 35.3
p+m: 34.1 p+s: 40.9 p+n: 35.1
p+m: 35.7 p+s: 40.0 p+n: 35.0
p+m: 35.8 p+s: 39.4 p+n: 35.2
p+m: 33.9 p+s: 41.2 p+n: 34.8
p+m: 36.1 p+s: 39.2 p+n: 35.0
p+m: 34.4 p+s: 41.1 p+n: 34.6
p+m: 34.6 p+s: 40.1 p+n: 35.4
p+m: 36.2 p+s: 38.7 p+n: 35.1
p+m: 35.1 p+s: 40.2 p+n: 34.9
```

Paul+Mitt:  min=32.50  max=36.70  mean=34.77  median=34.85 stdev=1.05
Paul+Sant:  min=38.40  max=42.10  mean=40.24  median=40.25 stdev=0.91
Paul+Newt: min=33.80  max=36.40  mean=35.14  median=35.20 stdev=0.52





> The Man and dsw, no need to bicker on cumulatives. It is far from trivial but the stability of Paul+Santorum's share of votes is invariant to the precinct order. The proof is to randomized several times the 1,864 precincts into 10 bins of 186 precincts and look at the average of each bin. This is what you get:
> 
> 
> 
> Ain't that cool? 
> 
> The Man, you owe me.

----------


## The Man

DSW- you asked for some specific precinct data graphs so this is for you. This clearly shows a 1:1 vote loss for Paul/ vote gain for Santorum. I calculated reported votes minus adjusted votes from all 1864 precincts and averaged each 10 and used a running average; there's still 1864 data points but each one represents the ten previous real data points. The 2012 GOP Primary of Alabama is an unintentional gift from the manipulators. ALL of Ron Paul's votes above 5.1% cumulative are siphoned to Santorum, AND that is what this graph shows without a doubt.

----------


## dsw

A simple mathematical proof of fraud, with calculations that can be easily replicated, is just the sort of thing that could have a HUGE impact.  I have a few questions about the soundness of the proof but what do I know?  Write it up so that anyone who wants to can replicate the result (a definition of "adjusted" is needed here, for example) and let 'er rip.  




> DSW- you asked for some specific precinct data graphs so this is for you. This clearly shows a 1:1 vote loss for Paul/ vote gain for Santorum. I calculated reported votes minus adjusted votes from all 1864 precincts and averaged each 10 and used a running average; there's still 1864 data points but each one represents the ten previous real data points. The 2012 GOP Primary of Alabama is an unintentional gift from the manipulators. ALL of Ron Paul's votes above 5.1% cumulative are siphoned to Santorum, AND that is what this graph shows without a doubt.

----------


## tremendoustie

> As pointed out by dsw in the Daily Paul's post below, a really strange gap is visible between Paul's popular vote in Alabama's primary and thevote count in favor of his delegates, as it all happens on the same day through the same ballot. If you are not familiar with the enigma addressed here, I can only encourage you to read the post linked below first.
> 
> http://www.dailypaul.com/223002/voti...about-this-one
> 
> I think that it is worthwhile separating the discussion of this one in its own thread as the mathematical analysis and speculative interpretations are quite different from the other issues raised elsewhere.
> 
> As per Republican Party Rules, you could only vote for 1 candidate, and then only for the delegates of that candidates. For each of your candidate's delegate proposed, you had to choose between a Mr Jones or a Mr Smith to get the job. A rather complicated affair as illustrated by the typical ballot:
> 
> 
> ...


Unlike the other "flipping fraud" baloney, which I consider not only explainable but completely expected based on demographics, I do find this data surprising.

Fraud isn't the only explanation (indeed, why not switch votes for delegates too?), but it is very curious. I'd expect all the candidates to have a Gaussian distribution peaking significantly below one. Why any candidate would get more votes for their first delegate than in the preference poll, or why RP would be so different, is beyond me.

In that chart, why am I seeing a repeating pattern for RP, with peaks at every whole number, and similar shapes between? That makes no sense at all ... are you sure there's no error here?

----------


## The Man

> A simple mathematical proof of fraud, with calculations that can be easily replicated, is just the sort of thing that could have a HUGE impact.  I have a few questions about the soundness of the proof but what do I know?  Write it up so that anyone who wants to can replicate the result (a definition of "adjusted" is needed here, for example) and let 'er rip.


It's a fact that cumulatively all 4 candidates received NET 62,927 excess delegate votes. Each candidate received a net gain in delegate votes of approximately 15,732:

Total # of lowest position delegate votes = 645,803 (Newt2+Paul1+Romney1+Santorum7)
 Total # of reported candidate votes = 582,876
 Difference delegates/ candidate votes= 62,927
 Each candidate's share of delegate overvotes = 62,927 / 4 = 15,732

So we calculate a constant for each candidate and multiply each delegate total in each precinct by the constant:
Gingrich's multiplier= (#reported delegates position 2 minus #net overvote delegates)/ #reported delegates = (202,496 - 15,732)/202,496 = *0.922*
Paul's multiplier=  (#reported delegates position 1 minus #net overvote delegates)/ #reported delegates = (82,940 - 15,732)/ 82,940 = *0.81*
Romney's multiplier= (#reported delegates position 1 minus #net overvote delegates)/ #reported delegates = (173,739 - 15,732)/173,739 =* 0.91*
Santorum's multiplier= (#reported delegates position 7 minus #net overvote delegates)/ #reported delegates = (186,628 - 15,732)/186,628 = *0.916*

These 4 constants should be used to calculate the "Adjusted" delegate vote values in each precinct. Do a simple check at the end total of each column to make sure that the new adjusted total of delegates is very close to the same value as the candidate vote totals- overall.

----------


## drummergirl

> Unlike the other "flipping fraud" baloney, which I consider not only explainable but completely expected based on demographics, I do find this data surprising.


I'm curious; why do you consider the other election results to be expected based on demographics?





> In that chart, why am I seeing a repeating pattern for RP, with peaks at every whole number, and similar shapes between? That makes no sense at all ... are you sure there's no error here?


Yep.

----------


## The Man

The code would read like this:  Paul vote% adjusted = 5% = Paul unadjusted % / n     where "n" is an integer

----------


## RonRules

> DSW- you asked for some specific precinct data graphs so this is for you. This clearly shows a 1:1 vote loss for Paul/ vote gain for Santorum. I calculated reported votes minus adjusted votes from all 1864 precincts and averaged each 10 and used a running average; there's still 1864 data points but each one represents the ten previous real data points. The 2012 GOP Primary of Alabama is an unintentional gift from the manipulators. ALL of Ron Paul's votes above 5.1% cumulative are siphoned to Santorum, AND that is what this graph shows without a doubt.


I thought I was the one that asked about individual precincts on the X-Axis, but thank you anyway. That's extremely revealing.

I want to call this chart the "Trumpet" chart.

BTW, today, I went to all 70+ counties websits in Wisconsin and downloaded all their precinct level data. Some only have summary level data, but what I'm trying to do is to confirm that the "canvassing" was done correctly from all the individual precincts, to the county reports (that we saw from MSM sources) and finally to the State level. BTW, the State of Wisconsin has not published results yet.

So guys/gals, I've got Wisconsin.

please announce what states you're working on so we don't duplicate efforts.

----------


## dsw

> In that chart, why am I seeing a repeating pattern for RP, with peaks at every whole number, and similar shapes between? That makes no sense at all ... are you sure there's no error here?


I didn't check it personally, but Liberty explained the reason  in #137:



> Go back to the 1st chart of the thread: do you see the red spikes in Paul's bell curve. They come from the fact that you plot a lot of fractions of small numbers, and that creates a huge frequency biais: when dividing a small number by a small number, you are much more likely to get 2 than 11/7, and it distorts the bell curve in a complex way.


Genuine, but innocuous.

----------


## dsw

> It's a fact that cumulatively all 4 candidates received NET 62,927 excess delegate votes. Each candidate received a net gain in delegate votes of approximately 15,732:
> 
> Total # of lowest position delegate votes = 645,803 (Newt2+Paul1+Romney1+Santorum7)
>  Total # of reported candidate votes = 582,876
>  Difference delegates/ candidate votes= 62,927
>  Each candidate's share of delegate overvotes = 62,927 / 4 = 15,732
> 
> So we calculate a constant for each candidate and multiply each delegate total in each precinct by the constant:
> Gingrich's multiplier= (#reported delegates position 2 minus #net overvote delegates)/ #reported delegates = (202,496 - 15,732)/202,496 = *0.922*
> ...


What is this adjusting for?  People who voted in every delegate race?

In any case I guess I understand what the calculation would be, and I'll take your word for it that I could produce a similar trumpet-shaped graph if I did that calculation.  Personally what I'm skeptical of is that a trumpet-shaped graph is proof of anything.

But again, you've boiled this down to a simple calculation, and you could write it up in a straightforward one-page explanation where you define the terms, explain what the adjustments mean and why it's graphed with precincts ordered by size and so on, and explain the significance of a trumpet-shaped graph.  And if there's a sound mathematical argument demonstrating fraud in there, then you've got something HUGE.  I could be wrong, so I hope you'll collect it all in a nice short clear write-up, and put it out there for others to critique.

----------


## The Man

> What is this adjusting for?  People who voted in every delegate race?


We are adjusting for the known 15,732 unintentional overvotes for delegates. In reality, there may have been hundreds of thousands of over and under/no votes- we just know that the NET effect is +63,928.  You can obtain similar results without adjusting, but the unadjusted makes delegate totals/ percentages of Ron Paul higher than actual (15,732 is a larger% of 82,940 (RP's reported delegate count) than in relation to the other candidates' reported delegate totals).

----------


## dr.k.research

Let me get this straight, this means that the Paul people are particularly fastidious at following the ballot. Therefore, it is ludicrous to presume that they would "tire" or anything else but that they would instead:

a) universally vote for Dr. Paul
b) universally fill in the delegate spots or certainly the majority of them

Paul people as a rule are enthusiasts. They set out with a mission. They are not going to blunder (except rarely) at the polls.

Why would anyone attempt to debunk this glory-hole of information? What a joke.

----------


## dsw

> We are adjusting for the known 15,732 unintentional overvotes for delegates. In reality, there may have been hundreds of thousands of over and under/no votes- we just know that the NET effect is +63,928.  You can obtain similar results without adjusting, but the unadjusted makes delegate totals/ percentages of Ron Paul higher than actual (15,732 is a larger% of 82,940 (RP's reported delegate count) than in relation to the other candidates' reported delegate totals).


I guess I'm still having a hard time unpacking all of that.  Why apportion them equally, for example?  Why not proportionately?   Why not just use the actual number of excess votes for each candidate?  You're in effect calculating the excess for each candidate individually, then assigning each of them the average of the four.  There are a lot of adjustments you could make, if any adjustment needs to be made at all, but considering how different the numbers are, using the average of the four makes the least sense.

It's as if you're assuming that the total number of votes in the preference race is the total number of votes actually cast in the preference race, but that the delegate votes reflect the accurate proportion of that number of votes ... but they're only proportionately accurate after you make an adjustment that is not done proportionally.  

Ignore any of this you don't think is helpful.  If you want to write it up in a way that people will find compelling, IMO it's going to have to answer some of the obvious questions such as why the adjustment is being made the way it's being made, why the precincts are sorted the way they are, why you had to invent the trumpet graph to  make your case rather than using something more standard, how to interpret a trumpet graph, etc.

----------


## parocks

********************************************
 original numbers - from Tuscaloosa County - top delegate vote total - bottom delegate vote total - vote total for Presidential candidate
********************************************
 gingrich range 6092-4819 Votes 5559 (overvote 533) (range number 1273)
 paul range 2575-2082 Votes 1046 (overvote 1529) (range number 493)
 romney range 5669-4606 Votes 6086 (undervote 417) (range number 1063)
 santorum range 6409-5892 Votes 7295 (undervote 886) (range number 517)
*********************************************

*************************************

Ok, I'll go over this differently.

Tuscaloosa County
Let's start with votes in the presidential.

******************
Presidential Vote
******************
Gingrich 5559
Paul 1046
Romney 6086
Santorum 7295
*******************

These are good numbers, not created numbers.  We don't have too many numbers, and numbers will have to be created.  
These are not created numbers.

Now, we have to create numbers.  We have to make reasonable assumptions.  The following is the first assumption that is being made.
70% of the people who voted for the candidate in the presidential, voted in the first delegate race of the candidate they voted for in the presidential.

We are calling them "Right" voters.  They voted for the candidate in the presidential, they should've been able to vote for their delegates and they did.

So, the math.

*******************
Right Voters = .70 x Presidential
*******************
Right Voters Delegate
Gingrich 3891 = .70 x 5559
Paul 732 = .70 x 1046
Romney 4260 = .70 x 6086
Santorum 5106 = .70 x 7295
********************

Now, we want to determine what happened in the delegate race.
We have "what the numbers should be", the Right Voters Delegate, and "what the numbers actually are"

Let's find the number of "wrong" voters, people who shouldn't have voted but did.
We have All voters in a delegate race , and we have right voters in a delegate race.
All - right = wrong

**********************
Wrong voters = All voters - Right voters (in top delegate race for candidate)
**********************
Gingrich 2201 = 6092 - 3891
Paul 1843 = 2575 - 732
Romney 1409 = 5669 - 4260
Santorum 1303 = 6409 - 5106

**************************************************  ******************
First Delegate race for each candidate - All voters, Wrong voters, Right voters
**************************************************  ******************
			All Voters		Wrong Voters	Right Voters
Gingrich		6092			2201			3891
Paul			2575			1843			732
Romney		5669			1409			4260  
Santorum		6409			1303			5106
**************************************************  *******************
Formulas
C = B x .70
D = A - C
D = A - (B x .70)
***************************************
where A = All Voters in First Delegate Race
where B = All Voters in Presidential Race
where C = Right Voters
where D = Wrong Voters
*****************************************
A data - Tuscaloosa Election Results
B data - Tuscaloosa Election Results
C data - C = B x .70
D data - D = A - C
	   D = A - (B x .70)
*******************************************

----------


## parocks

NO FRAUD.

Anybody have any problems with this?

Any confusion here?

This is the simpler, partial version,  because my earlier version apparently was either
too complicated, or I didn't explain it well enough for people to understand it.

Notice that even this simplified version shows no fraud.  





> ********************************************
>  original numbers - from Tuscaloosa County - top delegate vote total - bottom delegate vote total - vote total for Presidential candidate
> ********************************************
>  gingrich range 6092-4819 Votes 5559 (overvote 533) (range number 1273)
>  paul range 2575-2082 Votes 1046 (overvote 1529) (range number 493)
>  romney range 5669-4606 Votes 6086 (undervote 417) (range number 1063)
>  santorum range 6409-5892 Votes 7295 (undervote 886) (range number 517)
> *********************************************
> 
> ...

----------


## The Man

> I guess I'm still having a hard time unpacking all of that.  Why apportion them equally, for example?  Why not proportionately?   Why not just use the actual number of excess votes for each candidate?


Very good questions. The delegate overvotes should be apportioned equally because unintentional delegate overvotes were created indiscriminantly in the first place. Therefore, they on average were dispersed equally. Look, there's no way that each candidate received the exact number of overvotes.  It's very likely that, for example, Newt received more unintentional delegate votes than others because his delegates appear first. The evidence seems to suppport  that Newt may have received 1% above his 15.732 and Romney received 1% below his share. I would be glad to go through the math if you are interested.

----------


## The Man

Here is what proves that Ron Paul's votes in excess of 5% were siphoned directly to Rick Santorum and, yes, it qualifies as vote- rigging.

Ron Paul's reported vote totals look nothing like his delegate totals and Rick Santorum's vote totals look nothing like his delegate totals. But the graph above shows that the sum of Paul's and Santorum's vote totals IS the same as the sum of Paul and Santorum's adjusted delegate totals.
In the graph below, each of the 1864 precincts were plotted candidate votes minus adjusted delegate votes and averaged over 10 precincts. It shows absolutely that there is a 1:1 relationship between lost votes of Paul and gained votes of Santorum.

----------


## affa

> These are good numbers, not created numbers.  We don't have too many numbers, and numbers will have to be created.  
> These are not created numbers.
> 
> Now, we have to create numbers.


Try saying that 3 times fast.  

Warning: It won't make it make any more sense.

You're more fun in the other threads where you're trying to convince people to 'strategically' vote for Santorum rather than Paul.

----------


## drummergirl

> NO FRAUD.
> 
> Anybody have any problems with this?
> 
> Any confusion here?


You say that 30% are right voters and then give an equation Right Voters = 0.70 x Presidential Vote.

By your own statement that is wrong.  If 30% voted correctly, Right voters would be 0.30 x Presidential Vote.  All your numbers past that point are not consistent with your first statement.

----------


## parocks

Can someone explain where the extra votes go?   

There were more votes in the top delegate races total than the presidential race.

How can that be?

In 2008, there weren't any cases of a delegate vote exceeding the presidential vote.

I'd like to hear every single theory about this.

See below.





*********************************
Tuscaloosa County

Top Delegate Vote Total = 6092 + 2575 + 5669 + 6409 = 20,745
Presidential Vote Total = 5559 + 1046 + 6086 + 7295 = 19,986

The Presidential Vote Total is the TOP LIMIT to how many Votes there can be in Delegate Elections.
If you didn't vote for the Candidate, you can't vote in the Delegate Election.  In 2008, there were
no overvotes/wrong votes.  In every single case (unless someone can find an exception), the number of votes for the 
candidate in the Presidential Vote equalled or exceeded the number of votes cast in all of his delegate races.

When the Total of delegate votes exceeds the number of Presidential Votes, it is clear that the problem is with
overvoting in the delegate races.  

(Unless people want to suggest "throwing away votes" or "flipping votes into the trash".)
**************************************

----------


## parocks

> You say that 30% are right voters and then give an equation Right Voters = 0.70 x Presidential Vote.
> 
> By your own statement that is wrong.  If 30% voted correctly, Right voters would be 0.30 x Presidential Vote.  All your numbers past that point are not consistent with your first statement.


Ok, I might've misspoke, or mistyped or whatever,  I'll take a look and if it needs correction, I'll correct it.  

I'll come back and edit this post after I find what you're talking about.

***************************

Good catch

Before: "30% of the people who voted for the candidate in the presidential, 
voted in the first delegate race of the candidate they voted for in the presidential."

After: "70% of the people who voted for the candidate in the presidential, 
voted in the first delegate race of the candidate they voted for in the presidential."

----------


## parocks

> Try saying that 3 times fast.  
> 
> Warning: It won't make it make any more sense.
> 
> You're more fun in the other threads where you're trying to convince people to 'strategically' vote for Santorum rather than Paul.


Do you have any problem understanding my graph?

Have you figured out yet that it provides a perfectly reasonable explanation for what happened in Tuscaloosa Alabama?

What is your explanation for why the total number of votes in the first delegate elections was more than the number of votes in the presidential election, when you had to have voted in the presidential race to vote in the delegate race?

You can go back to your hot topics area now.

*************
I haven't tried to convince anyone to vote for Santorum.  Period.
*************

----------


## parocks

Ok, your first chart.  I'm not sure why that chart is relevant, but it's colorful. 
And it has a few errors.

1) Your title is wrong.  It's not proportion of vote for all unicorns.
It's the percentage of the votes for the candidate that were cast by vote for ALL unicorns.
2) Romney's number is 5669 not 5654, since we're analyzing my numbers, don't change them to yours.


Ok, your second chart.  It's a nice, detailed showing of the fatigue factor.

If you'd notice, on my chart, the "fatigue factor" is the purple.
It's the "wrong vote PART"  It's the people who got fatigued.
OF COURSE the "vote for all" is 100%.  It's what the word "all" MEANS.
The fatigue curve is in the purple.

I separated OUT the fatigue curve.  
The orange line is people who wrongly voted in every single delegate contest.
The purple line is people who wrongly voted in some of the delegate contests, and got fatigued and quit.

Also notice that within the green Right Vote category, there is also a fatigue curve.


I also am asking you to debunk MY numbers, not to come up with a couple of charts, and say, "Here are charts that show something
different from my charts, I won't explain why different charts have an effect on your charts.  Just bluff and declare debunked.

I have a bunch of numbers there, somewhere around 32.  How about if you just pick a number from the chart that you don't like,
and explain why my number is wrong.  Your chart doesn't effect MY numbers.  Tell me why ANY of MY numbers are wrong.
You don't even bother to get MY numbers right.  Attack MY numbers.







> That is a cool data visualization! +rep! You really see those vote-for-all "idiots" at work, right? Idiots is too nasty. Let's call them... unicorns...
> 
> Your chart is so cool. I can derive this simple one straight from it:
> 
> 
> 
> And then that one on unicorn fatigue, a sadly under-researched topic:
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## parocks

> That is a better looking graph. 
> 
> How are you determining the green, purple, and yellow sections?  What bearing does this graph have on the discrepancy between popular vote totals and delegate vote totals?  How does it demonstrate "no fraud"?


I answered most of your questions in another post, redid the chart, made it more simple, tried to be as clear as I could.

Anyway, I'll go into more detail on this.

How does it demonstrate "no fraud"?

It demonstrates "no fraud" because when you find a 100% reasonable description of a situation with everybody exhibiting 100% normal behavior,  it 100% removes fraud as the cause.

----------


## parocks

**************
Sarcasm / Mockery Time
**************

Wow, Santorum's numbers plus Ron Paul's numbers are sort of close to each other in most precincts.  Looks like about 2% variation.

Must Be Fraud.

How about doing the same with Romney and Gingrich?  I wonder if their numbers wildly vary from precinct to precinct?  

If they do, it Must Be Fraud.
If they don't, it Must Be Fraud.

You've had the enviable mental breakthrough that allows you to see any set of numbers, any graph, and, without explaining why, being able to declare that "It's Fraud." 

Outstanding.

********************************
********************************

http://results.enr.clarityelections....n/reports.html

In Lawrence County, at Pine Grove Holy Church 36-1 - Santorum got 52.59%, Paul got 7.41%.  That's 60% exactly.  Must Be Fraud. </s>

Do you think it was "double fraud" because Santorum + Paul was so far apart?  Maybe the wizard that was hired to make the votes disappear or appear
just hadn't practiced his magic spells enough, or perhaps his magic wand was broken.  


Because all over the Northwest part of Alabama,
Santorum did really well, and when you add in Ron Paul, it gets numbers above 45% consistently.

**********************************
**********************************





> The Man and dsw, no need to bicker on cumulatives. It is far from trivial but the stability of Paul+Santorum's share of votes is invariant to the precinct order. The proof is to randomized several times the 1,864 precincts into 10 bins of 186 precincts and look at the average of each bin. This is what you get:
> 
> 
> 
> Ain't that cool? 
> 
> The Man, you owe me.

----------


## drummergirl

> It demonstrates "no fraud" because when you find a 100% reasonable description of a situation with everybody exhibiting 100% normal behavior,  it 100% removes fraud as the cause.


When you say things like this, you demonstrate your ignorance.  There is no such thing as a 100% confidence interval.

The only thing you have done is used the data to come up with an empirically derived formula that fits the data you started with.  This is called circular reasoning or a hand waving argument.  It is meaningless. 

You've made yourself feel good about what you want to be true by playing with the numbers for so long that you actually seem to believe your own ranting.

----------


## drummergirl

> **************
> Sarcasm / Mockery Time
> **************
> 
> Wow, Santorum's numbers plus Ron Paul's numbers are sort of close to each other in most precincts.  Looks like about 2% variation.
> 
> Must Be Fraud.
> 
> How about doing the same with Romney and Gingrich?  I wonder if their numbers wildly vary from precinct to precinct?  
> ...


Now you are just trolling.

----------


## drummergirl

> Have you figured out yet that it provides a perfectly reasonable explanation for what happened in Tuscaloosa Alabama?


The only person that sees this is you.  And you have been repeatedly, emphatically incapable of communicating a logical explanation for this statement.

----------


## drummergirl

> If you'd notice, on my chart, the "fatigue factor" is the purple.
> It's the "wrong vote PART"  It's the people who got fatigued.
> OF COURSE the "vote for all" is 100%.  It's what the word "all" MEANS.
> The fatigue curve is in the purple.
> I separated OUT the fatigue curve.  
> The orange line is people who wrongly voted in every single delegate contest.
> The purple line is people who wrongly voted in some of the delegate contests, and got fatigued and quit.


You are making several unsubstantiated assumptions.  You assume a large number of people voted in every single delegate race; none of them skipped any; there is no mix and match possible.  You discuss fatigue but leave no room for someone who re-read the directions or stopped for any other reason or who may have skipped a line and kept going.  You have no way to quantify any of these factors; not by demographics, historical data, similar patterns in another election, nada.




> Also notice that within the green Right Vote category, there is also a fatigue curve.


All of your "right vote" numbers are completely manufactured.  You made them up with your own special fudge factor.




> I also am asking you to debunk MY numbers, 
> I have a bunch of numbers there, somewhere around 32.  How about if you just pick a number from the chart that you don't like,
> and explain why my number is wrong.  Your chart doesn't effect MY numbers.  Tell me why ANY of MY numbers are wrong.
>  Attack MY numbers.


Allow me to reiterate, since you seem to like that:  you make up fudge factors, you use circular reasoning, you proclaim 100% confidence - something that is quite literally impossible.  In short, your numbers are as relevant to this discussion as the price of tea in China.

----------


## parocks

> When you say things like this, you demonstrate your ignorance.  There is no such thing as a 100% confidence interval.
> 
> The only thing you have done is used the data to come up with an empirically derived formula that fits the data you started with.  This is called circular reasoning or a hand waving argument.  It is meaningless. 
> 
> You've made yourself feel good about what you want to be true by playing with the numbers for so long that you actually seem to believe your own ranting.


Listen, the crazy theory is thrown out when a normal explanation works perfectly.

What I have shown is a normal explanation that works perfectly.

This isn't because the crazy theory is wrong necessarily.

Here is a line from Wikipedia, the most introductory source there is.

"It is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect."

I'm referring to that.  That is what I'm trying to communicate.  You could probably guess what Wikipedia entry that's from.

Excuse me, all I'm showing is that there are so very very very many logical, reasonable explanations for what happened in the Primary.

All you need to do is tell me what number I have up there is wrong, Anything.

Pick apart my numbers.

It should be easy for you to do, because you so very passionately believe that I'm wrong, that it should be simple for you to do.

Now do it!  Rip apart MY NUMBERS.

In exchange I will attempt to rip apart the one graph that YOU think is unassailable.

There is no circular reasoning.  I make 1 (one) estimation, and that's the percentage of people who would be expected to vote in the delegate race based on the number 

I'm merely giving one reasonable description.  The most reasonable explanation.
The alternative is that a crime was committed.

When an elderly woman dies at the age of 100 while sleeping in her own bed, you could assume that she was murdered.  Or you can assume that she died of old age.
She might've been murdered.  But unless there are unexplainable things surrounding her death, people will just assume she died of old age.  If the light in the bathroom was on, people might think "oh, the murderer left it on".  But that theory would be ruled out if the 100 year old woman was capable of leaving the light on herself.

You have to notice that Liberty1234 or whatever simply pastes random charts that aren't on point and declared "debunked".  When he is doing nothing of the sort.  

When I say something like "prove no fraud", I'm saying that the weird theory involving fraud would be thrown out, ignored, because the simpler explanation is always preferred.  

"other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one."

----------


## parocks

> Now you are just trolling.


You mean using sarcasm and mockery to show how ridiculous the flippers efforts are?  

It points out that you're on the wrong track.

I've told you to pick my numbers apart.  Do so.

Tell me what number is wrong, and why it's wrong.

I point out that the flipper charts don't show anything proving any fraud.  And do it with sarcasm and mockery.  Because the flippers efforts here, after I've shown a 100% plausible scenario which can't be knocked, are deserving of mockery.

----------


## parocks

> The only person that sees this is you.  And you have been repeatedly, emphatically incapable of communicating a logical explanation for this statement.


Just 
Tell
Me
What
Number
Is
Wrong

----------


## parocks

> You are making several unsubstantiated assumptions.  You assume a large number of people voted in every single delegate race; none of them skipped any; there is no mix and match possible.  You discuss fatigue but leave no room for someone who re-read the directions or stopped for any other reason or who may have skipped a line and kept going.  You have no way to quantify any of these factors; not by demographics, historical data, similar patterns in another election, nada.
> 
> 
> 
> All of your "right vote" numbers are completely manufactured.  You made them up with your own special fudge factor.
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to reiterate, since you seem to like that:  you make up fudge factors, you use circular reasoning, you proclaim 100% confidence - something that is quite literally impossible.  In short, your numbers are as relevant to this discussion as the price of tea in China.



"You assume a large number of people voted in every single delegate race; none of them skipped any; there is no mix and match possible. You discuss fatigue but leave no room for someone who re-read the directions or stopped for any other reason or who may have skipped a line and kept going."

Let's just use my numbers. 1303 voted in ever single delegate race.  I don't assume none skipped any, mix and match is possible. I discuss fatigue as a shorthand for all the factors that would cause someone not to vote.   On the detailed chart, I divide up into 3 categories.  Right, Wrong ALL, and Wrong PART.  On the simple chart, I divide it up into 2 categories, Right and Wrong.  The simple chart clearly shows that the number of Wrong is different for all candidates.   I am not arguing at all that people didn't mix and match, and, actually, if you go back a few pages, you'll see that I described "impulse" voters, people who picked and chose which.  I lump them in with "wrong voters" because they're "wrong voters"  There is no real need to try to guess exactly why they voted in the delegate elections of the wrong candidate, all we need to know is that their votes in the delegate elections were wrong, because they didn't vote for that candidate.

Just tell me what number you think is wrong.   A specific number.

I'll say this again, all I'm doing is painting a 100% plausible scenario.  Tell me why my scenario isn't plausible by picking apart my numbers.

If any of my numbers aren't plausible, tell me.

You seem only to have quickly explained philosophical objections, most of which were based on your misunderstanding of what you were looking at.

----------


## Liberty1789

> Romney's number is 5669 not 5654, since we're analyzing my numbers, don't change them to yours.
> 
> (...)
> 
> I also am asking you to debunk MY numbers. Not (...)  Just bluff and declare debunked.
> 
> (...)
> 
> Tell me why ANY of MY numbers are wrong.
> You don't even bother to get MY numbers right.  Attack MY numbers.





> Just 
> Tell
>  Me
>  What
>  Number
>  Is
>  Wrong


As you insist, wish granted 

Here is your original chart:



How did I get 5,654 for Romney? I added the numbers in the 3 labels of Romney's 1st column: 4,260+1,303+...Ehm, the labels overlap. What about a zoom?



Really looks like 91, doesn'it? Cool: it's the number that I used. So 4,260+1,303+91=5,654. To get 5,669, you need 106, not 91. Your numbers. Your inconsistent numbers. Your error. Wish granted.

So I should have divided 1,303 by 5,669 instead of 6,654? Fine. So instead of getting 23.05%, I would have got 22.98%. Rounded up: 23% instead of, well, oh dear, 23%. So my analysis stands: Paul has 51%/23%=2.2x more voters with NO fatigue than Romney. The actual data set should then show materially less overall fatigue for his voters as a whole than for Romney's. The data shows identical fatigue for both despite the huge difference in proportion of indefatigable voters. That is not possible. Hypothesis does not fit data. Hypothesis rejected.

Where in this fairly simple logic do I lose you, parocks? It is difficult to tell, from outside your brain...

----------


## Liberty1789

> There's that word "proof" again.  What if 10% is a large enough random sample that you'll be close to the overall average?  Then it would be nearly constant just for that very uninteresting reason.  
> 
> I did the same experiment with Paul+Newt, Paul+Mitt and Paul+Santorum.  what am I supposed to see here that convinces me you've proven something interesting?
> 
> Paul+Mitt:  min=32.50  max=36.70  mean=34.77  median=34.85 stdev=1.05
> Paul+Sant:  min=38.40  max=42.10  mean=40.24  median=40.25 stdev=0.91
> Paul+Newt: min=33.80  max=36.40  mean=35.14  median=35.20 stdev=0.52


Shouldn't use "proof". Affa told me already. You two are right. 

My point was to show you than the stability of P+S is not an artifact of the cumulative summation of 1,864 districts. And as I randomized the precincts dumped into the bins, I show that it is not dependent on precinct size order as well. (I have shown 4 randomizations but I had run 1,000 with a macro) NOTHING ELSE! No idea and no claim whether it is different for other pairs of candidates: unchartered territory to me.

I have no view on The Man's proposed explanation yet. I am very reluctant to even go there: I think asking for an explanation of the anomaly, dsw, the way you have presented it, is much more likely to be accepted by an official than if it is augmented by a claim of vote flipping. So very, very, very reluctant to go down that route. The burden of proof is like x10 given what's at stake. The Man thinks that he's got it nailed, but even then, what is the optimal course of action?

----------


## Liberty1789

> To make sure I understand, you demonstrate that the difference between delegates and candidate votes IS random- just like I am saying- right?


I think that people see average smoothing as a manipulative source of artifact. That concern is fair. However, it takes more advanced statistical knowledge to understand that, although averaging can create an artifact, properly used, it can REVEAL information. It is what MUST be done if you are comparing random variables to which are added a deterministic factor and want to detect the deterministic factor... But it is a fraught with complexity (and pitfalls!)and you will lose a big percentage of the audience in the lurch!

----------


## The Man

More demonstration of vote siphoning from Paul to Santorum.

----------


## Liberty1789

> Very good questions. The delegate overvotes should be apportioned equally because unintentional delegate overvotes were created indiscriminantly in the first place. Therefore, they on average were dispersed equally.


Why not apportioned proportionately to the candidate's share of votes pre-errors? It is a fair approach as well, no?

----------


## dsw

> Shouldn't use "proof". Affa told me already. You two are right. 
> 
> My point was to show you than the stability of P+S is not an artifact of the cumulative summation of 1,864 districts. And as I randomized the precincts dumped into the bins, I show that it is not dependent on precinct size order as well. (I have shown 4 randomizations but I had run 1,000 with a macro) NOTHING ELSE! No idea and no claim whether it is different for other pairs of candidates: unchartered territory to me.


My point was to show you that not only was P+S stable, so was P+M and P+N.  In fact P+N had a lower standard deviation so wouldn't it be fair to say that P+N is *more* stable? 

I also explained *why* P+N (and the others) are stable.  You took a large enough randomized sample that P approximates the overall average for P and N approximates the overall average for N, so P+N approximates the sum of the overall averages.  (It would be even an even better approximation if there weren't such significant demographic differences between precincts.)   Mitt+Newt would be stable for the same reason, etc.

So have you demonstrated anything at all except the Law of Large Numbers?

(I ran the same comparison with individual precincts.  Just using the 136 precincts with >= 1000 total votes, the standard deviation for P+S is 6.55, right there in the middle of the standard deviations of 4.35 and 8.13 for P+N and P+M respectively.  Is there anything we can conclude from that?)

----------


## The Man

> Why not apportioned proportionately to the candidate's share of votes pre-errors? It is a fair approach as well, no?


Define "candidate's share of votes pre-errors". Thanks.
Remember that all of my analysis only uses the first delegate of each candidate (Gingrich2, Paul1, Romney1, Santorum7).

----------


## Liberty1789

> Define "candidate's share of votes pre-errors". Thanks.
> Remember that all of my analysis only uses the first delegate of each candidate (Gingrich2, Paul1, Romney1, Santorum7).


If a candidate is less popular, say 2 x less popular than the rest, why should he get an equal share of the correction (15K)? In other words why is your equalized adjustment of 15k independent of popularity?

----------


## RonRules

> More demonstration of vote siphoning from Paul to Santorum.


Those lines are not straight. I put a straightedge against them.

Stop claiming fraud when there isn't any.

/sarcasam

----------


## dsw

> More demonstration of vote siphoning from Paul to Santorum.


Can you at least give some suggestion as to why this graph should be convincing?  Is it the approximate symmetry?  If so, then this is a poor way to present it.  Why not subtract one from the other?  What would the earlier trumpet graph look like if you did that?  Pretty messy, right?  

And then there's still the issue of doing this cumulatively.  Liberty made the point that smoothing can either reveal things, or obscure things.  You aren't giving any reason for thinking that the smoothing you do here is more revealing than obscuring.  

And then there's ordering the precincts by size, with no explanation.  Why?  

Maybe the people who are so impressed by this have a lot more experience analyzing trumpet graphs than I do.  For people who aren't experts at reading trumpet graphs, you're going to have to put the argument into words and present the data in a way that will be familiar to the audience.

----------


## dsw

> If a candidate is less popular, say 2 x less popular than the rest, why should he get an equal share of the correction (15K)? In other words why is your equalized adjustment of 15k independent of popularity?


Wouldn't the 15k correction be equivalent to hypothesizing that 15k people voted in every delegate race?  If so it's one of those numbers pulled out of thin air to make the theory work, but at least that would be an understandable explanation of what the number means and how the calculations with it should be done.

----------


## affa

> Maybe the people who are so impressed by this have a lot more experience analyzing trumpet graphs than I do.  For people who aren't experts at reading trumpet graphs, you're going to have to put the argument into words and present the data in a way that will be familiar to the audience.


To oversimplify, in a four man race, you really shouldn't be seeing massive symmetry between two candidates in that way, with one candidate losing votes at the exact same rate another candidate is gaining them.

----------


## drummergirl

> I've told you to pick my numbers apart.  Do so.
> 
> Tell me what number is wrong, and why it's wrong.


It is difficult to tell which of your numbers are which, because you mix and match them like a 3 year old with a stack of garanimals, but here goes.  The numbers in red are the ones you have made up.  You make a series of assumptions, then you come up with your formula where A and B are data, C and D are calculated using your assumptions.  You then make charts of C and D with NO supporting analysis beyond, "oooo shiney!" You simply state that the graph itself, of manufactured numbers, proves that the numbers which you manufactured are correct.  This is CIRCULAR REASONING.  

*All of your numbers in red have been created with circular reasoning and have as much relevance to the discussion as the numbers on my grocery bill.*




> Now, we have to create numbers. We have to make reasonable assumptions. The following is the first assumption that is being made.
> 70% of the people who voted for the candidate in the presidential, voted in the first delegate race of the candidate they voted for in the presidential.
> 
> So, the math.
> 
> *******************
> Right Voters = .70 x Presidential
> *******************
> Right Voters Delegate
> ...


And then you feel a need to show everyone again your complete lack of understanding of basic mathematics by throwing around this 100% as if it has meaning outside of a locker room pep talk.  Mathematically, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 100% CONFIDENCE.  Go look up confidence interval on wikipedia since you like that reference.




> I point out that the flipper charts don't show anything proving any fraud.  And do it with sarcasm and mockery.  Because the flippers efforts here, after I've shown a 100% plausible scenario which can't be knocked, are deserving of mockery.

----------


## dsw

> To oversimplify, in a four man race, you really shouldn't be seeing massive symmetry between two candidates in that way, with one candidate losing votes at the exact same rate another candidate is gaining them.


Why not?  If you had four candidates who were more or less equally appealing to voters in the same ways, then one of them losing votes should not  mean that only one of the other three gains.  If they're approximately interchangeable then if one gains for some reason, such as a particularly effective ad campaign, you'd expect the other three to lose, roughly speaking, one-third of that amount each, all other things being equal.  

But in reality they aren't that similar.  Santorum's core supporters are not much like Paul's core supporters and neither group is much like Romney's core supporters.  The issues that distinguish Romney from Santorum are nothing like the issues that distinguish Paul from Santorum.   So what's your argument here?   Think back to when the anti-Romney du jour was one person then another then another.  One would plummet for whatever reason, but the others didn't gain equally.  You wouldn't really expect them to.  

Furthermore it's not "at the exact same rate," or at least a trumpet graph is not a good way to demonstrate that.  Look more closely at the first trumpet graph:

There's a rough symmetry here, but it's really pretty rough.  Look at the far right, for example.  And this is after smoothing by averaging over ten precincts at a time!  And by arranging them in ascending order by size (without ever explaining why) *of course* any divergence is going to start small and increase as you go to the right.  So the most obvious feature of presenting the data in this form is meaningless.  Why not just subtract the two, if one is supposed to be equal to the other, and see what the difference is.  Show it as a percentage.  And instead of graphing it in some irrelevant order, look at the percentage differences and use some standard statistical test to prove (in a way familiar to people who aren't experts at reading trumpet graphs) that these values are close enough in value to be significant.

That, plus an actual argument for why, after applying an adjustment that seems arbitrary and averaging over buckets of ten precincts that happened to have similar turnout numbers, the difference shouldn't be as consistently close as it turns out to be (if it does turn out to be statistically significant) would start to turn this into something interesting.   At least to those of us not as adept at reading a trumpet graph as others here seem to be.

----------


## The Man

> If a candidate is less popular, say 2 x less popular than the rest, why should he get an equal share of the correction (15K)? In other words why is your equalized adjustment of 15k independent of popularity?


I make one assumption in all of this: The total number of votes, 582,876, has NOT been altered. IF there has been vote fraud the method is vote reassignment.
I will use your premise of voter popularity to show the exact opposite of what you have proposed:

In a race, candidate A receives 75% of the popular vote and candidate B receives 25%, but there are 1000 more votes for the delegates than the candidates. I deduce that because there are MORE delegate votes than candidate votes, that the domninant voter error is the act of voting for one's candidate, corresponding candidate's delegate, AND voting for opposing candidate's delegate. IF this were the exclusive voter error action causing the delegate overvotes and assuming that delegate overvoters are representative of the overall voters (75% of the overvoters voted candidate A, 25% candidate B), then 750 voters voted candidate A, delegate A, and delegate B (overvote) while 250 voters voted candidate B, delegate B, and delegate A (overvote). So the most popular candidate delegate, delegate A, receives 25% of the delegate overvotes and candidate B receives 25% of the delegate overvotes. 
In reality, there were ballots with zero delegate votes, 1 delegate votes, 2 delegate votes, and even a few dumbasses that voted one delegate vote for the opposing candidates only.

In Alabama, the possibiities are almost limitless. BUT the dominant action IS that after voting for one's intended delegate, another/ more vote(s) were placed for unintentional delegate candidates. Otherwise, there would be less delegate votes than candidate votes. The bottom line is that I am open-minded on this issue AND in reality, you can work off the reported delegate totals as a percent of the total delegates, as I did in the beginning of this thread, and still cause eye-popping.

----------


## dsw

> I make one assumption in all of this: The total number of votes, 582,876, has NOT been altered. IF there has been vote fraud the method is vote reassignment.


That assumption rules out other possible explanations, such as Ron Paul having votes thrown out without those votes being given to other candidates.   Are you just starting out here with an assumption that is equivalent to assuming that the anomaly is explained by "flipping"?




> I deduce that because there are MORE delegate votes than candidate votes, that the domninant voter error is the act of voting for one's candidate, corresponding candidate's delegate, AND voting for opposing candidate's delegate.


How do you *deduce* that?  You can assume it, the same way you assumed that the preference vote total is accurate.  I don't see how you can deduce it from any evidence we've seen.  And the voter behavior you describe, voting for one's own candidate and then for some number of opposing candidate's delegate races, is a huge assumption too.  I think the small precinct data showed pretty clearly that for the other three candidates (and notably, much less so for Paul) a significant percentage of voters didn't vote in even their own candidate's delegate races.  Which, if I'm understanding the calculation you're trying to do, would make your "adjustment" incorrect, wouldn't it?





> BUT the dominant action IS that after voting for one's intended delegate, another/ more vote(s) were placed for unintentional delegate candidates. Otherewise, there would be less delegate votes than delegate votes.


I don't see how you're concluding that this was the typical behavior.  It doesn't fit with the fatigue patterns, for example.  It's one thing if you're just going to state it as an assumption but you seem to think that you've proven that this is the case, and I don't see the proof.

----------


## The Man

> Why not?  If you had four candidates who were more or less equally appealing to voters in the same ways, then one of them losing votes should not  mean that only one of the other three gains.  If they're approximately interchangeable then if one gains for some reason, such as a particularly effective ad campaign, you'd expect the other three to gain, roughly speaking, the same amounts, all other things being equal.  
> 
> But in reality they aren't that similar.  Santorum's core supporters are not much like Paul's core supporters and neither group is much like Romney's core supporters.  The issues that distinguish Romney from Santorum are nothing like the issues that distinguish Paul from Santorum.   So what's your argument here?   Think back to when the anti-Romney du jour was one person then another then another.  One would plummet for whatever reason, but the others didn't gain equally.  You wouldn't really expect them to.  
> 
> Furthermore it's not "at the exact same rate," or at least a trumpet graph is not a good way to demonstrate that.  Look more closely at the first trumpet graph:
> There's a rough symmetry here, but it's really pretty rough.  Look at the far right, for example.  And this is after smoothing by averaging over ten precincts at a time!  And by arranging them in ascending order by size (without ever explaining why) *of course* any divergence is going to start small and increase as you go to the right.  So the most obvious feature of presenting the data in this form is meaningless.  Why not just subtract the two, if one is supposed to be equal to the other, and see what the difference is.  Show it as a percentage.  And instead of graphing it in some irrelevant order, look at the percentage differences and use some standard statistical test to prove (in a way familiar to people who aren't experts at reading trumpet graphs) that these values are close enough in value to be significant.
> 
> That, plus an actual argument for why, after applying an adjustment that seems arbitrary and averaging over buckets of ten precincts that happened to have similar turnout numbers, the difference shouldn't be as consistently close as it turns out to be (if it does turn out to be statistically significant) would start to turn this into something interesting.   At least to those of us not as adept at reading a trumpet graph as others here seem to be.


OK. The ONLY reason there's is ANY variation is that we are starting with delegate numbers that, without any doubt, have NOT been intentionally altered to favor any one candidate (what would be the point), but have massive under, over, "no", multiple, ect. votes to the net of +63,928 extra votes, or 11% of 582k. As an example, there is a span of precincts between 1750 and 1800 on the X-Axis above where all 4 candidates gain a ridiculous amount of delegate votes, which would have been impossible with a consistently accurate delegate count. Many precincts have ridiculous delegate:candidate vote error and ratios. 

For the fourth time in this thread, " YOU CANNOT ACCURATELY ANALYZE INDIVIDUAL PRECINCT DELEGATE DATA BECAUSE THERE IS AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF RANDOM NOISE (delegate over/under votes)." You CAN accurately analyze large numbers of precinct data.

----------


## parocks

The curves are somewhat similar, yet are facing in opposite directions.

This Must Be Fraud!!! </s>




> Why not?  If you had four candidates who were more or less equally appealing to voters in the same ways, then one of them losing votes should not  mean that only one of the other three gains.  If they're approximately interchangeable then if one gains for some reason, such as a particularly effective ad campaign, you'd expect the other three to lose, roughly speaking, one-third of that amount each, all other things being equal.  
> 
> But in reality they aren't that similar.  Santorum's core supporters are not much like Paul's core supporters and neither group is much like Romney's core supporters.  The issues that distinguish Romney from Santorum are nothing like the issues that distinguish Paul from Santorum.   So what's your argument here?   Think back to when the anti-Romney du jour was one person then another then another.  One would plummet for whatever reason, but the others didn't gain equally.  You wouldn't really expect them to.  
> 
> Furthermore it's not "at the exact same rate," or at least a trumpet graph is not a good way to demonstrate that.  Look more closely at the first trumpet graph:
> 
> There's a rough symmetry here, but it's really pretty rough.  Look at the far right, for example.  And this is after smoothing by averaging over ten precincts at a time!  And by arranging them in ascending order by size (without ever explaining why) *of course* any divergence is going to start small and increase as you go to the right.  So the most obvious feature of presenting the data in this form is meaningless.  Why not just subtract the two, if one is supposed to be equal to the other, and see what the difference is.  Show it as a percentage.  And instead of graphing it in some irrelevant order, look at the percentage differences and use some standard statistical test to prove (in a way familiar to people who aren't experts at reading trumpet graphs) that these values are close enough in value to be significant.
> 
> That, plus an actual argument for why, after applying an adjustment that seems arbitrary and averaging over buckets of ten precincts that happened to have similar turnout numbers, the difference shouldn't be as consistently close as it turns out to be (if it does turn out to be statistically significant) would start to turn this into something interesting.   At least to those of us not as adept at reading a trumpet graph as others here seem to be.

----------


## drummergirl

> That assumption rules out other possible explanations, such as Ron Paul having votes thrown out without those votes being given to other candidates.   Are you just starting out here with an assumption that is equivalent to assuming that the anomaly is explained by "flipping"?


Vote reassignment and flipping are not exactly the same.  Flipping is a form of vote reassignment (kind of like a square is a rectangle).  the reason we assume the total number of votes is correct is that there are lots of protections against ballot stuffing in place.  Ballot totals and voter roll totals have to match on election night at the precinct, and they are canvassed again a day or 2 later at the county level.  Once upon a time, that was good fraud protection.

And what we are seeing with the Alabama data is different than what's been seen with flipping in prior primaries (though there may be flipping here too just in case we weren't already confused  )

----------


## The Man

For DSW: "That assumption rules out other possible explanations, such as Ron Paul having votes thrown out without those votes being given to other candidates.   Are you just starting out here with an assumption that is equivalent to assuming that the anomaly is explained by "flipping"?" I'm listening, BUT because overall vote totals are usually recorded in many different ways at each precinct before the totals are sent to be "counted", this would be a primative way of rigging elections, and easily spotted.  

"How do you *deduce* that?  You can assume it, the same way you assumed that the preference vote total is accurate.  I don't see how you can deduce it from any evidence we've seen.  And the voter behavior you describe, voting for one's own candidate and then for some number of opposing candidate's delegate races, is a huge assumption too.  I think the small precinct data showed pretty clearly that for the other three candidates (and notably, much less so for Paul) a significant percentage of voters didn't vote in even their own candidate's delegate races.  Which, if I'm understanding the calculation you're trying to do, would make your "adjustment" incorrect, wouldn't it?"
 F A C T: There were 63,928 more first delegate votes than candidate votes reported. As I have written multiple times, the many different voter error types include "NO" VOTES, vote for own candidate's delegate plus 1 other, vote for other candidate's delegate only, etc. As evidence by all of the previous graphs, my adjustment works fine.

"I don't see how you're concluding that this was the typical behavior.  It doesn't fit with the fatigue patterns, for example.  It's one thing if you're just going to state it as an assumption but you seem to think that you've proven that this is the case, and I don't see the proof."
Honestly DSW, what are you arguing here. Is it really a stratch to say that the dominant voter error action is that they voted for more than one candidate? With 63,928 extra delegate votes versus candidate votes, how would YOU describe it? 

*Unavoidably, I am forced to refer to the online publication "Disinformation Tactics of shills & online trolls/zombies":*
#4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. You criticize my using of cumulative data and ask for individual precinct data, even though I had told you previously that the delegate overvote data makes the individual precinct data messy. When I work to satisfy your request, you post this: "There's a rough symmetry here, but it's really pretty rough. Look at the far right, for example. And this is after smoothing by averaging over ten precincts at a time! And by arranging them in ascending order by size (without ever explaining why) *of course* any divergence is going to start small and increase as you go to the right. So the most obvious feature of presenting the data in this form is meaningless." 

#17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues. 
#23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

----------


## drummergirl

If you have a genuine question, please ask it.  If there is something that does not make sense, seems wrong, etc.  by all means raise the question.  All of us have lots of questions about this election data or we would not be here.  

Name calling, baiting, obfuscation and ranting do nothing to progress the conversation.  Please stop.




> The curves are somewhat similar, yet are facing in opposite directions.
> 
> This Must Be Fraud!!! </s>

----------


## dsw

> OK. The ONLY reason there's is ANY variation is that we are starting with delegate numbers that, without any doubt, have NOT been intentionally altered to favor any one candidate (what would be the point),


This would be a lot easier if you weren't so quick to be "without a doubt" about things.  It makes sense that the delegate races wouldn't have been deliberately manipulated, on the grounds that it doesn't help or hurt any candidate to do so.  Assuming that the people doing any manipulation were being rational about it and not making any mistakes ... but if they were manipulating the preference counts and *not* manipulating the delegate race numbers to be consistent then they were making a huge and stupid mistake.  If we can suppose that kind of stupidity in one fraud scenario, why not in another?  And even assuming that much, it doesn't follow that "flipping" is the only possible mode of fraud as you seem to be assuming from the start.

Furthermore, if we're considering the potential for mis-configured voting machines, for example, that could affect delegate vote races just as easily as any other race.  I dont' think the misconfiguration theory fits the data, but it's an example of how a non-fraudulent explanation could affect more than just the preference races.  An error could affect Ron Paul's delegate races, for example.  

I'm just pointing out that you're making a huge assumption here that isn't unreasonable in some ways, but isn't "without a doubt" either.




> but have massive under, over, "no", multiple, ect. votes to the net of +63,928 extra votes, or 11% of 582k. As an example, there is a span of precincts between 1750 and 1800 on the X-Axis above where all 4 candidates gain a ridiculous amount of delegate votes, which would have been impossible with a consistently accurate delegate count. Many precincts have ridiculous delegate:candidate vote error and ratios. 
> 
> For the fourth time in this thread, " YOU CANNOT ACCURATELY ANALYZE INDIVIDUAL PRECINCT DELEGATE DATA BECAUSE THERE IS AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF RANDOM NOISE (delegate over/under votes)." You CAN accurately analyze large numbers of precinct data.


You can't look at an individual precinct and draw any inferences from it in isolation, that's for sure.  The larger ones will suffer less from noise effects but they still differ in big ways demographically.   So if you're looking for an explanation the place to start is looking at all of the data collectively, in order to see large patterns.  If that's your point here then I completely agree.

How you demonstrate the pattern after that, however, is a different question.

----------


## drummergirl

> but if they were manipulating the preference counts and *not* manipulating the delegate race numbers to be consistent then they were making a huge and stupid mistake.


My hunch (and it is just a hunch) on this is that they did not think they needed to mess with delegate races.  As he 2008 data shows and i'd expect historically there would be a fairly large under vote in the delegate races because lots of voters will know that they don't have to vote in the delegate races to vote for president.  Unless they know the people running in the delegate races (or at least some of them - i.e. my buddy said vote for Mr. Smith delegate place 2, so I want to make sure and do that), a lot of people will just skip that part.

So, if I were planning to do some vote reassignment, I'd figure that I had plenty of cushion in the delegate races.  If indeed there were actually 2 algorithms introduced (working hypothesis), both parties may have counted on using that same cushion (not unlike when a husband and wife both have debit cards on the same checking account).

----------


## The Man

I don't have an issue whith anyone who interprets the information differently than I. All I have done is used the data that Liberty1789 was gracious enough to share with me to create the following graphs. The first shows the relationships betwenn RonPaul's candidate and delegate votes. The second shows the same for Santorum. The third graph compares the sum of the Paul and Santorum. Maybe Liberty1789 could use his talents to show the probability that while Paul's and Santorum's delegate and candidate graph's show almost no correlation, the summation of Paul's and Santorum's delegate curve = the summation of Paul's and Santorum's candidate curves.

----------


## dsw

> For DSW: That assumption rules out other possible explanations, such as Ron Paul having votes thrown out without those votes being given to other candidates.   Are you just starting out here with an assumption that is equivalent to assuming that the anomaly is explained by "flipping"? I'm listening, BUT because overall vote totals are usually recorded in many different ways at each precinct before the totals are sent to be "counted", this would be a primative way of rigging elections, and easily spotted.


All the more reason not to claim that you've demonstrated anything when you're smoothing the data as much as you are.  With the above point in mind, your theory should bear out at the precinct level, right?  




> How do you *deduce* that?  You can assume it, the same way you assumed that the preference vote total is accurate.  I don't see how you can deduce it from any evidence we've seen.  And the voter behavior you describe, voting for one's own candidate and then for some number of opposing candidate's delegate races, is a huge assumption too.  I think the small precinct data showed pretty clearly that for the other three candidates (and notably, much less so for Paul) a significant percentage of voters didn't vote in even their own candidate's delegate races.  Which, if I'm understanding the calculation you're trying to do, would make your "adjustment" incorrect, wouldn't it?
>  F A C T: There were 63,928 more first delegate votes than candidate votes reported. As I have written multiple times, the many different voter error types include "NO" VOTES, vote for own candidate's delegate plus 1 other, vote for other candidate's delegate only, etc. As evidence by all of the previous graphs, my adjustment works fine.


The difference between the sum of four of the delegate races and the sum of the preference votes is 64k, sure.  I'm not sure what you mean when you say your adjustment "works fine" ... presumably not that you get the kind of trumpet graph symmetry you're demonstrating because if "works fine" means that it's just question begging.  




> I don't see how you're concluding that this was the typical behavior.  It doesn't fit with the fatigue patterns, for example.  It's one thing if you're just going to state it as an assumption but you seem to think that you've proven that this is the case, and I don't see the proof.
> Honestly DSW, what are you arguing here. Is it really a stratch to say that the dominant voter error action is that they voted for more than one candidate? With 63,928 extra delegate votes versus candidate votes, how would YOU describe it?


Another way of achieving the same excess, as you've calculated it for four selected delegate races, would be for 15k voters to have voted in every delegate race.   As for "dominant," well, there is a very clear fatigue pattern.  There seems to be some evidence that a significant number (for candidates other than Paul, notably) didn't vote for any delegate races.  There are a number of patterns that seem evident.  




> *Unavoidably, I am forced to refer to the online publication "Disinformation Tactics of shills & online trolls/zombies":*
> #4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. You criticize my using of cumulative data and ask for individual precinct data, even though I had told you previously that the delegate overvote data makes the individual precinct data messy. When I work to satisfy your request, you post this: "There's a rough symmetry here, but it's really pretty rough. Look at the far right, for example. And this is after smoothing by averaging over ten precincts at a time! And by arranging them in ascending order by size (without ever explaining why) *of course* any divergence is going to start small and increase as you go to the right. So the most obvious feature of presenting the data in this form is meaningless."


If it's not helpful, ignore it.  If you think you have a slam-dunk mathematical proof of fraud then write it up and publish it widely.  I *think* I'm pointing out ways that readers who aren't familiar with the intricacies of interpreting trumpet graphs will be skeptical of the conclusion you are extremely confident about.  If I'm wrong, ignore me.  Write it up and put it out there.  You're absolutely right that *if* you have a simple, air-tight mathematical proof of fraud then it's an unintentional gift from the  manipulators and it will make a HUGE splash, as long as you can write it up clearly.  

Having said that, you still haven't answered the question about why you're presenting the data in an extremely non-standard fashion.  The cumulative graph, after sorting by precinct size, is non-standard.  The moving average by 10 precincts, still sorting by precinct size, didn't address the question at all -- in fact it started to show the cracks in the theory, IMO, but it's still such a poor way of presenting the data that it's hard to know either way.   




> #17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues. 
> #23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.


Again, ignore what's not useful.  If you have what you think you have then potentially with a few hours work you could write this up in a simple, one-page explanation that defines the terms, explains the reasoning, and either presents the evidence in a standard format or presents it as a trumpet graph and explains to the reader how to interpret a trumpet graph.  If you're right, then that is a potentially *explosive* publication.  A simple undeniable mathematical pattern easily visualized.  Awesome.

If I'm right, you've started from several assumptions that could be challenged, made some dubious adjustments, shown a result that doesn't in any obvious way prove fraud, and presented the data in a very non-standard way with various quirks that may or may not be required to make the result turn out the way you want, and with a degree of smoothing that obscures whatever degree of significance might be there.  

But ignore that.  Write it up.  Put it out there.  Blow this election fraud out of the water.

----------


## parocks

all right.  we got something here, you're taking me up on my challenge.  Let me start reading.

Ok, I see what you don't like.

Listen, you know full well what I did.  

There is one unknown here, and that is the percentage of people who voted for Ron Paul (and other candidates) in the Presidential race and also voted in his first delegate race.

You mention "a series of assumptions"  What is that "series"?  I just have the one 70% assumption.  Can you list the other assumptions?

You seem to think that 70% is an unreasonable assumption, is that what you're saying?   You simply cannot believe that 70% of the people who voted for Ron Paul on the Presidential voted in his first primary race.  70% is not plausible, not believeable?  Ok, how about this?  

What percentage of the people who voted for the candidate also voted in their 1st delegate race do YOU think?

We know that the percentage can't be above 100%.  And we know that there is some percentage of the people who voted for the candidate who voted in the 1st delegate race.  

What percentage do you think it is?  The number needs to be PLAUSIBLE.  Not exact.  Just believeable.  

Pick a number.

It seems like your quarrel is that I added something myself.  I'll let you suggest a number, if it seems reasonable to me, I'll redo the numbers, and we'll see if the numbers stay reasonable, or become unreasonable.  

Might I suggest the 2008 data?

Will that satisfy you?

I would still argue that 70% is a very reasonable assumption.

Also this "proves that the numbers which you manufactured are correct."

No.  You're not getting it.  But I get where you're coming from.

I'm not arguing that the numbers are correct.  They obviously aren't correct.  I made up the 70%.  The odds of that 70% being correct in all 4 cases are astronomical.  No way is 70% correct.

Here's what you're missing.  I'm not trying to get "correct" numbers.  We need the correct percentage in each of the 4 cases to get the precise numbers exactly right.  We don't have that data.  I know this.  We can't get the numbers correct.

BUT, I'm looking, not for "correct" numbers, but Plausible Numbers. Believeable numbers.  Reasonable numbers. I'm not trying to argue that those numbers are correct.  I'm arguing that they could be correct.  They might be correct.  They might be close.  I'm shooting for close enough to illustrate the point I was trying to make.  I don't want to be making graphs. My point is a simple one, when there are a lot of people wrongly voting in delegate elections and the machines do count those wrong votes, it completely skews the curves in the way we've seen it.  When you realize that the numbers are the result of a whole bunch of wrong votes, and you take wrong votes into consideration, the numbers stop looking weird and fraud-like and start looking normal.   The first few pages of this thread has me using language to try to get this simple point across.  And it appeared that a graph was necessary to do so.  So I made an ugly graph, and then a series of less ugly graphs, to illustrate that there does exist a very plausible (but not necessarily correct) scenario which describes what happened.

In short,  

Yes - plausible, believeable, reasonable, feasible
No - correct, spot on accurate

And the 100% confidence interval.  I'm not trying to do statistics here.  I'm not using "fraud finder" software to kick out an endless series of graphs.  I do know there's an old saying "you can't prove a negative".  And that's certainly in your favor.  But at the same time, I know that when there are 2 competing theories the simpler one is the better one all else being equal.  And I'm using the word prove, or proof as shorthand for the mechanism which removes the fraud hypothesis and replaces it with the wrong votes not rejected by broken machines hypothesis.  That is the simpler theory that explains better. 











> It is difficult to tell which of your numbers are which, because you mix and match them like a 3 year old with a stack of garanimals, but here goes.  The numbers in red are the ones you have made up.  You make a series of assumptions, then you come up with your formula where A and B are data, C and D are calculated using your assumptions.  You then make charts of C and D with NO supporting analysis beyond, "oooo shiney!" You simply state that the graph itself, of manufactured numbers, proves that the numbers which you manufactured are correct.  This is CIRCULAR REASONING.  
> 
> *All of your numbers in red have been created with circular reasoning and have as much relevance to the discussion as the numbers on my grocery bill.*
> 
> 
> 
> And then you feel a need to show everyone again your complete lack of understanding of basic mathematics by throwing around this 100% as if it has meaning outside of a locker room pep talk.  Mathematically, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 100% CONFIDENCE.  Go look up confidence interval on wikipedia since you like that reference.

----------


## affa

> *************
> I haven't tried to convince anyone to vote for Santorum.  Period.
> *************


Oh. I must have just misunderstood.




> Oh, you don't understand how delegates work.
> 
> If Romney gets 1144, Game Over, We Lose.
> 
> *By voting for Santorum*, that will get a delegate to Santorum instead of Romney.
> 
> Game On!





> In PA, people are making the case that it's important that Santorum win the presidential preference vote.  Others make the case that Santorum should be picking up delegates.  
> 
> We should analyze it and make decisions based on our analysis.
> *
> Does it really matter if we get 5,10,15,20 % of the popular vote?  To some degree it does, but how much really?  We can trade those votes out.*   How many delegates spots do we have a legit chance of winning?





> Priority #1 is Romney <1144.
> 
> We've been working with the Santorum Delegates to Stop Romney and we've been working with the Romney Delegates to Stop Santorum.  
> 
> Same thing.  You're saying it's wrong to vote for Santorum to prevent Romney from getting delegates, but the campaign makes deals to vote for Santorum delegates to prevent Romney from getting delegates.
> 
> There are things the grassroots can do that the campaign won't.
> 
> *1) encourage Ron Paul supporters to vote Santorum to keep Romney <1144.*
> ...






> We can go to the Santorum camp and say "hey, who is your best delegate, the most likely to win, in each of Pennsylvania's Congressional District".  
> 
> They give us that list, and we vote for that single Santorum delegate in each of PA's Congressional Districts.  So, if we have 3 votes in a given CD, we give 2 to Ron Paul delegates, and 1 to the top Santorum delegates.
> 
> We also have identified our top delegates.  The Ron Paul delegates who are most likely to win.  We give that information to Santorum and maybe they could possibly help us out.
> 
> We could make some sort of informal deal where we help them everywhere in PA, and they help us in our core strength area of PA.  
> 
> In 2008, the strongest areas for Ron Paul in PA were - Allentown, Reading, Lancaster, Harrisburg, York.    I'm not sure if that's still the case, but those areas were over 20% for Ron Paul in the primary.
> ...





> *And, if we're backing off from campaigning in primaries, why not just vote for Santorum? * We'd be getting the delegates from unorthodox methods, not entirely tied to the outcome of particular races.





> *Actually, you vote for Santorums delegates in PA.* 
> 
> I mentioned a potential delegate deal with Santorum in PA.
> 
> We vote for Santorum's Top Delegate in each of the CDs.
> 
> We give Santorum our Top Delegate in each of the CDs. 
> 
> We identify the perfect CD for us - one that we can win with Santorums help - and one that Santorum isn't likely to win - and we put all of our eggs in that basket.
> ...





> If we can keep 
> 
> Romney <1144
> 
> than we have a chance.  So does Santorum and Gingrich, and a whole bunch of other people.
> 
> We should be focused on Romney <1144.  *We don't need another single vote in a primary to win.*  We absolutely must keep Romney <1144 in order to win.





> *Yes, we need for Santorum to beat Romney whereever possible.*  Our best CD in Wisconsin was CD 2.  We got 17%.  Romney beat Santorum by 2% in CD 2. *So, if 20% of our voters in CD 2 voted for Santorum, Romney would have 3 fewer delegates.*





> That, or something like that.  
> 
> The plan is Romney <1144
> 
> *Voting for Santorum is one of the ways to accomplish that.*
> 
> Attacking Romney is another way to accomplish that.





> Unless your strategy is to keep Romney <1144, in which case you're being smart.
> 
> We don't need any more votes.  We do need to make sure Romney doesn't get 1144.
> 
> Maybe you missed this part.  If Romney gets 1144 delegates, he wins.  We lose.  Game Over.
> *
> Voting for Santorum is one way to keep Romney <1144. * And I haven't heard anybody questioning that.

----------


## The Man

> Having said that, you still haven't answered the question about why you're presenting the data in an extremely non-standard fashion.  The cumulative graph, after sorting by precinct size, is non-standard.  The moving average by 10 precincts, still sorting by precinct size, didn't address the question at all -- in fact it started to show the cracks in the theory, IMO, but it's still such a poor way of presenting the data that it's hard to know either way.
> Again, ignore what's not useful.  If you have what you think you have then potentially with a few hours work you could write this up in a simple, one-page explanation that defines the terms, explains the reasoning, and either presents the evidence in a standard format or presents it as a trumpet graph and explains to the reader how to interpret a trumpet graph.  If you're right, then that is a potentially *explosive* publication.  A simple undeniable mathematical pattern easily visualized.  Awesome.
> If I'm right, you've started from several assumptions that could be challenged, made some dubious adjustments, shown a result that doesn't in any obvious way prove fraud, and presented the data in a very non-standard way with various quirks that may or may not be required to make the result turn out the way you want, and with a degree of smoothing that obscures whatever degree of significance might be there. 
> But ignore that.  Write it up.  Put it out there.  Blow this election fraud out of the water.


Per your request here is the unaveraged data. It simply has too much noise to determine much except that as one gains the other loses.

----------


## parocks

This thread has NOTHING to do with "grassroots activism" and it belongs in hot topics.

If it's sitting in grassroots, where it doesn't belong, I might occasionally mock.

I'm trying to "progress the conversation" to "oh, you're right, this is a pointless waste of time".    

And, yes, there were a lot of people who voted wrongly.  That explains everything.  

Now we don't have to explain how the total number of votes in the first delegate races exceeded the number of votes in the presidential.  An impossibility unless there was overvoting.  

I'll just do whatever.  

But thanks for telling me what to do. 







> If you have a genuine question, please ask it.  If there is something that does not make sense, seems wrong, etc.  by all means raise the question.  All of us have lots of questions about this election data or we would not be here.  
> 
> Name calling, baiting, obfuscation and ranting do nothing to progress the conversation.  Please stop.

----------


## Liberty1789

> To oversimplify, in a four man race, you really shouldn't be seeing massive symmetry between two candidates in that way, with one candidate losing votes at the exact same rate another candidate is gaining them.


That is a very big thing to say, affa. It is what I thought initially, intuitively, but now, I would argue that I know better. Mathematically, it is a very complex, non-trivial issue. It is a zero sum game. You gain degrees of freedom with additional candidates. 4 candidates is 3 degrees on paper. Is that enough? The variables are dependent by construction. If your X-axis introduces correlation between some players and not others, partial symmetry will easily result. Even more difficult: if most voters reduce the race to a 2 man contest in their mind before casting their vote, you could easily end up with a 2-way symmetry as well.

----------


## parocks

> Oh. I must have just misunderstood.


Correct.

Analysis vs Recommendation

There's a difference between analysis of what we could do, of what the effect of certain actions is, how it would be smart and even a good idea in many ways to vote for Santorum and convincing someone to actually do it.   Everything you have shown (except for PA delegate slates - the Conservative Slate in PA, I'll discuss this later) is all analysis of the pros and cons of taking a certain action.  I have and will continue to debate with others the merits of voting for Santorum.

You see, there's a real, practical difference between saying something like "if Ron Paul supporters collectively decided to vote for Santorum it would cause Santorum to get delegates and Romney to not get delegates, and that is the best possible outcome, given the circumstances in many cases."

And that is entirely true and I will continue to say it because it's true.

However, others are having a back and forth with other people, and some of those people say "but I don't want to do that, I want to vote for Ron Paul", sometimes the other person says "but you should, because it helps Ron Paul."  I don't do that.  That is convince.  I don't do convince with vote for Santorum.  I say vote smart or vote heart, whatever you want.  I make a point to stay away from convince.

Now, in terms of PA, that I think is a good opportunity for Ron Paul Grassroots to analyze the delegate landscape, determine if we actually have any viable delegates who have a reasonable chance of winning and do a number of different things to get those viable delegates elected.

You might not understand that Santorum is from PA and Romney has the lead in delegates.  Most of the well known local politicos who people have heard of and might get votes based on that are not with Ron Paul.  The most recent poll from Rasmussen has Santorum at 42, Romney at 38, Paul at 7 and Gingrich at 6.  All of these factors point to not doing very well at all on delegates.

So, we want to maximize the number of our delegates in PA, and prevent Romney from getting delegates (because if Romney gets <1144 its Game Over), and we don't actually need more delegates and more votes.  Absolutely we want more delegates, because IF ROMNEY STAYS <1144, we need every delegate we can get. But delegates are USELESS unless Romney doesn't get the 1144.  

The most important things we can do right now are things that keep Romney <1144.  That's the key message, anything having to do with Santorum is secondary to that.  We have to change direction because what we're doing now is not getting us enough votes to get to 1144 ourselves, and doesn't seem to be keeping Romney <1144.  We HAVE to keep Romney <1144.  Romney <1144 is a MUST.  We could have 1000 delegates, but if Romney gets 1144, we lose.  But if we get no more delegates even no more votes, and Romney is less than 1144, we still have a chance to win.  We have to focus on doing those things that keep Romney <1144.

I like ideas like getting Romney signs and putting stickers on them.  Instead of "Ron Paul" signs at a visibility event, we're talking about Romney <1144 signs.  Instead of thinking how to get people to know who Ron Paul is, it's pushing the idea of Romney <1144.  What can we do to make Romney <1144 happen?

I just bought clear 8.5 x11 inkjet labels.  You download a pdf from the internet with graphics (or create one yourself) that you can print onto the clear inkjet labels.  Then, you cut the sheet - if needed - if needed. you can peel the backing from the label and stick the label onto the Romney sign.  The sign will look like the label was printed onto the sign.  Or, keep the backing on the sign and then roll the sign up into a tube.  And take that tube into a Romney event.  Get a Romney sign there - actually get 2 - and put the label on when you're there.  You of course are between the cameras and Romney, so that when the tv cameras are on, your official romney sign has sayings like "Property of Goldman Sachs" prominently on it and visible to the tv audience.  Things like that are the things that I convince people to do.  I think those are the things we really need to do, not the Santorum stuff, which is polarizing, and could lead to people depriving themselves of making a vote they wanted to make or just feeling icky.  I explain, but don't convince individuals to actually DO IT.  You're just not being clear with your language and the word "convince".

Here's the link to the clear labels from ebay - they're probably available somewhere else for less. http://www.ebay.com/itm/390270644537...84.m1439.l2649


Another thing to consider is that in PA you're voting for delegates, in a Conservative Slate context, a Ron Paul delegate, a Santorum delegate, a Gingrich delegate.  You aren't voting for the candidate himself.  You might have missed the Doug Wead articles from the last day.  

http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2012/0...ingrich-unite/ - Rick Santorum – Ron Paul – Newt Gingrich Unite !  by Doug Wead
http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2012/0...with-ron-paul/ A plea from inside the Santorum camp: Work with Ron Paul by Doug Wead

In PA, you're talking about delegates, just like at caucuses and the conventions.  Doug Wead recommends working with Santorum and Gingrich to keep Romney <1144.  I'm on the same page as Doug Wead on this.

----------


## affa

> Correct.
> 
> Analysis vs Recommendation


You know, i'll be kind and edit away my original response.

I'll keep it simple: 
Anyone who spends as much time arguing for Ron Paul supporter to  vote for another candidate as you do is a supporter I wish liked a different candidate, assuming you're actually a Ron Paul supporter.

----------


## drummergirl

I believe you just illustrated my point.  

As for this being grassroots; I'd say whether the elections are rigged or not is a pretty big deal.  Does a money bomb matter if half RP's votes are siphoned off to other candidates?  Does it matter if I read RONR if we're not going to get any delegates at the state convention because the votes cast for our guy went to someone else?  And believe me, if this isn't figured out and put to bed before November, there could be riots and civil unrest with this crap in the general election.  I'd say it's a BFD. 




> This thread has NOTHING to do with "grassroots activism" and it belongs in hot topics.
> 
> If it's sitting in grassroots, where it doesn't belong, I might occasionally mock.
> 
> I'm trying to "progress the conversation" to "oh, you're right, this is a pointless waste of time".    
> 
> And, yes, there were a lot of people who voted wrongly.  That explains everything.  
> 
> Now we don't have to explain how the total number of votes in the first delegate races exceeded the number of votes in the presidential.  An impossibility unless there was overvoting.  
> ...

----------


## drummergirl

> Listen, you know full well what I did.


Yes, it's called circular reasoning.  It's good of you to admit it.





> And the 100% confidence interval.  I'm not trying to do statistics here.


Good, because you are incompetent with math.




> But at the same time, I know that when there are 2 competing theories the simpler one is the better one all else being equal.


The key phrase is "all else being equal".  No one else is using circular reasoning or other readily identifiable logical fallacies in their reasoning.  

Please, go back under your bridge and be quiet.

----------


## dsw

> Per your request here is the unaveraged data. It simply has too much noise to determine much except that as one gains the other loses.


YMMV, but to me seeing it that way, even still ordered by size for unknown reasons, makes me suspect that whatever pattern the smoothed data might have suggested from a high level view, doesn't hold up to closer inspection.  The upward/downward trend is entirely or largely because it's graphed with precincts ordered by size (and the y-axis is by size too, not by percentage), so reading anything into the noisy trumpet shape would be a mistake.  I'm not seeing it, but I'm 100% in favor of anyone making a rigorous mathematical argument if that's possible. 

Tell me if you'd agree with this:  if the vote totals are independently reported so that tampering with those would be too easily detected, then any theory about manipulation needs to explain exactly what would be done to *each* precinct.  That could be done at the tabulating center, so it could be expressed as an algorithm for changing all of them in some coordinated fashion, or if it's done at the precinct level it could just be an algorithm applied to each precinct in isolation.  But either way the algorithm could then be applied to the data, and the same graph that Liberty started us out with on the first page could be re-generated for the de-tampered data. That wouldn't prove anything immediately, but it would be a good pre-screening test to see if the anomaly for Ron Paul in that graph goes away without introducing other anomalies in its place.

----------


## drummergirl

> Tell me if you'd agree with this:  if the vote totals are independently reported so that tampering with those would be too easily detected, then any theory about manipulation needs to explain exactly what would be done to *each* precinct.  That could be done at the tabulating center, so it could be expressed as an algorithm for changing all of them in some coordinated fashion, or if it's done at the precinct level it could just be an algorithm applied to each precinct in isolation.  But either way the algorithm could then be applied to the data, and the same graph that Liberty started us out with on the first page could be re-generated for the de-tampered data. That wouldn't prove anything immediately, but it would be a good pre-screening test to see if the anomaly for Ron Paul in that graph goes away without introducing other anomalies in its place.


Something like that would be great; I don't know how close we can get with our limited information.  One of the reasons we picked up the vote flipping algorithm in the first place was the facts that it is pretty crude and it set up a dependent variable where one ought not exist.  I'm not sure if we're quite as lucky here.

EDIT But obviously, these vote totals are really messed up and we have some good working hypothesis going.  I guess I'm just trying to fathom half RP's votes being snatched.

----------


## The Man

> YMMV, but to me seeing it that way, even still ordered by size for unknown reasons, makes me suspect that whatever pattern the smoothed data might have suggested from a high level view, doesn't hold up to closer inspection.  The upward/downward trend is entirely or largely because it's graphed with precincts ordered by size (and the y-axis is by size too, not by percentage), so reading anything into the noisy trumpet shape would be a mistake.  I'm not seeing it, but I'm 100% in favor of anyone making a rigorous mathematical argument if that's possible. 
> 
> Tell me if you'd agree with this:  if the vote totals are independently reported so that tampering with those would be too easily detected, then any theory about manipulation needs to explain exactly what would be done to *each* precinct.  That could be done at the tabulating center, so it could be expressed as an algorithm for changing all of them in some coordinated fashion, or if it's done at the precinct level it could just be an algorithm applied to each precinct in isolation.  But either way the algorithm could then be applied to the data, and the same graph that Liberty started us out with on the first page could be re-generated for the de-tampered data. That wouldn't prove anything immediately, but it would be a good pre-screening test to see if the anomaly for Ron Paul in that graph goes away without introducing other anomalies in its place.


Hey DSW I appreciate your analysis. What the graph ACTUALLY demonstrates (and it's not nearly as good as some of the earlie ones) is that Santorum''s gains AND Paul's losses are proportional to the total precinct size. With precincts arranged randomly, you will see two horizontal graphs, Santorum's above Paul's. The manipulators capped Paul's score at 5% and gave the rest away- THE ENTIRE WAY. I agree that there is so much noise from delegate-candidate vote errors that it has to be smoothed to tell anything. 

BTW Has anyone found the precinct data for Wisconsin? Specifically around Milwaukee?

----------


## RonRules

> BTW Has anyone found the precinct data for Wisconsin? Specifically around Milwaukee?


Hi The Man, don't forget, I'm doing ALL of Wisconsin. And NO, they don't have any data for Milwaukee. I think there's simply something wrong with their webpage link:
http://county.milwaukee.gov/Election...on-Results.htm

I downloaded the data for about 60 Wisconsin counties and working on putting all that in the right format. It would be best if you picked another state or if you really want to do Wisconsin, I could give you the counties that I have not yet found data.

----------


## The Man

> Hi The Man, don't forget, I'm doing ALL of Wisconsin. And NO, they don't have any data for Milwaukee. I think there's simply something wrong with their webpage link:
> http://county.milwaukee.gov/Election...on-Results.htm
> 
> I downloaded the data for about 60 Wisconsin counties and working on putting all that in the right format. It would be best if you picked another state or if you really want to do Wisconsin, I could give you the counties that I have not yet found data.


Hey RonRules- check your inbox in 5 minutes or so.

----------


## RonRules

> Hey RonRules- check your inbox in 5 minutes or so.


PS, your PM mailbox is full and I can't reply.

----------


## The Man

Sorry. Try now.


> PS, your PM mailbox is full and I can't reply.

----------


## The Man

Four different representations camparing actual delegate counts to Actual votes. Graph 1 uses delegate 1 of each candidate, graph 2 delegate 2, graph 3 delegate 3, and graph 4 = all delegates of each candidate averaged.

*Cumulative Votes Ascending Precinct Order versus Cumulative % Each Candidate* 
                                          Dotted lines- Delegate Votes

----------


## Bohner

Hey guys... Been lurking here since the whole flippergate thing began and I definitely find the whole thing to be extremely fishy. 
The Man... I do think that you are on to something. I have a suggestion though... 

You seem to have tunnel vision on the Paul/Santorum connection and rightfully so. But why don't you take your formula and apply it to the 5 other possible combinations that you can analyse, and post the graphs? (Ie. Paul/Gingrich, Paul/Romney, Santorum/Gingrich, Santorum/Romney, Romney/Gingrich). 

I think if you post those results (both adjusted and unadjusted), and those results turn out to be completely out of whack, then it strengthens your argument. If they are somewhat similar, then it's an automatic debunk.

----------


## RonRules

> Hey guys... Been lurking here since the whole flippergate thing began and I definitely find the whole thing to be extremely fishy. 
> The Man... I do think that you are on to something. I have a suggestion though...


Thank you for your first post. It's nice to see how these flippin' threads have turned so many lurkers into posters. Your first post suggestion is great and we need that because as we hit the major opposition, that's the kind of things they will rebuff us with.

I may also say that it's pretty easy to do the analysis yourself with either Excel or Program4Liberty's Java program. The latest summary document explains both methods.

----------


## The Man

> Hey guys... Been lurking here since the whole flippergate thing began and I definitely find the whole thing to be extremely fishy. 
> The Man... I do think that you are on to something. I have a suggestion though... 
> 
> You seem to have tunnel vision on the Paul/Santorum connection and rightfully so. But why don't you take your formula and apply it to the 5 other possible combinations that you can analyse, and post the graphs? (Ie. Paul/Gingrich, Paul/Romney, Santorum/Gingrich, Santorum/Romney, Romney/Gingrich). 
> 
> I think if you post those results (both adjusted and unadjusted), and those results turn out to be completely out of whack, then it strengthens your argument. If they are somewhat similar, then it's an automatic debunk.


Hey Bohner- thanks for the pointers. I have taken a step back and studied the individual delegate information- it's astounding to say the least. I have found a method to use the delegates without "adjusting" and it looks promising. The noise cleans up immensely. I'm about to post a prelude. I agree 100% with your observations.

----------


## drummergirl

> Four different representations camparing actual delegate counts to Actual votes. Graph 1 uses delegate 1 of each candidate, graph 2 delegate 2, graph 3 delegate 3, and graph 4 = all delegates of each candidate averaged.
> 
> *Cumulative Votes Ascending Precinct Order versus Cumulative % Each Candidate* 
>                                           Dotted lines- Delegate Votes


Ok, (ducking so as to avoid the tomatoes) is it just me or does it look like Santorum is having votes flipped to Romney at the same time as he's siphoning off Paul?  Because that purple line looks pretty stable at 38% to around 150000 votes (25% counted) and then Santorum dips to a 35% finish.

And, if the working hypothesis is correct, Gingrich actually won Alabama.  So... has anyone told the Newt?

----------


## The Man

The following are Candidate Votes minus Delegate votes Non Cumulative. By averaging every delegate position of each candidate in every precinct, the noise is cleaned up immensely. After studying the indidvidual delegate positions closer, the delegate overvotes are anything BUT random. There's nothing random about this:

In the 250 largest precincts, number of      
precincts candidate gains votes vs. delegates:    Gingrich 143,         Paul 0,           Romney 195,          Santorum 221, 


Average votes gained/ lost per precinct                                             
in largest 250 precincts                                                  Gingrich  +9.2,       Paul -74.8,      Romney +67.8,        Santorum +51.5

Average gain/ loss through all 1864 precincts      Gingrich +1.3,        Paul -23.1,       Romney +12.5,       Santorum +13.8

Total gained/ lost votes through 1864 precincts*  Gingrich +2,389,    Paul -43,070,   Romney +23,313,    Santorum +25,697

In all of the precincts total, Paul gains more than a single vote in approximately 30 precincts for a TOTAL gain of less than 150 votes total. Ron Paul's largest gain was 8 votes in Morgan County Fort Decatur Rec Center, where there apparently was a major malfunction that gained Gingrich 35 votes, Romney 53 votes, and Santorum 38 votes. So in his largest gain out of 1864 precincts, he gained LESS than all 3 other candidates... by 300%!   


*Every single delegate position for each candidate was used to average the delegate votes in each precinct. For example, Santorum's delegate in each precinct was calculated by averaging all 3 delegate votes:  (del7+del8+del9)/3
The total averaged delegates = 574,647 versus 582,876 reported votes for a difference of 8229.

----------


## The Man

Hey RonRules your turn to clear your mailbox.

----------


## The Man

> Ok, (ducking so as to avoid the tomatoes) is it just me or does it look like Santorum is having votes flipped to Romney at the same time as he's siphoning off Paul?  Because that purple line looks pretty stable at 38% to around 150000 votes (25% counted) and then Santorum dips to a 35% finish.
> And, if the working hypothesis is correct, Gingrich actually won Alabama.  So... has anyone told the Newt?


Actually, look at the graphs using delegate 2 AND the graph using delegates averaged in post 383.  Just compare the blue dotted line (Newt delegate) to the solid blue line (Newt candidate votes). Then look at my post 384. Analyzing the delegate data precinct by precinct is astounding. Newt is unscathed. Paul gets siphoned from start to finish. Honestly, Paul IS feeding more than just Santorum. AND averaging the delegates is totals to within 1.4% of the total reported votes- No "adjustment" necessary.

----------


## RonRules

> Hey RonRules your turn to clear your mailbox.


Done. It's one of the drawbacks of being popular!

----------


## dsw

> In the 250 largest precincts, number of 
> precincts candidate gains votes vs. delegates: Gingrich 143, Paul 0, Romney 195, Santorum 221, [...]


Can you elaborate on what is new here that wasn't already clear from the very first graph Liberty posted?  The anomaly that kicked this whole thing off was the fact that Ron Paul got way more votes in delegate races than can be explained by the number of votes he got in the preference race.  You're saying the same thing a different way, namely that the vote for Ron Paul as a candidate is too small compared to the number of delegate race votes he got.  As for the other three, both your data and the original graph show that they don't have anything like the same anomaly that Ron Paul has, and the variation we see for those three decreases (if we're looking at delegate/preference ratio, or increases for the inverse) with ballot order.

----------


## The Man

Dsw- it's another way to show how blatantly skewed against Paul the reported vote totals are.  But learning how to process the delegate votes so that the data is more useful is the main point.

----------


## drummergirl

> Actually, look at the graphs using delegate 2 AND the graph using delegates averaged in post 383.  Just compare the blue dotted line (Newt delegate) to the solid blue line (Newt candidate votes). Then look at my post 384. Analyzing the delegate data precinct by precinct is astounding. Newt is unscathed. Paul gets siphoned from start to finish. Honestly, Paul IS feeding more than just Santorum. AND averaging the delegates is totals to within 1.4% of the total reported votes- No "adjustment" necessary.


I just remember initially looking at just the presidential vote data (without the delegate vote analysis) and thinking that there was flipping going on, but not from Paul, because his line (in our typical cumulative charts) was as flat as a pancake.  

Evidently, there is more than one shell game going on here.  At this point, I'm just trying to figure out if it's a concerted effort or more like something out of a Peter Sellers movie (What?  you're here to steal the Pin Panther too?!)  Just more questions than answers at the moment.

----------


## dsw

I wrote this about an idea for screening fraud theories:



> If the vote totals are independently reported so that tampering with those would be too easily detected, then any theory about manipulation needs to explain exactly what would be done to *each* precinct.  That could be done at the tabulating center, so it could be expressed as an algorithm for changing all of them in some coordinated fashion, or if it's done at the precinct level it could just be an algorithm applied to each precinct in isolation.  But either way the algorithm could then be applied to the data, and the same graph that Liberty started us out with on the first page could be re-generated for the de-tampered data. That wouldn't prove anything immediately, but it would be a good pre-screening test to see if the anomaly for Ron Paul in that graph goes away without introducing other anomalies in its place.


Eventually I hope to have some code that will apply a theory and generate that graph.  Some rough calculations make me think that will be revealing.  I'm tied up with a non-political project for a while but conceivably I might have something in a week or so.

But I wonder what criteria should be used to test a *non*-fraud theory, specifically a non-fraud theory that looks at the fact of excess delegate vote levels in 2012 as a result of voter behaviors.  If you have enough variables you can fit a theory to the data, and end up proving nothing but the fact that if you have enough variables you can make things fit no matter what.  So a theory has to be clear and simple.  On the other hand it doesn't have to result in an *exact* fit, because identifying broad patterns of some voter behavior doesn't mean you've identified everything about all voter behaviors. 

So the question is:  what, if anything, would convince you that the delegate race excesses are due to voter behaviors when the rule about only voting in your candidate's delegate races was not enforced?  Obviously it's *possible* that some combination of voters who didn't vote in any delegate races even though they could have, and voters who voted in some but not all that they could have, and voters who voted in exactly the ones thee rules said they could, and those who voted in races (even all of them) disregarding the rule, could explain the data.  What would it take to convince you that this is a likely explanation of what actually happened?

----------


## RonRules

> Obviously it's *possible* that some combination of voters who didn't vote in any delegate races even though they could have, and voters who voted in some but not all that they could have, and voters who voted in exactly the ones thee rules said they could, and those who voted in races (even all of them) disregarding the rule, could explain the data.  What would it take to convince you that this is a likely explanation of what actually happened?


We have to clearly differentiate what is "*possible*" and what is "*probable*" and put clear numbers to make this distinction. In this voting business, anything is "possible". Is it "possible" that all recent Mongolian imigrants decended upon Alabama and voted en-masse for Ron Paul delegates? We next have to ask ourselves how is that "probable"?

The lines on the Cumulative Precinct Vote Tally are supposed to be horizontal, particularly where there are large precincts/counties. In the early posts, Liberty1789 has shown the *probability* that a certain candidate would end up a a point different than the horizontal endpoint.

We need to emphasize these types of probabilities, but in the simplest possible terms.

As I am doing Wisconsin, the same pattern emerges. Whenever precincts have counts ~>250, Romney starts flipping upwards, at the detriment of other candidates, depending how close they are to Romney (above or below). Anything is *possible*, but after several hundreds precincts/counties analyzed, this is just plain *impossible*.

I believe we need lots of data and charts to make the case. We need more attempts at bunking and debunking, but those have to be documented, otherwise they will rise up again like unsinkable rubber ducks. 

But even more importantly, we need a great summary write-up, a great technical write up and a quick one-page flyer that we can pass around at meetings and Ron Paul events.

----------


## affa

> So the question is:  what, if anything, would convince you that the delegate race excesses are due to voter behaviors when the rule about only voting in your candidate's delegate races was not enforced?


Due to the way the 'excess' votes are distributed, for me, personally, at this point nothing could convince me it's based on voter behavior.  Paul's just too anomalous, and the ballot order precludes simple explanations.   If perhaps the ballot order had been Paul, Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, we'd be able to force fit some mistake+fatigue based explanation, but as it is, it's the 2nd position that has the massive spike anomaly (both in % and raw vote total), which simply doesn't make sense, especially since Romney's total is so accurate.  
There is simply no reasonably ballot based 'mistake' that explains why Paul would get even more 'bonus/mistake' votes than Gingrich, especially since Gingrich should be gaining 'First delegate on ballot' bonus votes in addition to the least fatigued (as in largest) set of 'Down the line' voters.  However, Paul gets considerably more of these than Gingrich.   And Romney? None.  

If excess votes were distributed in a manner consistent with probably ballot mistakes, Gingrich should have the majority of them by far, Romney should still be getting some.   But that isn't the case.   Based on my own studies, I can't come up with a reasonable set of ballot mistakes that explain Paul while also explaining Gingrich and Romney.

Additionally, it still seems to me that plenty of precincts 'got it right', and I simply find it hard to believe others were that far off.

Hmmm.  This gives me an idea. One sec.

----------


## dsw

> We have to clearly differentiate what is "*possible*" and what is "*probable*" and put clear numbers to make this distinction. In this voting business, anything is "possible". Is it "possible" that all recent Mongolian imigrants decended upon Alabama and voted en-masse for Ron Paul delegates? We next have to ask ourselves how is that "probable"?


But in this case it's not about immigrants or anything like that.  The point is that you could assign percentages to the various voting behaviors (all behaviors that we know happened to some extent) for supporters of the four candidates as well as those who voted for others, and fit the data.  That's basically what parocks was trying to do I think, although poorly explained and with too much attitude to be worth bothering with.  It could be made to fit the data, but how do we decide what that means?   




> The lines on the Cumulative Precinct Vote Tally are supposed to be horizontal, particularly where there are large precincts/counties. In the early posts, Liberty1789 has shown the *probability* that a certain candidate would end up a a point different than the horizontal endpoint.


As I and others have pointed out, that argument only works if you know that there's no correlation between precinct size and %vote.  (I think the actual technical term for what is needed in order to make that argument is "independent and identically distributed random variables.")  All of the probability arguments only work if that assumption is true.  But obviously there is a correlation there.  So the probability argument is not valid.

That's been pointed out a number of times, in various ways, by various people in various places, to no avail.  But it's only important if you want people outside the circle of believers to take the case seriously.  

Skeptics won't be convinced by large numbers of graphs of cumulative averages over precincts sorted by number of votes cast, because that's not anything like a standard analytical tool.   If you can't demonstrate something using standard techniques that other people have lots of experience interpreting, then don't be surprised if people wonder why that might be.  

And they aren't going to take it for granted that the line should flatten out, because it will only flatten out if the %vote is independent of precinct size and it's not obvious that that should be the case.  (Citing a misunderstanding of how exit polls work isn't going to impress them either.  They don't just take a small sample of voters from one location, they take samples of voters from multiple locations using techniques to try to randomize their selection at those locations, but even that's not enough so they massage the data further to try to remove demographic bias.  There's no reason to think that just sampling the precincts that have the largest number of voters would give you representative sample of the state as a whole.  But that's what you're assuming when you say the line should flatten out.)

A list of demographic factors that have been eliminated won't convince anyone that there is no other explanation.  And that's especially true if, as seems to be the case, the standard for "debunking" a demographic factor is to show that the factor considered in isolation doesn't *fully* explain the effect.  But if it only partially explains it then that shows a correlation between %vote and precinct size.  And that blows the argument out of the water because all the math, and the assertion that the line should flatten out, assumes exactly the opposite.

----------


## dsw

> There is simply no reasonably ballot based 'mistake' that explains why Paul would get even more 'bonus/mistake' votes than Gingrich, especially since Gingrich should be gaining 'First delegate on ballot' bonus votes in addition to the least fatigued (as in largest) set of 'Down the line' voters.  However, Paul gets considerably more of these than Gingrich.   And Romney? None.


Romney did have some excess delegate votes.  But here's a bigger point:  if there is a voter pattern that is independent of the candidate -- such as voting in all the races -- then it affects Ron Paul disproportionately because he got fewer votes.   If you got 100 votes, and I got 600 votes, and some error gives each of us 200 additional votes (such as the idiot voter theory), then you go up by 300% while I only go up by 33%.   




> Additionally, it still seems to me that plenty of precincts 'got it right', and I simply find it hard to believe others were that far off.
> 
> Hmmm.  This gives me an idea. One sec.


Is the idea to look at whether there's a correlation between how well Ron Paul did in a precinct, and how much excess delegate vote he had there?  If not, I think I'll give that one a shot.

----------


## RonRules

> Additionally, it still seems to me that plenty of precincts 'got it right', and I simply find it hard to believe others were that far off.
> 
> Hmmm.  This gives me an idea. One sec.


Let me predict! The precincts that "got it right" had less than 250 votes.

----------


## RonRules

> As I and others have pointed out, that argument only works if you know that there's no correlation between precinct size and %vote.  (I think the actual technical term for what is needed in order to make that argument is "independent and identically distributed random variables.")  All of the probability arguments only work if that assumption is true.  But obviously there is a correlation there.  So the probability argument is not valid.


No. I can't explain this enough. The "Cumulative Precinct Vote Tally" is the prior sum of ALL precincts up to that point and the related candidate percentage of the vote on the Y-Axis for all votes accumulated thus far. 

That single last point represents ALL 100% (34299) votes reported, and therefore ALL demographics.

The previous point (to the left of the last point) represents 95.47% of ALL votes (32746 votes) and the correspondng Y-Axis is Mitt percentage (38.4%) when 95.47% of the values are included. My emphasis here is that 95.47% of all demographics is included in that point.

That why, with sufficiently large precincts/counties, that line will end up VERY horizontal, regardless of demographics. We had demographics prior to 2008, yet we've seen dozens of charts that make a perfect flat-line. 2012 is different and that's what matters.



Newt and Santorum's traces in the above charts is what these lines should look like. Demographics or not. 

Don't you think that Newt and Santorum don't have demographics?! Why are they flat lining in the above chart?

The reason is simple, they didn't get flipped.

----------


## dsw

> No. I can't explain this enough. The "Cumulative Precinct Vote Tally" is the prior sum of ALL precincts up to that point and the related candidate percentage of the vote on the Y-Axis for all votes accumulated thus far. 
> 
> That single last point represents ALL 100% (34299) votes reported, and therefore ALL demographics.
> 
> The previous point (to the left of the last point) represents 95.47% of ALL votes (32746 votes) and the correspondng Y-Axis is Mitt percentage (38.4%) when 95.47% of the values are included. My emphasis here is that 95.47% of all demographics is included in that point.
> 
> That why, with sufficiently large precincts/counties, that line will end up VERY horizontal, regardless of demographics. We had demographics prior to 2008, yet we've seen dozens of charts that make a perfect flat-line. 2012 is different and that's what matters.


What you've argued here is that the right-most point will (by definition) be at the overall average.  

I'm not sure what you mean by "95.47% of all demographics" are included in the penultimate point.  How do you take a percentage of "demographics"?   It represents an average of 95.47% of all the votes cast.  It's a big sample, but whether or not it's a representative sample depends on how you selected the sample.  The largest precinct could be an outlier, demographically.  

More to the point, if you divide up the precincts into two groups, using any variable (number of votes cast < some threshold for example), then the demographics of one subset may or may not be similar to the demographics of the other subset.  (And "demographics" here would include more than just the usual things; also the effects of targeted ad campaigns and so on.)  You can't just assume they will be the same, or that the %vote for a candidate will be the same, etc.  The math doesn't say that they will necessarily be the same.  You'd have to show that a certain criterion of independence is met before you could make that inference.  If you can't show that the criterion of independence holds, you can't assume that the graph will flatline, and the probability arguments that seem so impressive also don't apply.  That's what the math actually says, and I'm not the first person to point it out.  

Also, showing that the criterion of independence does *not* hold could be done in some very standard ways, making the argument much more convincing.  The insistance on overblowing the mathematical argument (given that it's clear the necessary precondition of independence does *not* hold), and on presenting the data in non-standard ways, may or may not be bad things.  It depends on what kind of audience you want to reach.

----------


## dsw

> Don't you think that Newt and Santorum don't have demographics?!


A candidate doesn't "have demographics.". I'm not sure what you mean.

If the question is whether there are demographic differences between the set of voters who support Newt, and the voters who support Santorum or any of the others, then of course there are differences.  Which is why you can't assume that a correlation between precinct size for one candidate necessarily means there will be as strong a correlation for every other candidate.  They are not interchangeable.

----------


## RonRules

> I'm not sure what you mean by "95.47% of all demographics" are included in the penultimate point.  How do you take a percentage of "demographics"?   It represents an average of 95.47% of all the votes cast.  It's a big sample, but whether or not it's a representative sample depends on how you selected the sample.  The largest precinct could be an outlier, demographically.


Man you're hard to please!  Look at that hundreds of charts we've plotted!  These hundreds of sloping charts are from America! Where on average most cities look like most cities, where you have a pretty even choice of 5 burger chains, three auto brands, and three TV networks. You mean to tell me that 95% of all votes will be substantially different than 100% of all votes? 

Yeah you could hit a big igloo precinct in Alaska, but that's not going to happen too often. Besides, the largest precincts will also contain the most people and have an averaging effect.

That's why these lines MUST be horizontal.

That's the same country where political pollsters are satisfied with 0.0007.14% (1,000/140million voters) sample to tell you that Romney will win and Ron Paul has no chance. Do you believe them? Actually you should, because sampling when done right, works bitches.

----------


## RonRules

> A candidate doesn't "have demographics.". I'm not sure what you mean.
> 
> If the question is whether there are demographic differences between the set of voters who support Newt, and the voters who support Santorum or any of the others, then of course there are differences.  Which is why you can't assume that a correlation between precinct size for one candidate necessarily means there will be as strong a correlation for every other candidate.  They are not interchangeable.


I mean that candiadates have _associated_ demographics.

The above chart say it all, even though it is one of the lamest I have. It's one with the smallest slopes and the flipping effect is clear. If demographics were an issue, the point that I am making is that Newt and Santorum would also have some kind of slope or wiggle past 50%. They don't and that's only because they were not flipped, not because their associated demographics are so perfectly consistent as a function of _cumulative_ precinct size.

----------


## dsw

> I mean that candiadates have _associated_ demographics.
> 
> The above chart say it all, even though it is one of the lamest I have. It's one with the smallest slopes and the flipping effect is clear. If demographics were an issue, the point that I am making is that Newt and Santorum would also have some kind of slope or wiggle past 50%. They don't and that's only because they were not flipped, not because their associated demographics are so perfectly consistent as a function of _cumulative_ precinct size.


That argument only makes sense if you assume that if one candidate's support correlates with some demographic factor, they *all* must correlate with the same demographic factor.  But you don't believe that, do you?

----------


## dsw

> Man you're hard to please!  Look at that hundreds of charts we've plotted!  These hundreds of sloping charts are from America! Where on average most cities look like most cities, where you have a pretty even choice of 5 burger chains, three auto brands, and three TV networks. You mean to tell me that 95% of all votes will be substantially different than 100% of all votes?


What statistics would say about that is:  it depends on how you choose the 95%.  




> Yeah you could hit a big igloo precinct in Alaska, but that's not going to happen too often. Besides, the largest precincts will also contain the most people and have an averaging effect.


Containing the most people is not the same as containing a representative sampling of people.  




> That's why these lines MUST be horizontal.
> 
> That's the same country where political pollsters are satisfied with 0.0007.14% (1,000/140million voters) sample to tell you that Romney will win and Ron Paul has no chance. Do you believe them? Actually you should, because sampling when done right, works bitches.


But (and this seems to be a very common misunderstanding) they don't just sample *any* 1,000 voters.  Do you think they could just pick the largest precinct in the nation, and take a thousand voters from there, and go with that sample?  

But what they do is not remotely like that.  They go to great lengths to make sure that the criterion you're ignoring, actually holds (or comes as close to holding as they can manage) for that sample.  And that's why it works.

----------


## RonRules

> What statistics would say about that is:  it depends on how you choose the 95%.


I know all that and I know how sampling is done.  But you just can't see the obvious. It's the fact that we see this chart after chart where the 50% sample is widely different than the 100% sample. That knowing that demographics are not in general  (from the charts that I have done) function of precinct size.

But almost always, Romney is VERY much, increasing as a function of precinct size.  The only determining factor is that precincts be ~> 250 votes.

I've asked this before, but what will convince you?

----------


## dsw

> I know all that and I know how sampling is done.  But you just can't see the obvious. It's the fact that we see this chart after chart where the 50% sample is widely different than the 100% sample. That knowing that demographics are not in general  (from the charts that I have done) function of precinct size.
> 
> But almost always, Romney is VERY much, increasing as a function of precinct size.  The only determining factor is that precincts be ~> 250 votes.
> 
> I've asked this before, but what will convince you?


First of all, hasn't it been shown that *some* of the correlation can be explained demographically?  Here's a response critical of the "no fraud" argument, that admits that demographic data can explain most of the correlation:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4319166
Or is it your position that demographics do not show *any* correlation with precinct size?

And as for the determining factor being > ~250 votes, I looked at the Virginia Beach data and there was a big jump at 240 (where you hit the first of those large precincts clustered in the northeast corner) but the correlation between Romney %vote and precinct size doesn't START there.  The trend is clear well before that point.  How are those turning points at around ~250 being determined?   By eyeballing the chart?  Or after sorting the precincts by size do you have a program to run that tries all the possible points at which you could divide it into two sets, etc.?

Third, how is looking at a few demographic factors in isolation supposed to give you or anyone confidence that there's not a demographic explanation?  It shouldn't.   There's no reason to think it has to be any one factor, so testing factors individually isn't sufficient.   And there's no reason to thnk that it has to be just about standard kinds of demographic factors either.  I posted a map showing that there is clustering of precincts by size in Virginia Beach city, i.e., when you get to that 240 point there's a geographical pattern to the remaining precincts, and 60% of the remaining precincts are in one contiguous area.  Furthermore at least one campaign effort, the super brochure, is done in a way that causes greater saturation in the smaller precincts; if that can be the case for the Paul campaign it could be the case for other campaigns (or similar effects for other reasons).  Those are just two non-demographic factors that can correlate with precinct size, and that could in turn be part of causing a correlation of the kind you are so certain cannot possibly exist. 

Look at it this way.  I'm not the target audience.  Someone like Nate Silver is (just to pick an ideal person to convince).  If he gets a document that uses a kind of graph he's never seen before, that starts out with claims of mathematical proof that don't even acknowledge the necessary precondition to make that argument valid (and worse, essentially go on shortly thereafter to show that the precondition does *not* hold), why would he do anything but hit the delete key?  On the other hand, if you could demonstrate a striking anomaly, and demonstrate it in a standard fashion that he would instantly understand, all you have to do is get his attention that way and he could not only replicate the anomaly but bring data sets you couldn't possibly get hold of to bear on trying to find a mundane explanation ... and if it's fraud, then it would be *him* not coming up with it that would do the trick.  Or if not someone with the name and resources of Nate Silver, then some stat or poly sci prof looking for publishable research (there are some out there whose field of research is election fraud).  But nothing happens if you can't get their attention.  IMO.

----------


## dsw

An earlier comment made me wonder how the % excess delegates for Ron Paul varied with the % of the preference vote he got at a precinct.  The theory of idiot voters voting in all the races (or just voting indiscriminately) would imply that larger percentages of the preference vote for Paul should correlate with lower percentages of excess votes in the delegate races.  And ... seems like they do.

Here's a scatter plot of (%paul, %delegate excess) for precincts over 500 total votes, and a second one for precincts over 50 votes.  The %paul on the x-axis is his percent of the preference vote at the precincts.  The excess is the number of votes in the first Paul delegate race in excess of the number of votes Paul got, and the y-axis is that excess as a percentage of the Paul vote.  

This isn't a kapow proof or debunk.  If the precincts where he had the largest percentage of the vote had still shown excess delegate votes comparable to the average then that would have been bad news for the idiot voter theory.  

I'm not sure what the "siphoned everything over 5%" theory means for the precincts where he got more than 5%, so I don't know if this is consistent with or not consistent with that theory.  

Precincts over 50:


Precincts over 500:

----------


## RonRules

I posted a slideshow of about 20 Wisconsin counties in the other main thread: (Please go there to comment)
http://s269.photobucket.com/albums/j...view=slideshow

----------


## affa

> Romney did have some excess delegate votes.


Not very many. Certainly not in line with Paul's.




> But here's a bigger point:  if there is a voter pattern that is independent of the candidate -- such as voting in all the races -- then it affects Ron Paul disproportionately because he got fewer votes.   If you got 100 votes, and I got 600 votes, and some error gives each of us 200 additional votes (such as the idiot voter theory), then you go up by 300% while I only go up by 33%.


I'm not talking %s, I'm talking raw votes.    Paul has over 50k votes over.

----------


## drummergirl

Consider a hypothetical example with easy numbers (because I hate pulling out excel so late at night   )

Suppose you have a 2 candidate election with 100,000 total votes, most precincts are 500 votes or less, but that last precinct is just huge with 3,000 votes.  At 97% votes counted (97,000 votes) suppose you have:

Candidate A   50,000    51.5%
Candidate B   47,000    48.5%

How many votes does candidate B need from the final precinct to make a discernible change in his otherwise flat line?  Let's look at some graphs and note that for most scales that would be a shift of about 1%.  So, for candidate B to finish at 49.5% of the total vote, he need 2,500 of the 3,000 remaining votes or 83.3% from that last precinct.  While technically not impossible, what are the odds of the voters in that last precinct being that far different from the rest of the state?

Remember, what we are not seeing in our graphs; if you look through the historical data, European data, Canadian, etc.  You will occasionally see a race where a candidate flat lines, then has a slight rise (or fall) for a short bit and then flattens out again.  This is what we'd expect if there was a demographic shift (i.e. he only got 40% in the rural districts, but ran 47-49% in the urban areas, overall average of 46%)



Look at the FDP line (yellow) in this chart from Germany 2009.  notice how it looks nice and flat at about 11% with 25% of the votes counted.  Then between about 44 and 60% counted there is a rise followed by a new flat line at 12.5%; that looks like a demographic shift.

What we are seeing with the 2012 anomalies is a bizarre correlation between precinct size and %Romney vote, that is as the precinct vote totals get larger Romney does better and better and better.  Those perfect, sharp slopes are just too sloped and too perfect.




> First of all, hasn't it been shown that *some* of the correlation can be explained demographically?  Here's a response critical of the "no fraud" argument, that admits that demographic data can explain most of the correlation:
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4319166
> Or is it your position that demographics do not show *any* correlation with precinct size?
> 
> And as for the determining factor being > ~250 votes, I looked at the Virginia Beach data and there was a big jump at 240 (where you hit the first of those large precincts clustered in the northeast corner) but the correlation between Romney %vote and precinct size doesn't START there.  The trend is clear well before that point.  How are those turning points at around ~250 being determined?   By eyeballing the chart?  Or after sorting the precincts by size do you have a program to run that tries all the possible points at which you could divide it into two sets, etc.?
> 
> Third, how is looking at a few demographic factors in isolation supposed to give you or anyone confidence that there's not a demographic explanation?  It shouldn't.   There's no reason to think it has to be any one factor, so testing factors individually isn't sufficient.   And there's no reason to thnk that it has to be just about standard kinds of demographic factors either.  I posted a map showing that there is clustering of precincts by size in Virginia Beach city, i.e., when you get to that 240 point there's a geographical pattern to the remaining precincts, and 60% of the remaining precincts are in one contiguous area.  Furthermore at least one campaign effort, the super brochure, is done in a way that causes greater saturation in the smaller precincts; if that can be the case for the Paul campaign it could be the case for other campaigns (or similar effects for other reasons).  Those are just two non-demographic factors that can correlate with precinct size, and that could in turn be part of causing a correlation of the kind you are so certain cannot possibly exist. 
> 
> Look at it this way.  I'm not the target audience.  Someone like Nate Silver is (just to pick an ideal person to convince).  If he gets a document that uses a kind of graph he's never seen before, that starts out with claims of mathematical proof that don't even acknowledge the necessary precondition to make that argument valid (and worse, essentially go on shortly thereafter to show that the precondition does *not* hold), why would he do anything but hit the delete key?  On the other hand, if you could demonstrate a striking anomaly, and demonstrate it in a standard fashion that he would instantly understand, all you have to do is get his attention that way and he could not only replicate the anomaly but bring data sets you couldn't possibly get hold of to bear on trying to find a mundane explanation ... and if it's fraud, then it would be *him* not coming up with it that would do the trick.  Or if not someone with the name and resources of Nate Silver, then some stat or poly sci prof looking for publishable research (there are some out there whose field of research is election fraud).  But nothing happens if you can't get their attention.  IMO.

----------


## affa

> An earlier comment made me wonder how the % excess delegates for Ron Paul varied with the % of the preference vote he got at a precinct.  The theory of idiot voters voting in all the races (or just voting indiscriminately) would imply that larger percentages of the preference vote for Paul should correlate with lower percentages of excess votes in the delegate races.  And ... seems like they do.



When I compare my calculated bad voter rate (Paul Overvotes / Total voters) to Paul's performance, I see absolutely no correlation whatsoever.

----------


## dsw

> I'm not talking %s, I'm talking raw votes.    Paul has over 50k votes over.


And what do you think is reasonable to assume about the percentages of supporters for each candidate who are not motivated enough to go find the corresponding delegate races?

I admit it fits my bias, but if Paul supporters tended to be sure to vote in delegate races (or at least the first one), but supporters of other candidates often didn't bother, then yes Paul would be expected to have a larger surplus that way.  It's one of the loose ends I haven't gotten back to but there was at one point some evidence that (in my opinion) could be used to try to estimate percentages of voters for each candidate who didn't bother with the delegate votes.  Notably, the evidence for that was entirely for the other three candidates and not for Paul.  

The bottom line is that unless you assume the supporters of the other three candidates were as diligent as Paul supporters, the surplus you're seeing isn't all that surprising.

----------


## dsw

I'm not sure what to expect from Paul overvotes / total voters.  What do you get when you look at paul overvotes / paul % of total?  That's what would be relevant to the effect I was talking about.  




> When I compare my calculated bad voter rate (Paul Overvotes / Total voters) to Paul's performance, I see absolutely no correlation whatsoever.

----------


## dsw

> While technically not impossible, what are the odds of the voters in that last precinct being that far different from the rest of the state?


I'm not sure what the point of that hypothetical example was.  Are you seeing the last precinct in any real data with a difference that large?   In any case, precincts can differ wildly, even if they don't vary *that* wildly.   There can be a correlation with precinct size with or without the final precinct fitting the trend.  I probably just missed your point, sorry.

BTW, why is the Swedish Uppsala chart (p 15) a normal one, where the top two lines almost meet and then at around 60% start to diverge until there's a 5% or so difference, but the Maine caucus chart (p 21) is an abnormal example where the top two lines meet and then at round 70% start to diverge until there's a 5% or so difference?  I've been meaning to ask that since I first read the document.

----------


## drummergirl

> I'm not sure what the point of that hypothetical example was.  Are you seeing the last precinct in any real data with a difference that large?   In any case, precincts can differ wildly, even if they don't vary *that* wildly.   There can be a correlation with precinct size with or without the final precinct fitting the trend.  I probably just missed your point, sorry.


The hypothetical example was in response to your questions about going from 99.47% vote to 100% vote; the same principle just easier math.  And yes, the differences we are seeing are that remarkable, statistically speaking.




> BTW, why is the Swedish Uppsala chart (p 15) a normal one, where the top two lines almost meet and then at around 60% start to diverge until there's a 5% or so difference, but the Maine caucus chart (p 21) is an abnormal example where the top two lines meet and then at round 70% start to diverge until there's a 5% or so difference?  I've been meaning to ask that since I first read the document.


Each of the top two lines in the Swedish chart only change by about 2 % each; that's probably within the realm of normal variation.  But look again at Maine.  The lines cross at 60% counted.  Romney's surge actually begins at about 40% counted thru the end (100%) for a total change of 7% of the total vote (that is, about 3 times the change of any line in the Swedish election chart).  The other 3 lines dip, but not as dramatically (since that 7% is divided between the other 3).  Also, the Maine chart looks a little noisy because it does not have as many data points as some of the other states.

----------


## RonRules

I've got 28 new counties analyzed in Wisconsin, with one fairly large county that's NOT FLIPPING AT ALL!  Check it out:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ling-up/page20

----------


## drummergirl

> I've got 28 new counties analyzed in Wisconsin, with one fairly large county that's NOT FLIPPING AT ALL!  Check it out:
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ling-up/page20


hey!  The lines in Dane county cross too   who'd have thought it?

----------


## parocks

Analysis (which is what I'M doing)

Vs

Recommendation (Which is what I'M NOT doing.  I'm not "arguing for Ron Paul supporter to vote for another candidate")

I say things like it might be smart to vote for another candidate, depending on the circumstances.  But I don't say that people should do that.

I say they should make that decision themselves.

I say vote smart or vote heart.

But we haven't finished the analysis yet.  We don't know where and under what situations it might be smart to vote for another candidate. 

Top Priority is Romney <1144.

What is your favorite method or plan to keep Romney <1144?




> You know, i'll be kind and edit away my original response.
> 
> I'll keep it simple: 
> Anyone who spends as much time arguing for Ron Paul supporter to  vote for another candidate as you do is a supporter I wish liked a different candidate, assuming you're actually a Ron Paul supporter.

----------


## parocks

My theory explains,  you have nothing.





> Yes, it's called circular reasoning.  It's good of you to admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good, because you are incompetent with math.
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## parocks

Hey, good catch there, there was a mistake, you are right.

I'll go see what it is.

Romney		5669 - 1409 - 4260  
1409 - 1303 = 106
The 91 was wrong, it should've been 106.

And you're right in saying that the difference between 91 and 106 doesn't change the point of your argument.

This below is what we're looking at, trying to analyze.




> That is a cool data visualization! +rep! You really see those vote-for-all "idiots" at work, right? Idiots is too nasty. Let's call them... unicorns...
> 
> Your chart is so cool. I can derive this simple one straight from it:
> 
> 
> 
> And then that one on unicorn fatigue, a sadly under-researched topic:
> 
> 
> ...





votes cast as % of Votes received by 1st delegate on list.

I'm not clear which 2 numbers you're comparing.

What to consider is that if you are subtracting 1303 from both Romney and Paul and doing calculations that way,
you're subtracting the "wrong" voters who did not show fatigue.

The "wrong" voters who show fatigue are found in the chart as the purple - Wrong Vote Part.
Ron Paul had 540 Wrong Vote Part for his first delegate race.  Mitt Romney had 106 Wrong Vote Part for his first delegate race.
Thats a lot of fatigue there.

I would think that what would happen would be that 
The "wrong" voters would exhibit fatigue.
The Ron Paul voters would exhibit fatigue.
The Romney voters would exhibit fatigue.

I can't tell exactly what your fatigue curves are showing.  But I would expect the wrong voter curves to show fatigue and all the right voter
curves for each of the candidates to be similar.


"Paul has 51%/23%=2.2x more voters with NO fatigue than Romney. The actual data set should then show materially less overall fatigue for his voters as a whole than for Romney's. The data shows identical fatigue for both despite the huge difference in proportion of indefatigable voters. That is not possible. Hypothesis does not fit data. Hypothesis rejected."

Well, I get what your saying.  IF the only 2 choices are people who rightly voted, and people who wrongly voted for ALL,  the curves should definitely be different for Paul and Romney, and they aren't.  But, if you added in the voted wrong for PART,  You could compare the curves for Paul, Romney, and voted wrong, part + all.  The curve for voted wrong part + all would look fairly similar to Pauls curve and Romneys curve.











> As you insist, wish granted 
> 
> Here is your original chart:
> 
> 
> 
> How did I get 5,654 for Romney? I added the numbers in the 3 labels of Romney's 1st column: 4,260+1,303+...Ehm, the labels overlap. What about a zoom?
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## parocks

Examine this further.

The truth is found here.





> An earlier comment made me wonder how the % excess delegates for Ron Paul varied with the % of the preference vote he got at a precinct.  The theory of idiot voters voting in all the races (or just voting indiscriminately) would imply that larger percentages of the preference vote for Paul should correlate with lower percentages of excess votes in the delegate races.  And ... seems like they do.
> 
> Here's a scatter plot of (%paul, %delegate excess) for precincts over 500 total votes, and a second one for precincts over 50 votes.  The %paul on the x-axis is his percent of the preference vote at the precincts.  The excess is the number of votes in the first Paul delegate race in excess of the number of votes Paul got, and the y-axis is that excess as a percentage of the Paul vote.  
> 
> This isn't a kapow proof or debunk.  If the precincts where he had the largest percentage of the vote had still shown excess delegate votes comparable to the average then that would have been bad news for the idiot voter theory.  
> 
> I'm not sure what the "siphoned everything over 5%" theory means for the precincts where he got more than 5%, so I don't know if this is consistent with or not consistent with that theory.  
> 
> Precincts over 50:
> ...

----------


## parocks

> Man you're hard to please!  Look at that hundreds of charts we've plotted!  These hundreds of sloping charts are from America! Where on average most cities look like most cities, where you have a pretty even choice of 5 burger chains, three auto brands, and three TV networks. You mean to tell me that 95% of all votes will be substantially different than 100% of all votes? 
> 
> Yeah you could hit a big igloo precinct in Alaska, but that's not going to happen too often. Besides, the largest precincts will also contain the most people and have an averaging effect.
> 
> That's why these lines MUST be horizontal.
> 
> That's the same country where political pollsters are satisfied with 0.0007.14% (1,000/140million voters) sample to tell you that Romney will win and Ron Paul has no chance. Do you believe them? Actually you should, because sampling when done right, works bitches.


It's not just igloo precincts that are different.

In every state there are urban areas, those are democrat typically.  We can say in states with big cities that the urban CDs won't take a lot of votes to win, because most of the voters won't be voting in the Republican primary, because they're registed Democrats.  We also know that surrounding those urban areas are suburban areas.  A lot of Republicans live there, a lot of those Republicans have white collar jobs, with Fortune 500 corporations, and those Republican often take their "social issues" cues from the msm and from the larger culture of their area, which includes the large urban area where the Democrats live.  Those suburban Republicans tend to support Romney.  That's where the Rockefeller Republicans live.  There are also parts of that state that aren't close to any major urban area at all, the rural voters.  Rural voters tend to be more socially conservative, more evangelical, more pro life.  That is particularly true in the south and the midwest.  In Maine, there are rural voters who aren't socially conservative and evangelical.  Ron Paul did well with them.  This Rural / Suburban / Urban split is a national phenominon.  Culturally, Santorum just doesn't do well in urban areas or suburban areas, and does very well in rural areas.  You can look at maps and see that typically, Santorum wins most of the area of the state, but where people are living packed in like sardines, Romney does better.

I'd like to see Google or CNN have extremely detailed maps showing not only who won what county, but who won what precincts, and you'll see, there, too, that the upscale suburb with all the Republicans in it goes for Romney.  Maps most anywhere would show dots for Romney in the population centers surrounded by seas of Santorum rural voters.  People who know about politics know all about that stuff.

----------


## parocks

> I wrote this about an idea for screening fraud theories:
> 
> 
> Eventually I hope to have some code that will apply a theory and generate that graph.  Some rough calculations make me think that will be revealing.  I'm tied up with a non-political project for a while but conceivably I might have something in a week or so.
> 
> But I wonder what criteria should be used to test a *non*-fraud theory, specifically a non-fraud theory that looks at the fact of excess delegate vote levels in 2012 as a result of voter behaviors.  If you have enough variables you can fit a theory to the data, and end up proving nothing but the fact that if you have enough variables you can make things fit no matter what.  So a theory has to be clear and simple.  On the other hand it doesn't have to result in an *exact* fit, because identifying broad patterns of some voter behavior doesn't mean you've identified everything about all voter behaviors. 
> 
> So the question is:  what, if anything, would convince you that the delegate race excesses are due to voter behaviors when the rule about only voting in your candidate's delegate races was not enforced?  Obviously it's *possible* that some combination of voters who didn't vote in any delegate races even though they could have, and voters who voted in some but not all that they could have, and voters who voted in exactly the ones thee rules said they could, and those who voted in races (even all of them) disregarding the rule, could explain the data.  What would it take to convince you that this is a likely explanation of what actually happened?


Something like this would be a chart of "non fraud" theory.  I gave the simple formula in another thread.  The only guess was the percentage of people who voted for the candidate who also voted in that candidates first delegate race.  We simply don't know that answer, so it has to be a guess.  Of course, that number does exist, we just don't know what that number is.  We have the results from one county in 2008, when the machines didn't malfunction, or were programmed differently.  We could use those numbers, perhaps.  But this little chart here looks like something Reasonable, but not Accurate.  Plausible, but not Exact.  

You wanted a simple formula, try this one.

*****************************************
Formulas
C = B x .70
D = A - C
D = A - (B x .70)
A = C + D
***************************************
where A = All Voters in First Delegate Race
where B = All Voters in Presidential Race
where C = Right Voters
where D = Wrong Voters
*****************************************

And here's a somewhat attractive chart.

It's a controversial chart, no doubt, because I had to guess about that 70%.  I'm pretty sure it isn't exactly 70%.  It's a guess.  

******************************************



*******************************************

----------


## parocks

**********************************************
2008 stats
***********************************************
http://www.co.baldwin.al.us/uploads/...esElec2008.HTM
*************************************************
          CANDIDATE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FOR
          PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
          VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN  1
              (WITH 70 OF 70 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
           HUGH CORT  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .        14     .05
           RUDY GIULIANI .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .       115     .39
           MIKE HUCKABEE .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     7,260   24.91
           DUNCAN HUNTER .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .         8     .03
           ALAN KEYES .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .        46     .16
           JOHN McCAIN.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    13,154   45.13
           RON PAUL.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .       772    2.65
           MITT ROMNEY.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     7,590   26.04
           TOM TANCREDO  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .         3     .01
           FRED THOMPSON .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .        86     .30
           UNCOMMITTED.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .       102     .35
*********************************************
          GIULIANI DELEGATES, PLACE 1
          VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN  1
              (WITH 70 OF 70 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
           MIKE FRICKER  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .        30   31.25
           DON McGRIFF.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .        66   68.75
Delegate vote total - 96
presidential vote total - 115
percentage of pres vote who vote first delegate - 83.4%
*******************************************
          HUCKABEE DELEGATES, PLACE 1
          VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN  1
              (WITH 70 OF 70 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
           KIM BARTON .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     3,057   58.45
           CHRIS BRINSON .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     2,173   41.55
Delegate vote total - 5230
presidential vote total - 7260
percentage of pres vote who vote first delegate - 72.0%
*******************************************
          McCAIN DELEGATES, PLACE 2
          VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN  1
              (WITH 70 OF 70 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
           TERRY L. BUTTS.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     5,483   59.72
           DON FISHER .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     3,698   40.28
Delegate vote total - 9181
presidential vote total - 13154
percentage of pres vote who vote first delegate - 69.7%
*******************************************
          PAUL DELEGATES, PLACE 3
          VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN  1
              (WITH 70 OF 70 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
           BEAU BELLOT.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .       275   47.33
           DEBORAH S. GORDON.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .       306   52.67
Delegate vote total - 581
presidential vote total - 772
percentage of pres vote who vote first delegate - 75.2%
*********************************************
       ROMNEY DELEGATES, PLACE 3
          VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN  1
              (WITH 70 OF 70 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
           BUTCH BROCK.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     2,901   54.50
           MARTHA BROOKS .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     2,422   45.50
Delegate vote total - 5323
presidential vote total - 7590
percentage of pres vote who vote first delegate - 70.1%
**********************************************
          THOMPSON DELEGATES, PLACE 1
          VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN  1
              (WITH 70 OF 70 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
           CHIP BROWN .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .        49   72.06
           RICK RENSHAW  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .        19   27.94
Delegate vote total - 68
presidential vote total - 86
percentage of pres vote who vote first delegate - 79.0%
********************************************

----------


## dsw

I'm assuming that they enforced the rule in 2008 (either throwing out ballots, or ignoring votes in delegate races not corresponding to the candidate choice).   The "first race effect" that clearly happened in 2012 would have been huge in 2008, because Giuliani got so few votes.

So looking at Romney, McCain and Huckabee suggests that 30% is a good guess for the percentage of voters who voted for a candidate and then skipped the delegate races.  If that's the same 30% you use in your numbers I'd say that counts as a tentative confirmation.  






> **********************************************
> 2008 stats
> ***********************************************
> http://www.co.baldwin.al.us/uploads/...esElec2008.HTM
> *************************************************
>           CANDIDATE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FOR
>           PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
>           VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN  1
>               (WITH 70 OF 70 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
> ...

----------


## dsw

After you assume that 70% voted correctly in their candidate's first race, what are you assuming about the other races they voted in?  What are you assuming the other 30% did?  It looks like you assume 70% voted correctly in the first race, color that green, then just look at the delegate vote that remains unaccounted for, and color that purple.  But that would just be silly so I hope I'm misunderstanding you somewhere.




> Something like this would be a chart of "non fraud" theory.  I gave the simple formula in another thread.  The only guess was the percentage of people who voted for the candidate who also voted in that candidates first delegate race.  We simply don't know that answer, so it has to be a guess.  Of course, that number does exist, we just don't know what that number is.  We have the results from one county in 2008, when the machines didn't malfunction, or were programmed differently.  We could use those numbers, perhaps.  But this little chart here looks like something Reasonable, but not Accurate.  Plausible, but not Exact.  
> 
> You wanted a simple formula, try this one.
> 
> *****************************************
> Formulas
> C = B x .70
> D = A - C
> D = A - (B x .70)
> ...

----------


## dsw

> The hypothetical example was in response to your questions about going from 99.47% vote to 100% vote; the same principle just easier math.  And yes, the differences we are seeing are that remarkable, statistically speaking.


You're seeing that kind of difference on the very last precinct?  

The reason a change that large would be that remarkable for the last precinct don't apply if you're talking about a change after, say, 25% of the vote.  If it's just the last precinct and the difference is very large then that precinct has to be an extreme outlier.  If it's a change of the kind you're talking about, none of the precincts have to be outliers.  Two very different scenarios.  






> Each of the top two lines in the Swedish chart only change by about 2 % each; that's probably within the realm of normal variation.  But look again at Maine.  The lines cross at 60% counted.  Romney's surge actually begins at about 40% counted thru the end (100%) for a total change of 7% of the total vote (that is, about 3 times the change of any line in the Swedish election chart).  The other 3 lines dip, but not as dramatically (since that 7% is divided between the other 3).  Also, the Maine chart looks a little noisy because it does not have as many data points as some of the other states.


If that's what it takes to distinguish a graph that is supposedly clearly normal (and for which the lines do NOT flatten, and for which it's predominantly two candidates diverging with others relatively flat) from a graph that is supposedly clearly abnormal, then is it safe to say that it would not be possible to write a program that would take a csv file of election data and analytically determine whether there was "flipping" or not?

----------


## affa

> Analysis (which is what I'M doing)
> 
> Vs
> 
> Recommendation (Which is what I'M NOT doing.  I'm not "arguing for Ron Paul supporter to vote for another candidate")



When you post over and over again explaining why voting for Santorum is a good idea,  I don't really give a flying squirrel what you call it.  You work for our opponents, whether you realize it or not.

----------


## drummergirl

At first glance, both of these look like exponential distributions.  Whether they actually are and what their parameters would be, is beyond my pay grade.  




> An earlier comment made me wonder how the % excess delegates for Ron Paul varied with the % of the preference vote he got at a precinct.  The theory of idiot voters voting in all the races (or just voting indiscriminately) would imply that larger percentages of the preference vote for Paul should correlate with lower percentages of excess votes in the delegate races.  And ... seems like they do.
> 
> Here's a scatter plot of (%paul, %delegate excess) for precincts over 500 total votes, and a second one for precincts over 50 votes.  The %paul on the x-axis is his percent of the preference vote at the precincts.  The excess is the number of votes in the first Paul delegate race in excess of the number of votes Paul got, and the y-axis is that excess as a percentage of the Paul vote.  
> 
> This isn't a kapow proof or debunk.  If the precincts where he had the largest percentage of the vote had still shown excess delegate votes comparable to the average then that would have been bad news for the idiot voter theory.  
> 
> I'm not sure what the "siphoned everything over 5%" theory means for the precincts where he got more than 5%, so I don't know if this is consistent with or not consistent with that theory.  
> 
> Precincts over 50:
> ...

----------


## drummergirl

> And here's a somewhat attractive chart.
> 
> It's a controversial chart, no doubt, because I had to guess about that 70%.  I'm pretty sure it isn't exactly 70%.  It's a guess.  
> 
> ******************************************
> 
> 
> *******************************************


It's not controversial at all; it's been repeatedly debunked.  You employ circular reasoning and do no statistical analysis of your fudge factor based theory.

Go back under your bridge.

----------


## drummergirl

> You're seeing that kind of difference on the very last precinct?  
> 
> The reason a change that large would be that remarkable for the last precinct don't apply if you're talking about a change after, say, 25% of the vote.  If it's just the last precinct and the difference is very large then that precinct has to be an extreme outlier.  If it's a change of the kind you're talking about, none of the precincts have to be outliers.  Two very different scenarios.


Here's an example from Ron Rules:











> If that's what it takes to distinguish a graph that is supposedly clearly normal (and for which the lines do NOT flatten, and for which it's predominantly two candidates diverging with others relatively flat) from a graph that is supposedly clearly abnormal, then is it safe to say that it would not be possible to write a program that would take a csv file of election data and analytically determine whether there was "flipping" or not?


Well, sometimes it's fairly obvious from looking at the charts (which is why we started making them this way in the first place; it's a great screening tool), and when it's not you have to look at the Z-stats or what are the odds of ending up here from there. (In other words, how many standard deviations do you have to go through to get there)

Take a look at pages 29-37 and you'll see what I'm trying to say.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...cuxJTo1iE/edit

----------


## drummergirl

> It's not just igloo precincts that are different.
> 
>  This Rural / Suburban / Urban split is a national phenominon.  Culturally, Santorum just doesn't do well in urban areas or suburban areas, and does very well in rural areas.  You can look at maps and see that typically, Santorum wins most of the area of the state, but where people are living packed in like sardines, Romney does better.
> 
>  People who know about politics know all about that stuff.



Ron Paul voter demographics (CNN entrance and exit polls through 2-17-2012) in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida:
Overall	16%
Urban	17%
Suburban	15%
Rural	17%

Ummm, yeah that was debunked over a month ago.

----------


## drummergirl

> I'm assuming that they enforced the rule in 2008 (either throwing out ballots, or ignoring votes in delegate races not corresponding to the candidate choice).   The "first race effect" that clearly happened in 2012 would have been huge in 2008, because Giuliani got so few votes.


Nope; same rules, same equipment.

----------


## drummergirl

You can insist the moon is made of green cheese if you like; that doesn't make it so.

Now, if someone told me I was using circular reasoning in an analysis, I'd recheck my work.  And if I found my reasoning were sound, I could show it.  All you do, is act like a kid on the playground saying, "No it's not!"

Are you going to start adding on "your momma" jokes next?




> My theory explains,  you have nothing.

----------


## parocks

> You can insist the moon is made of green cheese if you like; that doesn't make it so.
> 
> Now, if someone told me I was using circular reasoning in an analysis, I'd recheck my work.  And if I found my reasoning were sound, I could show it.  All you do, is act like a kid on the playground saying, "No it's not!"
> 
> Are you going to start adding on "your momma" jokes next?


Listen, about the circular reasoning.  You explained to me that because I used an approximate number, that my numbers would not be more precise than the approximation that I used.  I said I knew that, and I explained to you that I was not trying to claim that each and every number was right, but that every number was plausible, believeable, reasonable.  We don't know the exact number of people who voted for Ron Paul in the presidential and in his first delegate race, but we do know that it's somewhere between 0% and 100%.

I then asked YOU to come up with a figure YOU think is plausible, believeable, reasonable.  (I haven't read all your posts yet, so you might have done that).

We could look at the numbers we have from 2008.

Here they are:  Maybe you'd like to see 75%?


**********************************************
2008 stats
***********************************************
http://www.co.baldwin.al.us/uploads/...esElec2008.HTM
*************************************************
          CANDIDATE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FOR
          PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
          VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN  1
              (WITH 70 OF 70 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
           HUGH CORT  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .        14     .05
           RUDY GIULIANI .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .       115     .39
           MIKE HUCKABEE .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     7,260   24.91
           DUNCAN HUNTER .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .         8     .03
           ALAN KEYES .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .        46     .16
           JOHN McCAIN.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .    13,154   45.13
           RON PAUL.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .       772    2.65
           MITT ROMNEY.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     7,590   26.04
           TOM TANCREDO  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .         3     .01
           FRED THOMPSON .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .        86     .30
           UNCOMMITTED.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .       102     .35
**************************************************  *****
          GIULIANI DELEGATES, PLACE 1
          VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN  1
              (WITH 70 OF 70 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
           MIKE FRICKER  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .        30   31.25
           DON McGRIFF.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .        66   68.75
Delegate vote total - 96
presidential vote total - 115
percentage of pres vote who vote first delegate - 83.4%
**************************************************  ******
          HUCKABEE DELEGATES, PLACE 1
          VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN  1
              (WITH 70 OF 70 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
           KIM BARTON .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     3,057   58.45
           CHRIS BRINSON .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     2,173   41.55
Delegate vote total - 5230
presidential vote total - 7260
percentage of pres vote who vote first delegate - 72.0%
**************************************************  ********
          McCAIN DELEGATES, PLACE 2
          VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN  1
              (WITH 70 OF 70 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
           TERRY L. BUTTS.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     5,483   59.72
           DON FISHER .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     3,698   40.28
Delegate vote total - 9181
presidential vote total - 13154
percentage of pres vote who vote first delegate - 69.7%
**************************************************  **********
          PAUL DELEGATES, PLACE 3
          VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN  1
              (WITH 70 OF 70 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
           BEAU BELLOT.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .       275   47.33
           DEBORAH S. GORDON.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .       306   52.67
Delegate vote total - 581
presidential vote total - 772
percentage of pres vote who vote first delegate - 75.2%
**************************************************  **************
          ROMNEY DELEGATES, PLACE 3
          VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN  1
              (WITH 70 OF 70 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
           BUTCH BROCK.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     2,901   54.50
           MARTHA BROOKS .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     2,422   45.50
Delegate vote total - 5323
presidential vote total - 7590
percentage of pres vote who vote first delegate - 70.1%
**************************************************  ********************
          THOMPSON DELEGATES, PLACE 1
          VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN  1
              (WITH 70 OF 70 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
           CHIP BROWN .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .        49   72.06
           RICK RENSHAW  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .        19   27.94
Delegate vote total - 68
presidential vote total - 86
percentage of pres vote who vote first delegate - 79.0%
**************************************************  ***********************

----------


## parocks

> Ron Paul voter demographics (CNN entrance and exit polls through 2-17-2012) in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida:
> Overall	16%
> Urban	17%
> Suburban	15%
> Rural	17%
> 
> Ummm, yeah that was debunked over a month ago.


Ron Paul is age and sex.  Young and male.

Santorum is Rural.

Romney is Suburban.

And your numbers DO show Ron Paul doing worse in suburbia.

----------


## parocks

> It's not controversial at all; it's been repeatedly debunked.  You employ circular reasoning and do no statistical analysis of your fudge factor based theory.
> 
> Go back under your bridge.


1) please, explain to me what you mean by "fudge factor"?

2) What percentage of Ron Paul voters in the Presidential race voted in his first delegate race? 

Give me a number that you will accept, so that you can stop bitching about the fact that it's an estimate, designed to give, not a precise answer, but a good estimate.

We're in agreement that estimates will not give spot on accurate results.  It doesn't matter.  A rough estimate shows one of many plausible scenarios about how Ron Paul got more votes in his first delegate race than he got votes in the presidential and how this was accomplished without alleging that a crime took place, that a far fetched scenario involving vote flipping took place.

----------


## parocks

> Nope; same rules, same equipment.


Here's something you can do.   You can go back to the data we have from 2008, and find overvotes, find a single instance where the number of votes in the first (or any) delegate race for the candidate exceeded the number of votes the candidate got in the presidential. 

If you can find that, it would strengthen your case that the behavior of the machines was the same in both years.  You seem to be arguing that there could've been overvotes in 2008, there just weren't.  Well, find the overvotes, and the argument of the reasonable people will be weakened.  

Because reasonable people by now do realize that the machines didn't work right in 2012, and didn't kick out the ballots that had marks where there shouldn't be marks.

Go find where there were votes where there shouldn't be votes in 2008.

***********************************************
http://www.co.baldwin.al.us/Pageview.asp?edit_id=17
http://www.co.baldwin.al.us/uploads/...esElec2008.HTM
http://www.co.baldwin.al.us/uploads/...tion%20CNH.pdf
*************************************************

----------


## dsw

> Here's an example from Ron Rules:


What am I supposed to see here?  Here's the data for Richland county, with a scatter plot of (total votes, %Romney) and a linear regression (courtesy of gnuplot).  The last point is a bit of an outlier, but is it really that remarkable?   The way it's graphed makes it look more dramatic than it really is, and what does it mean by "needed to produce a smooth cumulative ..."?   The cumulative plot takes a clear bump up at the end due to the last point being a bit of an outlier:  http://i44.tinypic.com/95pusx.png 

Here's the scatter plot:  http://i.imgur.com/L4kDR.png

Sorry for the huge plots.  I need to figure out how to set that.  

By the way that last precinct, isn't a precinct.  It's the absentee vote.  I don't know what vote flipping theory says about absentee votes.  






> Well, sometimes it's fairly obvious from looking at the charts (which is why we started making them this way in the first place; it's a great screening tool), and when it's not you have to look at the Z-stats or what are the odds of ending up here from there. (In other words, how many standard deviations do you have to go through to get there)
> 
> Take a look at pages 29-37 and you'll see what I'm trying to say.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...cuxJTo1iE/edit


It's the "fairly obvious" except "when it's not" kind of explanation that raises red flags.  If there's a clear anomaly then it should be possible to write a simple program that takes a CSV file and does the analysis and spits out a result, saying whether there was flipping or not.

----------


## dsw

> Nope; same rules, same equipment.


(In response to me writing: "I'm assuming that they enforced the rule in 2008 (either throwing out ballots, or ignoring votes in delegate races not corresponding to the candidate choice). The "first race effect" that clearly happened in 2012 would have been huge in 2008, because Giuliani got so few votes.")

Oh come on, you're willing to entertain the hypothesis of competing computer viruses from nefarious groups working at cross-purposes, but reject immediately the possibility that the people running the election got one thing in the configuration of the machines wrong in 2012 that they got right in 2008?

----------


## affa

Parocks, please stop spamming the thread with 5 posts in a row.   I don't know if it's against forum rules, but it probably is... it's certainly goes against general internet etiquette.  You've done it several times in this thread already.

Or, like I said, go back to your threads 'analyzing' why we should vote for Santorum.





> Oh come on, you're willing to entertain the hypothesis of competing computer viruses from nefarious groups working at cross-purposes, but reject immediately the possibility that the people running the election got one thing in the configuration of the machines wrong in 2012 that they got right in 2008?


I'm perfectly willing to entertain the idea that they accepted bad ballots in some precincts.  However, there is no 'probable' ballot mistake that I can come up with that accurately explains the results we're seeing.    Gingrich should benefit far more from any ballot mistakes than even Paul, and he does not.

----------


## drummergirl

> Listen, about the circular reasoning.  You explained to me that because I used an approximate number, that my numbers would not be more precise than the approximation that I used.


I'm sorry.  I thought you understood what the term "circular reasoning" means.  You can't create data (whether you use 70%, 80%, 60%, whatever) and use that created data to prove that the data, which you created, is correct.

----------


## parocks

> **********************************************
> 2008 stats
> ***********************************************
> http://www.co.baldwin.al.us/uploads/...esElec2008.HTM
> *************************************************
>           CANDIDATE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FOR
>           PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
>           VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN  1
>               (WITH 70 OF 70 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
> ...


Analysis of Baldwin County 2008 results.

We didn't really see fatigue in 2008.  What we saw was that the winner had the lowest percentage of his voters vote in his first primary election.  We could call it a "passion gap", perhaps.  There is a group of slightly more apathetic voters who are barely paying attention who jumped on the bandwagon the last minute, voted for the front runner, etc.  Santorum's percentage of then would probably be a little bit lower, to bring him into line with McCain.   Just a theory, but not one that needs to be dealt with in any great detail.  There no reason to try to get the 2012 estimates of what happened exactly right.

----------


## parocks

You're still not getting it.

I'm not trying to say the data is correct.

I'm trying to say that it's as close as the estimate is.

If the estimate is reasonable, then the results derived from the estimate are also reasonable.






> I'm sorry.  I thought you understood what the term "circular reasoning" means.  You can't create data (whether you use 70%, 80%, 60%, whatever) and use that created data to prove that the data, which you created, is correct.


Vote Flipping is NOT REASONABLE by the way.

----------


## dsw

> Gingrich should benefit far more from any ballot mistakes than even Paul, and he does not.


Again, what kinds of mistakes are you assuming?  Indiscriminate voting would disproportionately increase Paul's delegate votes as a percentage of his total vote.  Undervoting (not voting in the delegate races they could have voted in) would, I expect, cause a larger deficit for the other three candidates than for Ron Paul.  When you combine both of those effects, what happens?

BTW, I found a few 2008 delegate races with an extra vote for a delegate.  One extra vote for a Paul delegate (8 for the delegate, 7 for Paul) in one precinct.  And four delegate races with 1 vote for Thompson and 2 for a Thompson delegate, all at the same precinct.   Bay Minette #3 and Gulf Shore #301.  I believe those 5 votes are the only excess votes, over all the candidates and all the delegate races.  Make of that what you will!

----------


## RonRules

> By the way that last precinct, isn't a precinct.  It's the absentee vote.  I don't know what vote flipping theory says about absentee votes.


Yes indeed it IS the absentee precinct and that strengthens the case. Absentees are taken from all areas of the county and much less subjected to demographics.

Please go back to my charts, you will see that I plotted all the absentee precincts in VA and found a beautiful "hinge point" (which I prefer to call the "Crime Occurs Here" point) is clearly seen on the chart.

I saved you the trouble of finding it:


I find that we're going around and around. Please try to keep up.

BTW, Wisconsin is very exciting. One populous county (OUTAGAMIE) doesn't flip at all. Their reports look totally different than all others I've looked at. Go to the other thread to comment or to re-learn stuff. This one is for Alabama.

Main thread is here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ling-up/page20

----------


## dsw

> I'm sorry.  I thought you understood what the term "circular reasoning" means.  You can't create data (whether you use 70%, 80%, 60%, whatever) and use that created data to prove that the data, which you created, is correct.


Sorry but he's got a valid point.  If you can explain the data by making reasonable assumptions about voter behaviors, that would go a long way toward suggesting a non-fraud solution.  Those reasonable assumptions might include numbers.   It's not a scientific experiment you can repeat, it's analysis of historical data.  Sometimes what you have to go by is whether a reasonable, simple explanation is possible or not.  

How else would you suggest a case be made for a non-fraud explanation?  

I'm not saying he's done what he thinks he's done.  It looks like he made an assumption about one kind of voter behavior (consistent with the 2008 data, I think, which would give it some degree of justification) but then all he did after that as far as I can tell is subtract that off from the total and color the two halves different colors.  I'm still not sure.

----------


## parocks

> Parocks, please stop spamming the thread with 5 posts in a row.   I don't know if it's against forum rules, but it probably is... it's certainly goes against general internet etiquette.  You've done it several times in this thread already.
> 
> Or, like I said, go back to your threads 'analyzing' why we should vote for Santorum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm perfectly willing to entertain the idea that they accepted bad ballots in some precincts.  However, there is no 'probable' ballot mistake that I can come up with that accurately explains the results we're seeing.    Gingrich should benefit far more from any ballot mistakes than even Paul, and he does not.



"Gingrich should benefit far more from any ballot mistakes than even Paul, and he does not."

Yes he does.  2201 (estimated / approximate) more votes for Gingrich in his first delegate race than he would've had if the ballot machines worked.  1843 (estimated / approximate) more votes for Paul in his first delegate race than he would've had if the ballot machines worked.



And I posted a lot because I take time away from this thread, and I'm remarking on the various things that were said since I was last there.

----------


## parocks

> Sorry but he's got a valid point.  If you can explain the data by making reasonable assumptions about voter behaviors, that would go a long way toward suggesting a non-fraud solution.  Those reasonable assumptions might include numbers.   It's not a scientific experiment you can repeat, it's analysis of historical data.  Sometimes what you have to go by is whether a reasonable, simple explanation is possible or not.  
> 
> How else would you suggest a case be made for a non-fraud explanation?  
> 
> I'm not saying he's done what he thinks he's done.  It looks like he made an assumption about one kind of voter behavior (consistent with the 2008 data, I think, which would give it some degree of justification) but then all he did after that as far as I can tell is subtract that off from the total and color the two halves different colors.  I'm still not sure.


Right, you asked before for the simplest explanation possible.  And the chart I'm using now, just boils it down to the simplest possible terms.  Some of my charts had "wrong vote ALL and wrong vote PART" and that was too complicated, so I simplified it.

And the adjustment I made was simply to determine the "right" number of "first delegate" votes by looking at the presidential vote.  

The primary thing that shows is that all the candidates had many more votes in the first delegate race than they should have (the wrong votes), if the machines were working the same way they were in 2008.

----------


## dsw

> Absentees are taken from all areas of the county and much less subjected to demographics.


Absentee vote is usually said to skew pretty strongly toward older voters, among other things.  Geographical distribution alone isn't going to give you a random sampling, not when the reasons for voting absentee have their own demographic skew.  A boost for Romney from absentee voters is easily explained if there's a bias toward older voters. 

Here's one of the first google hits, about California in this case:  http://home.uchicago.edu/betsy/paper...r_Absentee.pdf
Look at table 2 on p 27.   4.3% absentee for ages 18-25, 9.5% for 25-35, and climbing steadily until you get to 31.6% for ages 65+.   You can see the same in Florida and elsewhere.

----------


## drummergirl

> (In response to me writing: "I'm assuming that they enforced the rule in 2008 (either throwing out ballots, or ignoring votes in delegate races not corresponding to the candidate choice). The "first race effect" that clearly happened in 2012 would have been huge in 2008, because Giuliani got so few votes.")
> 
> Oh come on, you're willing to entertain the hypothesis of competing computer viruses from nefarious groups working at cross-purposes, but reject immediately the possibility that the people running the election got one thing in the configuration of the machines wrong in 2012 that they got right in 2008?


Oh no, not at all.  I just know from previous posts in the thread that there is no known, obvious change between 2008 and 2012 that would explain the sudden change in data distribution.

They had the same type ballot, the same rules, the same enforcement (i.e. none).  But somehow, the Alabama republican primary voters in 2008 were much better at choosing delegates for the same candidate they voted for (i.e. parocks' "right voters").  And while there would be some turnover, my best guess would be that a majority of the election judges and precinct officials are the same people in both cases too.

I don't know why these differences exist, but they do.  As for the term nefarious, well yes, I consider the sanctity of the electoral process to be right up there with baseball, mom, and apple pie (and yes, I can't stand Pete Rose).  

The whole reason any of these threads started in the first place is that the crudeness of the flipping algorithm (seriously, my 8th grader could write that thing) means it has been leaving a mathematical fingerprint in nearly every primary this year.  It's like looking at someone with a growth the size of a golf ball on their face; you don't have to be a doctor to know something is wrong there.

The reason Alabama continues to hold interest for me personally at an intellectual level as well as at a political level is this:

IF someone has developed a virus which holds a candidate at a predetermined percentage and flips all their votes above that percentage to another candidate, that virus would be undetectable with the analytical techniques we've been using.  It wouldn't be too difficult to write such a virus (a bit beyond my eighth grader, but no trouble for a competent programmer).

The only reason we can see this at all in Alabama is the situation with the delegate votes.  It's more complex, more degrees of freedom, etc., but getting to the bottom of it is important.

IF the reality is that our election is numerically meaningless (I'll leave others to philosophize about the relevance of democrats vs. republicans, tyvm) then that has to be remedied.

----------


## dsw

> Right, you asked before for the simplest explanation possible. And the chart I'm using now, just boils it down to the simplest possible terms. Some of my charts had "wrong vote ALL and wrong vote PART" and that was too complicated, so I simplified it.


When you simplify it until it's just silly, your argument loses its impact.  Supposing that 70% of voters did one thing, and the other 30% did whatever was necessary to make the totals come out right, isn't an argument that anyone should take seriously.

----------


## drummergirl

> I'm not saying he's done what he thinks he's done.  It looks like he made an assumption about one kind of voter behavior (consistent with the 2008 data, I think, which would give it some degree of justification) but then all he did after that as far as I can tell is subtract that off from the total and color the two halves different colors.  I'm still not sure.


That's exactly what he did.  and he says it proves there is no fraud.  100% certain.

----------


## affa

> Again, what kinds of mistakes are you assuming?


I've listed what I believe to be reasonable 'mistakes' based on the ballot multiple times in this thread.  Off the top of my head, and I may be forgetting something I've listed earlier:

1) Overvoting for Gingrich's first delegate due to ballot positioning- 'whoops'.
2) 'Down the Line' Voters  (voting in every delegate race).  There may be some voter fatigue associated to this, so Gingrich, first on ballot, would benefit most.  However, since each delegate race is clearly labeled with the candidate's name, I don't believe it should be extremely common.   The name of an opposing candidate should act as a form of kryptonite for most voters -- would you 'accidentally' vote for someone clearly labeled 'Santorum'?   But I do list it, because it's certainly a plausible ballot mistake.
3)  Santorum voters not voting for their delegates because they forget to turn the paper over.    
4)  Voting for only one of your candidate's delegates, not realizing you're supposed to vote in all of the delegate races for your candidate.
5)  Not voting for any delegates because you don't know their names and/or don't care.

I do not think the following is a 'reasonable' or probable mistake, certainly not in any significant numbers:
1) A Gingrich, Romney, or Santorum supporter skipping over Gingrich's delegates BUT then voting for Paul delegates.  If you know enough to skip voting for Gingrich, you know enough to skip to your guy.
2) Random voting.  Anyone serious enough to go vote isn't going to draw a happy face on the ballot form.
3) Voting for the wrong candidate's delegates, but not their own candidates delegates.  The candidate for each delegate race is clearly labeled.




> Indiscriminate voting would disproportionately increase Paul's delegate votes as a percentage of his total vote.


Obviously. You really don't need to keep repeating this, it has nothing to do with my point.   We know exactly how many people, at a minimum, overvote for Paul (Paul's Avg. Delegate Vote - Paul's votes).   If you adjust Gingrch, Romney, and Santorum by this number, it does not undo the anomaly, but rather, makes an even odder case (especially for Romney).  This has nothing to do with proportionality, since I'm dealing with raw vote counts.




> Undervoting (not voting in the delegate races they could have voted in) would, I expect, cause a larger deficit for the other three candidates than for Ron Paul.  When you combine both of those effects, what happens?


Personally, I find someone not voting for any delegate far more likely than voting for all of them, given how clearly labeled delegate races are and the aversion some names bring for people that like a specific candidate.

----------


## parocks

"Crime occurs here"

You're one of the guys that pretty much everyone on this thread but me and maybe dsw agrees with and supports, right?  You're on the same wavelength as the other "flippers" right?  Or no?

I love how you think that some precincts don't have fraud, but others do.  And it's all based on the type of graph you use to make that determination.

Perhaps you can explain, too, exactly how the "Cumulative Precincts" are ordered.  I see numbers along the bottom.  Is it still ordered from smallest precinct to largest?

How about looking at the graph the opposite way?  start from largest, go to smallest?  Maybe you could then say "Crime stops occuring here."

Where is your science surrounding "hinge points"?  

Can you show me a link to something that wasn't written by a crazy person where they talk about changes in cumulative averages and how those things are anomalous?

Can you add data like average home price?  Can find that data?  get the data for average home price per precinct, add that data, then sort the precincts low to high
and we'll see if "large precincts" or "expensive houses" make Romneys curve go up more.  You might also want to try % percentage of registered voters who are Republican.  Get that data, add it to the data you're using, sort from lowest percent to highest percentage, and see if Romney's numbers curve up at the end.



> Yes indeed it IS the absentee precinct and that strengthens the case. Absentees are taken from all areas of the county and much less subjected to demographics.
> 
> Please go back to my charts, you will see that I plotted all the absentee precincts in VA and found a beautiful "hinge point" (which I prefer to call the "Crime Occurs Here" point) is clearly seen on the chart.
> 
> I saved you the trouble of finding it:
> 
> 
> I find that we're going around and around. Please try to keep up.
> 
> ...

----------


## drummergirl

> "Crime occurs here"
> 
> You're one of the guys that pretty much everyone on this thread but me and maybe dsw agrees with and supports, right?  You're on the same wavelength as the other "flippers" right?  Or no?
> 
> I love how you think that some precincts don't have fraud, but others do.  And it's all based on the type of graph you use to make that determination.
> 
> Perhaps you can explain, too, exactly how the "Cumulative Precincts" are ordered.  I see numbers along the bottom.  Is it still ordered from smallest precinct to largest?
> 
> How about looking at the graph the opposite way?  start from largest, go to smallest?  Maybe you could then say "Crime stops occuring here."
> ...


All of the answers to those questions are in the summary document here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...cuxJTo1iE/edit

I know you don't understand the math or logic, but do try and read this when you have some time hiding under your bridge.

----------


## Bohner

> Absentee vote is usually said to skew pretty strongly toward older voters, among other things.  Geographical distribution alone isn't going to give you a random sampling, not when the reasons for voting absentee have their own demographic skew.  A boost for Romney from absentee voters is easily explained if there's a bias toward older voters. 
> 
> Here's one of the first google hits, about California in this case: 
> Look at table 2 on p 27.   4.3% absentee for ages 18-25, 9.5% for 25-35, and climbing steadily until you get to 31.6% for ages 65+.   You can see the same in Florida and elsewhere.


Your argument explains why Romney won the absentee vote (which is clear would have happened either way when looking at the graph). It doesn't, explain why he systematically gains after the hinge point, which is the point RR is trying to make.

----------


## dsw

FWIW I largely agree.  Of your reasonable mistakes, #1 I think happened (in 2012) to a signficant degree.  I think "down the line" voters (some giving up at various points) are more likely than you think they are.  Some people think they're being good citizens by voting in every race even if they know nothing about the issue or candidates.  Santorum got hurt by being on the back page.  Voting only for the first of your candidates would explain some of the fatigue effect that is clear.  And (if 2008 is any guide) a good percentage falling into your fifth category of not voting at all.

The three you list as unlikely, I agree are unlikely.  Except that (3) in that list is a special case of (2) in the first list if they give up before getting down to their own candidate.  

Among the loose ends I want to get to eventually is seeing how those different voter behaviors might explain the distributions of delegate votes.  But since some of them do affect Paul more than the others, I don't see how you're concluding that no such explanation is possible.  




> I've listed what I believe to be reasonable 'mistakes' based on the ballot multiple times in this thread.  Off the top of my head, and I may be forgetting something I've listed earlier:
> 
> 1) Overvoting for Gingrich's first delegate due to ballot positioning- 'whoops'.
> 2) 'Down the Line' Voters  (voting in every delegate race).  There may be some voter fatigue associated to this, so Gingrich, first on ballot, would benefit most.  However, since each delegate race is clearly labeled with the candidate's name, I don't believe it should be extremely common.   The name of an opposing candidate should act as a form of kryptonite for most voters -- would you 'accidentally' vote for someone clearly labeled 'Santorum'?   But I do list it, because it's certainly a plausible ballot mistake.
> 3)  Santorum voters not voting for their delegates because they forget to turn the paper over.    
> 4)  Voting for only one of your candidate's delegates, not realizing you're supposed to vote in all of the delegate races for your candidate.
> 5)  Not voting for any delegates because you don't know their names and/or don't care.
> 
> I do not think the following is a 'reasonable' or probable mistake, certainly not in any significant numbers:
> ...

----------


## dsw

> Your argument explains why Romney won the absentee vote (which is clear would have happened either way when looking at the graph). It doesn't, explain why he systematically gains after the hinge point, which is the point RR is trying to make.


I got onto that line of analysis from the graph that had that one outlier point that was allegedly manipulated to smooth out the cumulative line.  Except that it doesn't smooth out the cumulative line, it's one of the outliers and with a large number of votes.  And it's not a precinct, it's absentee voters, so given that absentee voters tend to skew toward older voters, and Romney's support tends to skew toward older voters ... if I weren't so cautious by nature I'd say "KABOOM!!! DEBUNKED!!1!!1!!1!".   Instead I'll just say that, in light of the nature of that last point and the expected correlation explaining why that point is an outlier, and after seeing the scatter plot of Romney's votes (http://i.imgur.com/L4kDR.png), I think the evidence of fraud in that county is difficult to see.  

Is there a page anywhere collecting links to data sets, etc?  I'd love to have another look at that "hinge point" in the Va absentee data.

----------


## parocks

> I've listed what I believe to be reasonable 'mistakes' based on the ballot multiple times in this thread.  Off the top of my head, and I may be forgetting something I've listed earlier:
> 
> 1) Overvoting for Gingrich's first delegate due to ballot positioning- 'whoops'.
> 2) 'Down the Line' Voters  (voting in every delegate race).  There may be some voter fatigue associated to this, so Gingrich, first on ballot, would benefit most.  However, since each delegate race is clearly labeled with the candidate's name, I don't believe it should be extremely common.   The name of an opposing candidate should act as a form of kryptonite for most voters -- would you 'accidentally' vote for someone clearly labeled 'Santorum'?   But I do list it, because it's certainly a plausible ballot mistake.
> 3)  Santorum voters not voting for their delegates because they forget to turn the paper over.    
> 4)  Voting for only one of your candidate's delegates, not realizing you're supposed to vote in all of the delegate races for your candidate.
> 5)  Not voting for any delegates because you don't know their names and/or don't care.
> 
> I do not think the following is a 'reasonable' or probable mistake, certainly not in any significant numbers:
> ...


Agree with all but this one.

I do not think the following is a 'reasonable' or probable mistake, certainly not in any significant numbers:
 2) Random voting. Anyone serious enough to go vote isn't going to draw a happy face on the ballot form.

"Random voting" to me at least, includes people who pick and choose based on whether or not they know enough about the delegate candidates.  Sometimes there are well known, well liked politicians who are trying to be delegates, and their name on that ballot is going to drive up the numbers in that race.

But, again, agree with your assessment of the other categories, at least reasonable vs unreasonable.

----------


## parocks

Also consider, is it really normal to have races on a ballot that you're not supposed to vote in?  Maybe it's the way it's always been, but there are certainly a lot of people who wouldn't give a lot of thought to the question "should I be voting in these races".  It's not obvious that you shouldn't vote for the delegates of the candidate you didn't vote for.  Those people voted wrong, but I'm not sure that makes them idiots.  I don't think the ballot was confusing, but a lot of people just charged on, not even thinking that there were races they shouldn't've been voting in.




> FWIW I largely agree.  Of your reasonable mistakes, #1 I think happened (in 2012) to a signficant degree.  I think "down the line" voters (some giving up at various points) are more likely than you think they are.  Some people think they're being good citizens by voting in every race even if they know nothing about the issue or candidates.  Santorum got hurt by being on the back page.  Voting only for the first of your candidates would explain some of the fatigue effect that is clear.  And (if 2008 is any guide) a good percentage falling into your fifth category of not voting at all.
> 
> The three you list as unlikely, I agree are unlikely.  Except that (3) in that list is a special case of (2) in the first list if they give up before getting down to their own candidate.  
> 
> Among the loose ends I want to get to eventually is seeing how those different voter behaviors might explain the distributions of delegate votes.  But since some of them do affect Paul more than the others, I don't see how you're concluding that no such explanation is possible.

----------


## affa

> Among the loose ends I want to get to eventually is seeing how those different voter behaviors might explain the distributions of delegate votes.  But since some of them do affect Paul more than the others, I don't see how you're concluding that no such explanation is possible.


Because Paul's spike is so massive (NOT in proportionality, but in raw votes) that any attempt to adjust it does not explain / messes up Gingrich/Romney.
Again, we can establish a minimum number of bad voters by taking (Avg. Paul Delegate Votes - Paul Votes).   That's a pure count of overvoters -- and we could probably even add to that count if we wanted, since this assumes 100% of Paul voters are perfect.     If we adjust the other candidates by this amount, it does not explain Gingrich very well, and totally warps Romney.  He seems to be missing his share of 'down the line voters', even if we take fatigue into account.

If the ballot went Paul/Gingrich/Romney/Santorum, i'd be more apt to believe massive ballot mistakes combined with acceptance of bad ballots could cause this. However, that's not the order.  You keep asking me why, and I've told you why.  Play with a spreadsheet, and you'll see what I mean.  Correcting for 'bad voters' only adds more questions, it doesn't answer any (except for forcefully 'fixing' Paul's anomaly at the expense of creating many others)

The oddities are even more prevalent when looking at the precinct level, since the anomaly is not equally distributed between precincts.

----------


## parocks

> When you simplify it until it's just silly, your argument loses its impact.  Supposing that 70% of voters did one thing, and the other 30% did whatever was necessary to make the totals come out right, isn't an argument that anyone should take seriously.


Well, I kind of see your point.  If I had to pick 30% to make it work, someone could say, "but it doesn't work at 29%.  And it doesn't work at 31.  In most cases, it doesn't work.  So your argument only works in a narrow set of circumstances."

Are you arguing that you need to see an upper and lower range, beyond which the numbers stopped adding up?  Well, maybe I'll do that.

----------


## parocks

I know you don't like my explanation, but you know that ANY as in "any attempt to adjust it does not explain / messes up Gingrich/Romney." is simply wrong.  I adjusted Paul, and Gingrich and Romney aren't messed up.  




> Because Paul's spike is so massive (NOT in proportionality, but in raw votes) that any attempt to adjust it does not explain / messes up Gingrich/Romney.
> Again, we can establish a minimum number of bad voters by taking (Avg. Paul Delegate Votes - Paul Votes).   That's a pure count of overvoters -- and we could probably even add to that count if we wanted, since this assumes 100% of Paul voters are perfect.     If we adjust the other candidates by this amount, it does not explain Gingrich very well, and totally warps Romney.  He seems to be missing his share of 'down the line voters', even if we take fatigue into account.
> 
> If the ballot went Paul/Gingrich/Romney/Santorum, i'd be more apt to believe massive ballot mistakes combined with acceptance of bad ballots could cause this. However, that's not the order.  You keep asking me why, and I've told you why.  Play with a spreadsheet, and you'll see what I mean.  Correcting for 'bad voters' only adds more questions, it doesn't answer any (except for forcefully 'fixing' Paul's anomaly at the expense of creating many others)
> 
> The oddities are even more prevalent when looking at the precinct level, since the anomaly is not equally distributed between precincts.


Title: an attempt to adjust Ron Paul's numbers without messing up Gingrich and Romney.

----------


## dsw

I guess I'm not sure what you're looking at when you draw that conclusion.  When I do, say, 10% idiot voters (voting every race) and 30% voting in no delegate races for Mitt, Newt and Santorum supporters, but only 10% like that for Paul, and a few percent voting for Newt's first delegate by mistake, the excess votes for all four candidates are in the single digits.  And that's without trying to tweak the numbers to make the fit better.  Changing the "lazy" percentages to 15% for Paul, 30% for Mitt, and 35% for Santorum gets the error down to 3% or less for all of them.

I don't mean this as a proof -- as I said I hope to get back to this eventually and do a more thorough job with it.  But to me it's a sanity check on the possibility that a combination of those voter behaviors could explain the distributions.

Edit:  a little bit more tweaking gets to this.
Assume 10% of voters voted in every race.
Assume some percentage of voters for each candidate voted in no delegate races:  18% for Newt, 17% for Paul, 33% Mitt, 38% Santorum.   
The result is within 0.5% of explaining the first delegate vote for all four.   

Not a proof of anything except that the kinds of voter behaviors that seem plausible can easily combine to explain the delegate overvotes.   A more logical breakdown would probably give a higher "lazy" percentage to Newt, offset by some percentage of voters mistakenly voting in the first race just because it was immediately below the presidential candidate race.  Santorum's percentage being higher makes sense because his races were on the back.  Etc.   But this is too coarse an explanation to take as proving anything, it's just checking to see that the likely kinds of voting behaviors can affect the delegate distributions in ways that correspond to the kinds of anomalies we see.






> Because Paul's spike is so massive (NOT in proportionality, but in raw votes) that any attempt to adjust it does not explain / messes up Gingrich/Romney.
> Again, we can establish a minimum number of bad voters by taking (Avg. Paul Delegate Votes - Paul Votes).   That's a pure count of overvoters -- and we could probably even add to that count if we wanted, since this assumes 100% of Paul voters are perfect.     If we adjust the other candidates by this amount, it does not explain Gingrich very well, and totally warps Romney.  He seems to be missing his share of 'down the line voters', even if we take fatigue into account.
> 
> If the ballot went Paul/Gingrich/Romney/Santorum, i'd be more apt to believe massive ballot mistakes combined with acceptance of bad ballots could cause this. However, that's not the order.  You keep asking me why, and I've told you why.  Play with a spreadsheet, and you'll see what I mean.  Correcting for 'bad voters' only adds more questions, it doesn't answer any (except for forcefully 'fixing' Paul's anomaly at the expense of creating many others)
> 
> The oddities are even more prevalent when looking at the precinct level, since the anomaly is not equally distributed between precincts.

----------


## dsw

> Well, I kind of see your point.  If I had to pick 30% to make it work, someone could say, "but it doesn't work at 29%.  And it doesn't work at 31.  In most cases, it doesn't work.  So your argument only works in a narrow set of circumstances."
> 
> Are you arguing that you need to see an upper and lower range, beyond which the numbers stopped adding up?  Well, maybe I'll do that.


If I'm understanding what you're doing, you could set the number to 20% or 80% or whatever and it would just move the line between the green and purple parts up or down.  Right?

----------


## affa

> I guess I'm not sure what you're looking at when you draw that conclusion.  When I do, say, 10% idiot voters (voting every race) and 30% voting in no delegate races for Mitt, Newt and Santorum supporters, but only 10% like that for Paul, and a few percent voting for Newt's first delegate by mistake, the excess votes for all four candidates are in the single digits.  And that's without trying to tweak the numbers to make the fit better.  Changing the "lazy" percentages to 15% for Paul, 30% for Mitt, and 35% for Santorum gets the error down to 3% or less for all of them.
> 
> I don't mean this as a proof -- as I said I hope to get back to this eventually and do a more thorough job with it.  But to me it's a sanity check on the possibility that a combination of those voter behaviors could explain the distributions.
> 
> Edit:  a little bit more tweaking gets to this.
> Assume 10% of voters voted in every race.
> Assume some percentage of voters for each candidate voted in no delegate races:  18% for Newt, 17% for Paul, 33% Mitt, 38% Santorum.   
> The result is within 0.5% of explaining the first delegate vote for all four.   
> 
> Not a proof of anything except that the kinds of voter behaviors that seem plausible can easily combine to explain the delegate overvotes.   A more logical breakdown would probably give a higher "lazy" percentage to Newt, offset by some percentage of voters mistakenly voting in the first race just because it was immediately below the presidential candidate race.  Santorum's percentage being higher makes sense because his races were on the back.  Etc.   But this is too coarse an explanation to take as proving anything, it's just checking to see that the likely kinds of voting behaviors can affect the delegate distributions in ways that correspond to the kinds of anomalies we see.


If you make enough assumption based variables, you can make anything fit anything.

----------


## parocks

> If I'm understanding what you're doing, you could set the number to 20% or 80% or whatever and it would just move the line between the green and purple parts up or down.  Right?


yeah, I think so.  at some point it becomes impossible, and it's probably more of an art than a science.  there are other numbers that aren't on that chart, like the presidential vote.  So, let's say I put up a handful of charts.  At some point, the chart looks "best".  There are fewer outliers, fewer numbers that are out of sync with the other numbers.

I happen to like the 30%.  I like the slope of the "wrong" voters, as it heads down from Gingrich to Paul to Romney and a little bit more to Santorum.  That seems about right, to me.  

It's the relationships of the numbers to each other, all the candidates numbers are acting "right".  The number of "wrong" votes, which was derived from the various percentages, falls from candidate to candidate.  That's what we would expect, right?
We would think it odd if Ron Paul's number of wrong votes was lower than Romneys.
"Why does Romney have more wrong votes than Paul," we would say.  And if Romney has more wrong votes, we certainly would consider it anomaly that we would have to explain.  When I say that my numbers fit together perfectly, I say there are no clear anomalies that have to be explained.  It doesn't mean that any of those numbers are actually right.

I'd like to see a chart like mine where "flipping" is explained.

It seems like the flippers are just hoping to discover some truth by making as many graphs as possible.  The day of the Alabama Primary, I said "holy $#@!, there's fraud", and then, when nobody else was talking about it,  I went and looked at the numbers and saw that in some precincts, there were more presidential votes for Ron Paul than delegate votes.  That was enough to get me away from the fraud thesis.

I'm also amazed that someone here didn't just say "I think that half of Ron Paul's vote was given to Santorum"  and I think 10% of Gingrich's vote was given to Romney".  And then plug those numbers in, and see if they work.

The idea that the flipping started at a certain point based on the size of the precinct doesn't make any sense to me.  To me a little bump in a curve is not evidence of anything meaningful taking place.

It's a simple formula.  In any given district, Ron Paul (fake number after stolen) =  .5 x X where X is the amount of votes before "flipping" and Santorum (fake number after stolen) = (.5 x X) x Y where Y is the real Santorum number.

Someone can do that and declare victory until people poke holes in it.  If someone finds a precinct where  Ron Paul got more than Santorum, you can assume that, at least, half or more of Ron Paul's votes were not flipped to Santorum.

I just would think that someone would try to do some creative thinking to try to lay out a scenario, because what I see from flippers really is "look, a graph, this proves fraud"

----------


## affa

> I guess I'm not sure what you're looking at when you draw that conclusion.


Many different factors.

For example, let's talk about Santorum.

Based on both major 'mistake factors' (Wrong side of ballot + Fatigue Based 'Down the Line Voter theory), shouldn't Santorum be hurt the worst?

But when I look at precincts >100 voters, I see a higher conversion rate for Santorum to Santorum delegates than I do Romney to Romney delegates.   (I am looking at averaged delegate vote counts, for the record)


Romney conversion rate: 86.21%
Santorum conversion rate: 87.48%

(Conversion rate:  How many of your voters voted for your delegates; obviously, this can include so-called 'idiot voters' that voted for all)

For reference, Gingrich is at 98.53% and Paul is at 242.90%

Every theory like Down the Line Voters, with fatigue applied, would in practice have given more 'mistake' votes to Romney's delegates than Santorum's delegates-- and between that and the 'Santorum voters are too stupid to turn the ballot over theory', Romney should have a far higher conversion rate than Santorum.  But he doesn't; he has a lower one.

This leads me to believe the 'dumb voter' theory does not hold water.   You can force fit it to explain Paul, but there are serious issues trying to explain the others.

For some reason, even though Santorum voters are too dumb to flip a piece of paper, and there's a large mob of zombies voting willy-nilly for everyone, Romney still can't seem to get his voters to vote for his delegates.  That's odd to me.   Do i know exactly what it means?  No.  But it's one piece of data, among many, that lead me to think it's not a cut and dried case of idiot voters going on.

----------


## dsw

> If you make enough assumption based variables, you can make anything fit anything.


Well, sure, but all I'm trying to demonstrate is that the kinds of voter behaviors we agree are reasonable can combine to explain the anomalies.  This was in response to assertions that the anomalies simply could not be explained by voter behavior.

----------


## drummergirl

> I just would think that someone would try to do some creative thinking to try to lay out a scenario, because what I see from flippers really is "look, a graph, this proves fraud"


Go back under the bridge.

----------


## affa

> Well, sure, but all I'm trying to demonstrate is that the kinds of voter behaviors we agree are reasonable can combine to explain the anomalies.  This was in response to assertions that the anomalies simply could not be explained by voter behavior.


No.  
I do not think something like:
"Assume some percentage of voters for each candidate voted in no delegate races: 18% for Newt, 17% for Paul, 33% Mitt, 38% Santorum"
is remotely 'reasonable'.

You're taking 'reasonable' mistakes and applying unreasonable mistake rates, at high variance from candidate to candidate.   I do not think that's reasonable.

----------


## dsw

Maybe I'm just denser than usual today but Santorum *was* hurt the worst, in the sense that he had the fewest precincts with overvotes for delegates.  I don't see how you're calculating conversion rate since without knowing what percentage were idiot voters you don't know how many of Santorum's delegate race votes were from Santorum supporters.  

And even though it doesn't prove that it happened this way, doesn't my example (10% idiots, and lazy percentage varying by candidate, and increasing from Newt to Mitt to Santorum as we move toward the back of the ballot) show that the theories we're talking about can apportion the mistakes in a way that reflects the observed anomalies?   So I'm confused about what shouldn't be working out in my little simulation of lazy and idiot voters, that does seem to be working when the errors easily reduce to under 1% using only two of the various kinds of behaviors that seem reasonable.

The numbers also seem fairly coherent.  The laziness levels are consistent with the (much better behaved) 2008 data.  And except for Paul, whose supporters tend to be more intelligent and diligent, the other three "lazy" factors turn out to increase as we move toward the back of the ballot, with Newt having a significant advantage for being first.  In other words, it's what we're talking about when we talk about these kinds of voter behaviors, and the relative values fit with what we know.  It's what a non-fraud explanation would need to look like.

Which is not to say that this proves it's reasonable to think that there were 10% idiot voters (or in that vicinity), and 38% Santorum voters who didn't find the back page, etc.  That's a different question entirely, and a necessary question before this kind of argument could be used to say anything about fraud vs. non-fraud.    




> Many different factors.
> 
> For example, let's talk about Santorum.
> 
> Based on both major 'mistake factors' (Wrong side of ballot + Fatigue Based 'Down the Line Voter theory), shouldn't Santorum be hurt the worst?
> 
> But when I look at precincts >100 voters, I see a higher conversion rate for Santorum to Santorum delegates than I do Romney to Romney delegates.  
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## dsw

> No.  
> I do not think something like:
> "Assume some percentage of voters for each candidate voted in no delegate races: 18% for Newt, 17% for Paul, 33% Mitt, 38% Santorum"
> is remotely 'reasonable'.
> 
> You're taking 'reasonable' mistakes and applying unreasonable mistake rates, at high variance from candidate to candidate.   I do not think that's reasonable.


The 2008 data had undervote rates for the major candidates (except Paul) of around 30%, so that's why I started out in the ballpark I started out in.  And it's clear from the fact that Newt had significantly more (and larger) overvotes in delegate races than Santorum that whatever error effect we're looking for decreases as we go from Newt to Mitt to Santorum.  That's what the high variance is about.  Ron Paul is the odd man out there, but he's also the one who had a small fraction of the (reported) vote total compared to the other three, so the math for the effect of idiot voters means that Ron Paul is disproportionately affected.  

The point was just that there's nothing about those anomalies that isn't consistent with the kinds of voter behaviors we agree are reasonable.   If the argument then becomes that it would require unreasonable percentages of people making those kinds of errors, then that's a different argument from the one you were making initially, and it's an argument I don't have a strong view on either way.

----------


## parocks

**************************************************  ***************
*****************************************
A data - Tuscaloosa Election Results
B data - Tuscaloosa Election Results
C data - C = B x .100
D data - D = A - C
	   D = A - (B x .100)
*******************************************
**************************************************  ******************
First Delegate race for each candidate - All voters, Wrong voters, Right voters 100%
**************************************************  ******************
			All Voters (A)	Wrong Voters (D)	Right Voters (C)	Presidential Voters (B)
Gingrich		6092			533			5559			5559
Paul			2575			1529			1046			1046
Romney		5669			-417			6086  		6086
Santorum		6409			-886			7295			7295
**************************************************  *******************

**************************************************  ******************
First Delegate race for each candidate - All voters, Wrong voters, Right voters 90%
**************************************************  ******************
			All Voters (A)	Wrong Voters (D)	Right Voters (C)	Presidential Voters (B)
Gingrich		6092			1089			5003			5559
Paul			2575			1661			914			1046
Romney		5669			192			5477	 		6086
Santorum		6409			-156			6565			7295
**************************************************  *******************

**************************************************  ******************
First Delegate race for each candidate - All voters, Wrong voters, Right voters 80%
**************************************************  ******************
			All Voters (A)	Wrong Voters (D)	Right Voters (C)	Presidential Voters (B)
Gingrich		6092			1615			4477			5559
Paul			2575			1739			836			1046
Romney		5669			801			4868			6086
Santorum		6409			573			5836			7295
**************************************************  *******************

**************************************************  ******************
First Delegate race for each candidate - All voters, Wrong voters, Right voters 75%
**************************************************  ******************
			All Voters (A)	Wrong Voters (D)	Right Voters (C)	Presidential Voters (B)
Gingrich		6092			1963			4129			5559
Paul			2575			1791			784			1046
Romney		5669			1105			4564			6086
Santorum		6409			938			5471			7295
**************************************************  *******************
**************************************************  ******************
First Delegate race for each candidate - All voters, Wrong voters, Right voters 70%
**************************************************  ******************
			All Voters		Wrong Voters	Right Voters	Presidential Voters
Gingrich		6092			2201			3891			5559
Paul			2575			1843			732               1046
Romney		5669			1409			4260  		6086
Santorum		6409			1303			5106			7295
**************************************************  *******************
**************************************************  ******************
First Delegate race for each candidate - All voters, Wrong voters, Right voters 68%
**************************************************  ******************
			All Voters		Wrong Voters	Right Voters	Presidential Voters
Gingrich		6092			2312			3780			5559
Paul			2575			1864			711               1046
Romney		5669			1531			4138  		6086
Santorum		6409			1449			4960			7295
**************************************************  *******************


I prefer the assumption that 68% of the president voters also voted first delegate.
The numbers work better in my mind.  A larger gap between Gingrich and Paul.  A smaller gap between Paul and Romney.  Takes into consideration the single Gingrich vote which we think there are a lot of.

80% is unviable because Ron Paul has more wrong votes than Gingrich in that scenario and that's more difficult to explain than 75, 70, 68 assumptions.

----------


## drummergirl

For me, it keeps coming back to this.  This is so different than anything observed in the 2008 data.  Why?  What is different (besides the year)?

Same ballot style, same equipment, same state, same party, (mostly, because in 4 years some die, turn 18, move, etc.) same people.

Parocks thinks it's just a sudden surge of stupidity.  To me, the thought that that many people suddenly performed that much worse is unrealistic.  And when you start looking at the data more closely, it just does not pan out.  You can throw in a couple of fudge factors and try to make the data fit, but quickly reach the point of just doing data massage.







> The point was just that there's nothing about those anomalies that isn't consistent with the kinds of voter behaviors we agree are reasonable.   If the argument then becomes that it would require unreasonable percentages of people making those kinds of errors, then that's a different argument from the one you were making initially, and it's an argument I don't have a strong view on either way.

----------


## tremendoustie

Are there any precincts in which other candidates did not have delegates running? That would certainly explain it -- for example, if only paul had a delegate slate in a particular district, obviously his first delegate would get far more votes than he would as a candidate.

Some here seem desperate to cry "fraud", given any data that seems at all unexpected to them. I think it's very irresponsible and irrational.

----------


## parocks

> The 2008 data had undervote rates for the major candidates (except Paul) of around 30%, so that's why I started out in the ballpark I started out in.  And it's clear from the fact that Newt had significantly more (and larger) overvotes in delegate races than Santorum that whatever error effect we're looking for decreases as we go from Newt to Mitt to Santorum.  That's what the high variance is about.  Ron Paul is the odd man out there, but he's also the one who had a small fraction of the (reported) vote total compared to the other three, so the math for the effect of idiot voters means that Ron Paul is disproportionately affected.  
> 
> The point was just that there's nothing about those anomalies that isn't consistent with the kinds of voter behaviors we agree are reasonable.   If the argument then becomes that it would require unreasonable percentages of people making those kinds of errors, then that's a different argument from the one you were making initially, and it's an argument I don't have a strong view on either way.


The best way to get Newt where you want Newt is not to have him have a lot of "right" voters, but to have him have a lot of "wrong" voters.  And the lower the number of his right voters, the higher the number of his wrong voters.

Giuliani is interesting here.  You could've picked Gingrich's number because they were both first on the ballot.  We see that the Giuliani number is high.  We know that he was first.  Consider the effect of the proposed group known as "wanted to vote all but got fatigued.  Because Giuliani was first,  an average amount of his people wanted to vote for him and did.  An average amount of his people wanted to vote for all, and got tired.  But they get their votes counted, because they got tired before they got to the next candidate.  This is a highly philosophical point, because it's the same people doing the same thing, there's really no way to measure any difference between the Giuliani Presidential voters who intended to vote just for Giuliani and those who intended to vote for all, but quit .





************************************************** *****
 GIULIANI DELEGATES, PLACE 1
 percentage of pres vote who vote first delegate - 83.4%
 ************************************************** ******
 HUCKABEE DELEGATES, PLACE 1
 percentage of pres vote who vote first delegate - 72.0%
 ************************************************** ********
 McCAIN DELEGATES, PLACE 2
 percentage of pres vote who vote first delegate - 69.7%
 ************************************************** **********
 PAUL DELEGATES, PLACE 3
 percentage of pres vote who vote first delegate - 75.2%
 ************************************************** **************
 ROMNEY DELEGATES, PLACE 3
 percentage of pres vote who vote first delegate - 70.1%
 ************************************************** ********************
 THOMPSON DELEGATES, PLACE 1
  percentage of pres vote who vote first delegate - 79.0%
 ************************************************** ******

----------


## parocks

No, I think the machines were broken in 2012.





> For me, it keeps coming back to this.  This is so different than anything observed in the 2008 data.  Why?  What is different (besides the year)?
> 
> Same ballot style, same equipment, same state, same party, (mostly, because in 4 years some die, turn 18, move, etc.) same people.
> 
> Parocks thinks it's just a sudden surge of stupidity.  To me, the thought that that many people suddenly performed that much worse is unrealistic.  And when you start looking at the data more closely, it just does not pan out.  You can throw in a couple of fudge factors and try to make the data fit, but quickly reach the point of just doing data massage.

----------


## affa

> The 2008 data had undervote rates for the major candidates (except Paul) of around 30%, so that's why I started out in the ballpark I started out in.  And it's clear from the fact that Newt had significantly more (and larger) overvotes in delegate races than Santorum that whatever error effect we're looking for decreases as we go from Newt to Mitt to Santorum.  That's what the high variance is about.  Ron Paul is the odd man out there, but he's also the one who had a small fraction of the (reported) vote total compared to the other three, so the math for the effect of idiot voters means that Ron Paul is disproportionately affected.  
> 
> The point was just that there's nothing about those anomalies that isn't consistent with the kinds of voter behaviors we agree are reasonable.   If the argument then becomes that it would require unreasonable percentages of people making those kinds of errors, then that's a different argument from the one you were making initially, and it's an argument I don't have a strong view on either way.


Again, we don't agree on your initial numbers.  If you want to establish an assumption that an undervote of around 30% is 'normal', then fine.  Do that.  But don't then give Santorum 38%, and Paul 17%, chalk it up to a further assumption, spin some dials, add some more assumptions, spin another dial, and tell me the numbers now look normal.

----------


## affa

> Are there any precincts in which other candidates did not have delegates running? That would certainly explain it -- for example, if only paul had a delegate slate in a particular district, obviously his first delegate would get far more votes than he would as a candidate.
> 
> Some here seem desperate to cry "fraud", given any data that seems at all unexpected to them. I think it's very irresponsible and irrational.


It's just as irrational, if not more irrational, to assume fraud is unlikely or impossible when voting is not remotely transparent.   We aren't jumping to conclusions, we're spending tens of hours studying it and making a case for it.  It's the people stating fraud is impossible or jumping to the 'demographics' caused it argument in the face of all evidence that are leaping to conclusions.

We're looking at the data.  You aren't. No need to insult us.

----------


## parocks

From a pure "compare to 2008" I'd want a 

Gingrich 74%. (Giuliani was 4% more than Thompson - go give Giuliani 4% for being first on the ballot.  Thompson and Giuliani were out of the race by that time, so presumably only hard core supporters, people who might know the actual delegates, would be voting for them,  That "passion factor" drove up Giulianis numbers and Thompsons numbers in 2008.  Gingrich would be a 70% candidate, like McCain and Romney in 08.  Santorum would be more like Huckabee who was at 72%

Paul was at 75 last time, make it 75 again.  Gingrich at 74 (70 + 4) - but there's that question about what happens when you plan to vote for everyone but quit.  But the numbers do work with Gingrich at 74%.  Romney 70 Santorum 70.

the numbers I have posted somewhere will give you an idea if the wrong votes behave in a reasonable manner.


Gingrich 74% of pres did dele - 1979 wrong voters
Paul 75% - 1791 wrong voters
Romney 70% - 1409 wrong voters
Santorum 70% - 1303 wrong voters

----------


## affa

> The 2008 data had undervote rates for the major candidates (except Paul) of around 30%, so that's why I started out in the ballpark I started out in.


Again, looking at all precincts >100 voters.

If you independently correct all candidates to your proposed 70% conversion rate (aka, undervote of 30%), you'd need to correct each candidate by:

Gingrich 47333 votes
Paul      48867 votes	
Romney 26960 votes
Santorum  34053 votes

As a percent of their own voters, that's 16.2% for Romney vs. 17.5% for Santorum.

Once again, we have Santorum gaining more 'bad voters' than Romney, or, possibly, more real Santorum voters voting for his delegates than Romney voters voting for Romney's, even though that flies in the face of the 'fatigue/turn ballot over' theories.  Why?

Not to mention, you need to correct Paul by even more than Gingrich, even though Gingrich not only should get more 'Down the line' voters, but also more 'first on ballot' voters.    It's close, though, but even if we ignore that Romney's still off.

Your solution solves that by... simply modifying each candidate by various variables ("lazy" rate, etc) that is fine tuned for each candidate to smooth the numbers that don't work into numbers that do work.   That's rigging it.   I can assign weights to those numbers that make it show anything too.




> Maybe I'm just denser than usual today but Santorum *was* hurt the worst, in the sense that he had the fewest precincts with overvotes for delegates."


The vote count is far more important than precinct count.  Santorum consistently does better than Romney at converting voters to delegate voters.   This flies in the face of both the 'down the line' theory and the 'Santorum voters didn't flip the paper over' theory.

----------


## dsw

> For me, it keeps coming back to this.  This is so different than anything observed in the 2008 data.  Why?  What is different (besides the year)?
> 
> Same ballot style, same equipment, same state, same party, (mostly, because in 4 years some die, turn 18, move, etc.) same people.


Hopefully someone can check my work on this, but I wrote a program to check all the delegate races.  In 2008 in Baldwin I found 5 races each with one excess delegate vote, for a total of 5 excess delegate votes.  In 2012 in Baldwin I found 1,113 delegate races with excess votes and a total of 62,966 excess votes in all.  

The total excess can't be explained by flipping of votes for candidates.  You could start looking for an explanation of 2008 vs 2012 in terms of stolen votes. (It would would take fewer than 62,966 stolen votes, because that's the sum over multiple delegate races.)   Or with 5 votes unexplained (an anomaly that could be fixed with one more vote for Paul in one precinct and one more vote for Thompson in another) maybe for some reason the people who configured the machines for 2012 neglected to make sure that the rule was enforce.

----------


## dsw

> Are there any precincts in which other candidates did not have delegates running? That would certainly explain it -- for example, if only paul had a delegate slate in a particular district, obviously his first delegate would get far more votes than he would as a candidate.


As far as I know the delegate races were the same in all precincts.  The delegate races also aren't between delegates of different candidates, they're races between two or more potential Newt delegates, or two or more potential Paul delegates, etc.

----------


## affa

> As far as I know the delegate races were the same in all precincts.  The delegate races also aren't between delegates of different candidates, they're races between two or more potential Newt delegates, or two or more potential Paul delegates, etc.


Correct.  Look at the sample ballots posted throughout this thread.

----------


## dsw

You're responding to my comment about 2008, but are you talking about 2008 or 2012?  The undervote percentages were posted earlier for 2008.  They weren't identical.  But for the ones (other than Paul) who had the largest percentages of votes, 30% is a good ballpark number.

Sorry, I still don't get what you mean by more bad voters for Romney, when Romney was the one with more overvotes (assuming we're talking about 2012).  Santorum has almost no overvotes.  So in what sense do you mean that he has more bad voters?  

And finally, when you object to different "laziness" rates are you assuming that supporters for the different candidates all have comparable degrees of motivation and in such a way that ballot position should have no effect?  Because that's the only way you would *not* expect to have different rates for the four candidates.  


EDIT:  You wrote: " Santorum consistently does better than Romney at converting voters to delegate voters. "

How are you calculating that?  Santorum almost *never* had a delegate total equivalent to getting all of his supporters to vote in the delegate race.  Why isn't that a low "conversion rate"?   And where Newt and Romney had *more* delegate votes than candidate votes, why isn't that a *high* conversion rate?  

EDIT:  Looking at the first delegate for each, Newt had 27k too many votes, or a conversion rate over 100%.  Mitt had 702 too many votes, or a conversion rate of almost exactly 100%.  Santorum fell 18,796 votes short of a 100% conversion rate.  




> Again, looking at all precincts >100 voters.
> 
> If you independently correct all candidates to your proposed 70% conversion rate (aka, undervote of 30%), you'd need to correct each candidate by:
> 
> Gingrich 47333 votes
> Paul      48867 votes	
> Romney 26960 votes
> Santorum  34053 votes
> 
> ...

----------


## drummergirl

Can you be more specific about what you mean by broken?




> No, I think the machines were broken in 2012.

----------


## drummergirl

> Hopefully someone can check my work on this, but I wrote a program to check all the delegate races.  In 2008 in Baldwin I found 5 races each with one excess delegate vote, for a total of 5 excess delegate votes.  In 2012 in Baldwin I found 1,113 delegate races with excess votes and a total of 62,966 excess votes in all.  
> 
> The total excess can't be explained by flipping of votes for candidates.  You could start looking for an explanation of 2008 vs 2012 in terms of stolen votes. (It would would take fewer than 62,966 stolen votes, because that's the sum over multiple delegate races.)   Or with 5 votes unexplained (an anomaly that could be fixed with one more vote for Paul in one precinct and one more vote for Thompson in another) maybe for some reason the people who configured the machines for 2012 neglected to make sure that the rule was enforce.


Exactly.  If you look at the Alabama presidential preference vote data only (no delegate contests) the Paul line is flat as a pancake.  You do see some flipping, but from Gingrich and possibly Santorum to Romney.

But the delegate votes!  holy cow!  5 excess votes in 2008, nearly 63,000 in 2012 in the same place?!?  From what I understand from previous posts by Alabamans is that the rule was the same in 2008, but not enforced in 2008 either.  There were just so few problems in 08 that it didn't matter.

So flipping doesn't explain that, a sudden surge in voter stupidity doesn't explain it, so what does?  That is the $64 question.

----------


## dsw

> From what I understand from previous posts by Alabamans is that the rule was the same in 2008, but not enforced in 2008 either.


Except for an error so small that it could be corrected with just two additional candidate votes, enforcing the rule in 2008 and not in 2012 would explain why the 2008 data looks the way it does.   It may be the same machines but it's not the same configuration files.  Simple human error.

----------


## affa

> How are you calculating that?  Santorum almost *never* had a delegate total equivalent to getting all of his supporters to vote in the delegate race.  Why isn't that a low "conversion rate"?   And where Newt and Romney had *more* delegate votes than candidate votes, why isn't that a *high* conversion rate?


Are you intentionally driving this conversation in circles?

You don't need to have 100% conversion rate to have a high conversion rate, heck, based on your own number, anything above a 70% conversion rate is a 'high' conversion rate.
I've never said Newt had a low conversion rate, in fact, I said his was 98.53%.

Looking at all precincts >100 voters, Santorum has 
194794 votes and an average delegate vote count of 170408.67 for a conversion rate of 87.48%
.
Romney has
166316 votes and an average delegate vote count of 143381.27 for a conversion rate of 86.21%

This does not compute with either the 'down the line' voter theory, which, with fatigue, should give Romney more 'mistake' votes than Santorum, nor does it compute with the 'Santorum voters are too stupid to turn the ballot over', which should subtract 'correct' votes from Santorum.   Both of those theories in combination should jack up Romney's conversion rate, and hurt Santorums, but that is not what is seen.

And correcting all candidates to 70% conversion rate shows the same thing - Santorum converts more voters than Romney, which makes no sense based on the ballot, nor on any of the theories put forth so far.

----------


## affa

> Except for an error so small that it could be corrected with just two additional candidate votes, enforcing the rule in 2008 and not in 2012 would explain why the 2008 data looks the way it does.


Completely disagree that ballot mistakes on 2012 explain 2012.   Yes, it would bring some numbers 'more' in line, I agree with that.  But there are still significant oddities present.

----------


## dsw

We are *totally* not communicating here.  FWIW what you're describing as "correcting all candidates to a 70% conversion rate" makes no sense relative to what I was saying, and I don't think the way you're calculating what you call "conversion rate" is meaningful in the first place.  Let's just agree to disagree.




> Are you intentionally driving this conversation in circles?
> 
> You don't need to have 100% conversion rate to have a high conversion rate, heck, based on your own number, anything above a 70% conversion rate is a 'high' conversion rate.
> I've never said Newt had a low conversion rate, in fact, I said his was 98.53%.
> 
> Looking at all precincts >100 voters, Santorum has 
> 194794 votes and an average delegate vote count of 170408.67 for a conversion rate of 87.48%
> .
> Romney has
> ...

----------


## The Man

To date, all of the “vote flipping” theory is based on the comparison between low and high vote total vote percentages. Whether you are a believer or not, many of us have devoted hundreds of hours to proving and disproving vote fraud.   

The graphs below make NO camparison between low and high vote total precincts. The analysis is TOTALLY AND INDEPENDENTLY based on the differential between the vote reconstruction graph using reported vote totals AND the delegate reconstruction graph using the average of ALL reported delegates in each precinct for each candidate's delegate "score". Although all of the graphs below utilize this averaging method for computing delegates, I have constructed all of the below graphs using delegate 1, delegate 2. delegate 3, and variations of weighting. Every single method I used demonstrated the same anomaly that is shown below;*The rate at which Romney received new precinct votes increases by 4.2% (of the overall votes cast) at vote count 300k, or precinct votes cast = 850.* Also from this precinct and greater which includes more than 250 of the largest Alabama precincts, Ron Paul receives less than 100 extra votes total in precincts with more candidate votes than delegate votes. The largest 100 precincts, Paul NEVER has a single precinct where he has a single vote more than delegate votes! In those same precincts, Santorum and Romney consistently receive hundreds of candidate votes versus delegate votes in each precinct. 

 It's beyond me how to begin to explain this ANY other way besides vote theft. It appears to corroborate the notion that Romney is receiving votes that are not intended for him in larger precincts. Note that graph totals will vary depending on the delegate score methods used, but what DOES NOT change is that ]*At 300k total votes with precinct delegate totals arranged in ascending vote total order, the rate at which Romney receives new votes increases by 4.2% of the Total Vote.*  



Note that at 300k total votes, Romney's new vote receiving percentage instantaneously increases by 4.2 percent in relation to the TOTAL vote, which gains him 12k additional votes.

----------


## affa

> We are *totally* not communicating here.  FWIW what you're describing as "correcting all candidates to a 70% conversion rate" makes no sense relative to what I was saying, and I don't think the way you're calculating what you call "conversion rate" is meaningful in the first place.  Let's just agree to disagree.


It makes complete sense.  You tried to apply drastically different 'lazy' rates to each candidate, along with another variable, to smooth data.   I took your assumption, and applied it directly (without making up per candidate weights to tailor the data to what i want it to show)  to see what we got.

And 'conversion rate' is a very, very simple and direct term:   Average Delegate Votes / Votes for Candidate.

No different than, say:   Number of People Buying Something / Number of People Entering Store equals your conversion rate of shoppers into buyers.

It directly measures the ratio of voters for, say, Romney, to the voters for his delegates.   It doesn't care if it's a correct vote or an 'incorrect' vote, but it lets us see how each candidate compares to each o, ther very easily.   Gingrich and Paul fit the 'idiot voter' argument' to differing degrees, but Romney and Santorum don't, which means the theory doesn't fit.  Santorum has a better conversion rate than Romney, which makes no sense when the entire 'idiot voter' argument hinges on Romney being 3rd on the ballot, and Santorum being 4th on the ballot + on the flip side of the ballot.   Santorum should have the worst conversion rate, by far.

Liberty's shown other various flaws in the 'idiot voter' argument, I'm just approaching it from a different angle and finding more inconsistencies.

----------


## drummergirl

[QUOTE=The Man;4345559]
 It's beyond me how to begin to explain this ANY other way besides vote theft. It appears to corroborate the notion that Romney is receiving votes that are not intended for him in larger precincts. Note that graph totals will vary depending on the delegate score methods used, but what DOES NOT change s that [/COLOR]*At 300k total votes with precinct delegate totals arranged in ascending vote total order, the rate at which Romney receives new votes increases by 4.2% of the Total Vote.*  

WOW!

----------


## affa

> 


Wow to #2, especially.  Just wow.

----------


## The Man

[QUOTE=drummergirl;4345707]


> It's beyond me how to begin to explain this ANY other way besides vote theft. It appears to corroborate the notion that Romney is receiving votes that are not intended for him in larger precincts. Note that graph totals will vary depending on the delegate score methods used, but what DOES NOT change s that [/COLOR]*At 300k total votes with precinct delegate totals arranged in ascending vote total order, the rate at which Romney receives new votes increases by 4.2% of the Total Vote.*  
> WOW!


So here is what I'm talking about. Each of these three graphs plots the difference in every precinct betwen the candidate's vote total in that precinct AND his delegate total (averaged between ALL delegates for that candidate). The precincts are arranged from lowest vote total to highest left to right as usual. There are 1,864 precincts shown on each one of these graphs. Look at Paul's graph and see how many times the red line rises above the X-Axis, or the zero point. Look at Newt's graph, who is unaffected in this particular race by vote fraud. If the delegate "errors" were random, all 4 candidates' graphs would look like Newt's, with a fairly balanced portion of positive and negative points in relation to the Zero point. Then look at Santorum and Romney's graphs. Santorum clearly stays above the zero point in most precincts from start to finish because, as I previously showed, he is siphoning from Paul in small and large precincts. Romney, on the other hand, increases his vote vote total by 4.2% at a vote count of 300,000 and can be seen in the graph below, although not as clearly as in post 493.



All 1864 precincts are plotted in each of these graphs above. Notice how Paul's "votes minus delegates" almost NEVER gives a positive point. Notice how Newt's graph looks like you'd expect from "random" delegate vote error, keeping an average gain/ loss at zero. Then look at how Santorum usually gains votes versus his delegate totals. Romney ascends above the zero axis at 300k total votes when his new vote receiving percentage increases by 4.2%. EACH precinct calculation of 'candidate votes minus delegate votes' is plotted on these graphs.

----------


## drummergirl

> All 1864 precincts are plotted in each of these graphs above. Notice how Paul's "votes minus delegates" almost NEVER gives a positive point. Notice how Newt's graph looks like you'd expect from "random" delegate vote error, keeping an average gain/ loss at zero. Then look at how Santorum usually gains votes versus his delegate totals. Romney ascends above the zero axis at 300k total votes when his new vote receiving percentage increases by 4.2%. EACH precinct calculation of 'candidate votes minus delegate votes' is plotted on these graphs.


I don't know how anyone (who understands what that means) can look at those graphs and think that is an accident.

----------


## tremendoustie

> It's just as irrational, if not more irrational, to assume fraud is unlikely or impossible when voting is not remotely transparent.


There's a big difference between objecting to people instantly crying "fraud" for every data set that doesn't match their expectations, and saying that no fraud occurs anywhere ever.

If a kid cousin of mine declared that every single footprint she saw was a lion track, I'd object. That doesn't mean I don't think lions exist.




> We aren't jumping to conclusions, we're spending tens of hours studying it and making a case for it.


You're spending tens of hours trying to make the facts fit the result you want to see, not tens of hours really trying to understand the reasons for the data.




> It's the people stating fraud is impossible or jumping to the 'demographics' caused it argument in the face of all evidence that are leaping to conclusions.


The "flipping" b.s. is absurd. Sorry, it is. If you asked me to draw what I'd guess the plots would look like, sorting precincts by size, I'd draw exactly that -- guaranteed, depending on the region, certain candidates will do better or worse in districts near or in certain municipalities, than they will in the surrounding countryside. 

I would bet 20 to 1 that fraud has occurred during this primary, at least once, somewhere. There's a big difference between that and supposing that any plot which doesn't immediately match what you imagine it should be is "mathematical proof" of some giant multi-state fraud conspiracy.

There are so many basic -- really basic logical mistakes in the things people in these threads are saying, it's embarrassing. 

It's like people who immediately believe in conspiracy theories, even if those theories don't even come close to fitting or explaining the facts.




> We're looking at the data.  You aren't. No need to insult us.


The kid saying every footprint came from a lion is "looking at the data" too. Have you ever heard of the "boy who cried wolf"? There are wolves. You folks calling everything with four legs a wolf doesn't help our credibility. 

Ok, back to the point at hand: Unlike the other data, this data does seem unexpected to me. I'm not going to jump to declare "fraud", because:

1. I don't even understand it yet -- for example, why did other candidates also sometimes get more votes for delegates?
2. Fraud would most likely affect delegates too. It'd be trivial to add that in.

----------


## tremendoustie

Holy crap, 50 pages?!

Jeez.

Has anyone actually looked into why any candidate would ever get more votes for their delegate than for themselves? Plotting the data 14 ways to sunday is an exercise in time wasting if you don't even understand the data in the first place.

Were there districts where some candidates did not have delegates running?

----------


## tremendoustie

> As far as I know the delegate races were the same in all precincts.  The delegate races also aren't between delegates of different candidates, they're races between two or more potential Newt delegates, or two or more potential Paul delegates, etc.


But, these races were not for national delegates, right? They were local -- so they'd differ by precinct ... correct?

Where there any cases where delegates ran unopposed?

Every candidate had many, many cases where they got more votes for their first delegate than they themselves received. Until we understand why and how that occurs, we don't even understand the data on a very basic level.

More time understanding what the data means, and less time plotting it a thousand different ways, might be helpful.

----------


## drummergirl

> You're spending tens of hours trying to make the facts fit the result you want to see, not tens of hours really trying to understand the reasons for the data.


So... you've been around awhile, but I haven't seen your avatar on any of the data threads before this week.  I suggest that you might want to know what you are talking about before you spout your mouth off like that.

Your statement is insulting, offensive and degrading.

I don't know what your background is, but most of the people doing serious analytical work on this problem are highly educated engineers and scientists.  Unfortunately, we don't have a professional statistician (at least not as far as I'm aware), but most  of the math in politics is pretty straightforward.

If you think that the data plots of 2012 are what is to be expected, I would really love to hear your explanation of the reams of historical data and data from elections in Europe, Canada, etc. that are vastly different.

Please, share your background and your great wisdom.  Show us your analytical prowess and your greatness with statistics.  Otherwise, quit with the name calling.

----------


## drummergirl

> But, these races were not for national delegates, right? They were local -- so they'd differ by precinct ... correct?
> 
> Where there any cases where delegates ran unopposed?
> 
> Every candidate had many, many cases where they got more votes for their first delegate than they themselves received. Until we understand why and how that occurs, we don't even understand the data on a very basic level.
> 
> More time understanding what the data means, and less time plotting it a thousand different ways, might be helpful.


The delegate races are for the convention in Tampa; Alabama chooses theirs this way.  Look at the ballot; it's posted multiple times in this thread.

I don't know how you do your serious analytical work.  But plotting data in various ways and looking for trends, then doing statistical operations to analyze those trends is precisely how we see what the data is showing us.  I can assure you that for every chart Ron Rules, Liberty1789, affa, or The Man has posted (apologies to others whose names don't come to the top of my head), they probably have 20 in the trash can (dead ends, rough drafts, etc.).  

I really do recommend reading the summary:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...cuxJTo1iE/edit

After page 10 is really for the mathophiles, but if you are good at math it's easy to understand.

----------


## dsw

> But, these races were not for national delegates, right? They were local -- so they'd differ by precinct ... correct?
> 
> Where there any cases where delegates ran unopposed?
> 
> Every candidate had many, many cases where they got more votes for their first delegate than they themselves received. Until we understand why and how that occurs, we don't even understand the data on a very basic level.
> 
> More time understanding what the data means, and less time plotting it a thousand different ways, might be helpful.


No.  

Unopposed delegates did not show up on the ballot.

Near the beginning Liberty posted some graphs showing the rates at which that "fatigue" occurred.  You could start there.  Understanding why and how that occurred is the whole point, but you haven't caught up yet with what has already been covered about it.

You don't even understand what the delegate races were about, and when the question was answered you asked the question again but the answer is the same.  

Look, I'm all in favor of healthy skepticism.  I'd welcome having someone else here applying some healthy skepticism.   But start by figuring out how the ballot was supposed to work, etc., or else it's not skepticism it's just snark.  A link to the ballot images has been posted.  And Liberty has posted the data in a nice spreadsheet format, so you can dig into it yourself.   For example, I looked at some variations of the "just wow" plot from yesterday, but plotted in simpler ways that I thought might have a better chance (if the pattern were still clear) of convincing someone who is not in the inner circle.  Most people don't know what to expect from a graph of the total candidate votes minus the average of the corresponding delegate votes plotted cumulatively with precincts sorted by the total number of votes cast, so their reaction is more likely to be "huh?" than "just wow".  Especially if they haven't seen the proof that no possible combination of demographics, campaign strategies, clustering of precincts geographically by size and other factors could possibly result in the kind of correlations that would make the shape of the wow graph unremarkable.   So read up a bit, grab the data, and dig in!

----------


## RonRules

> most  of the math in politics is pretty straightforward.


Maybe not! I've got to re-learn the Chi-Squared test, because I think that what we need to prove this thing. Unfortunately the statisticians are not quickly rushing to the rescue here.

The more advanced math may be what's needed, but when most people can't read the most basic chart, I cringe in advance at what the response will be.

If statisticians were on the nightly news like the sports heroes, this vote fraud would be solved long ago.

----------


## drummergirl

> The more advanced math may be what's needed, but when most people can't read the most basic chart, I cringe in advance at what the response will be.
> 
> If statisticians were on the nightly news like the sports heroes, this vote fraud would be solved long ago.


No kidding!

I had a similar reaction when I saw the scatter plots a few pages back.  I thought, that looks like exponential distribution; I don't have time to relearn that today, and I definitely don't have the time to relearn it and teach it through forum posts.

Because... RON PAUL IS COMING TO TEXAS TODAY!!!  And I leave for College Station in a few hours, WOOT! <happy dance>

----------


## dsw

> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...cuxJTo1iE/edit
> 
> After page 10 is really for the mathophiles, but if you are good at math it's easy to understand.


But you have to be willing to overlook the fact that what it says on page 10:



> Another way to look at the data is to chart it and consider, what are the odds of getting to the endpoint from somewhere in the middle?  This is essentially what the news agencies do on election night.  They look at the votes that have come in, calculate the margin of error, figure the odds of that candidate ending up with more than 50% of the votes, and project a winner as soon as possible.


is not essentially what exit polls do, or even close to what exit polls do. What the exit polls do, among other things, is very carefully analyze their sample (which they've already tried to randomize by selecting locations with different demographics, and trying to randomize the selection of people to poll at those locations), compare the demographics of that sample to the demographics that their model predicts for the overall election turnout, and weight the sample they have in ways that will hopefully make it closer to the unattainable ideal of a truly random sample.  They augment this with polling from just before the election (trying, for example, to get data on early and absentee voters who tend to be skewed toward older voters among other things), and sometimes telephone polling on the day of the election.  If you understand why exit polls have to do all of this in order to get results that are (usually) fairly accurate, then seeing what is going on in the argument being presented in that document will be a lot easier.

----------


## drummergirl

> But you have to be willing to overlook the fact that what it says on page 10:
> 
> is not essentially what exit polls do, or even close to what exit polls do. What the exit polls do, among other things, is very carefully analyze their sample (which they've already tried to randomize by selecting locations with different demographics, and trying to randomize the selection of people to poll at those locations), compare the demographics of that sample to the demographics that their model predicts for the overall election turnout, and weight the sample they have in ways that will hopefully make it closer to the unattainable ideal of a truly random sample.  They augment this with polling from just before the election (trying, for example, to get data on early and absentee voters who tend to be skewed toward older voters among other things), and sometimes telephone polling on the day of the election.  If you understand why exit polls have to do all of this in order to get results that are (usually) fairly accurate, then seeing what is going on in the argument being presented in that document will be a lot easier.


Yes, I've really simplified what the pollsters do.  And some of what they do is art as much as science.  But news agencies don't like headlines like "Dewey defeats Truman" making them the laughing stock of the media, so they do use a lot of math.

----------


## dsw

> Yes, I've really simplified what the pollsters do.  And some of what they do is art as much as science.  But news agencies don't like headlines like "Dewey defeats Truman" making them the laughing stock of the media, so they do use a lot of math.


Yes, but you've simplified it to the point of it being false.  Just like on the first page where you write "Basic statistics told the pollsters that if they polled 1200 likely voters, they would have a margin of error of +-3% and they bet that would be close enough to make a good prediction."  In fact, basic statistics said no such thing.  It said that if they polled 1200 *randomly selected* likely voters they could draw some conclusions.  But without that qualifier (which is what they're trying to approximate when they go through so much analysis and adjustment of the data in an exit poll) you can't draw any such conclusion.  And that's also what's wrong with the way you're using the marble counting analogy, comparing something that is defined to be randomly selected with something else that is not.  And so on throughout the document.  

A lot of the "art" in exit polling is coming up with an accurate model for the demographics of the overall voter turnout.  That's not something that can be known exactly, and if you get it wrong then the adjustments they work so hard to make to their samples would be incorrect.  But the "science" (math) part of it is more straightforward.  If they didn't do those things their calculation of the probability (margin of error) would be invalid.

The way you calculate probabilities is invalid for exactly the same reason.  The part you've left out about exit poll  methodology in your over-simplified explanation is the part you leave out in your own calculations, but the exit pollsters actually *do* make those corrections that you don't mention.  Without that the calculation is bogus.

----------


## affa

> The "flipping" b.s. is absurd. Sorry, it is. If you asked me to draw what I'd guess the plots would look like, sorting precincts by size, I'd draw exactly that -- guaranteed, depending on the region, certain candidates will do better or worse in districts near or in certain municipalities, than they will in the surrounding countryside.


Which is why we actually look at historical election data, for comparison.   You know, rather than just 'guessing' what we think they should look like.  We don't 'guess' what the charts should look like, we've charted elections worldwide and back to the 80's. Perhaps if you actually did any research, you might understand why the charts we see look so odd.   But instead, you do the absolute definition of jumping to conclusions.

----------


## drummergirl

> The way you calculate probabilities is invalid for exactly the same reason.  The part you've left out about exit poll  methodology in your over-simplified explanation is the part you leave out in your own calculations, but the exit pollsters actually *do* make those corrections that you don't mention.  Without that the calculation is bogus.


Well, if we were doing random sampling of 1000 people and expecting to get results like CNN, that would be true.  But we are not polling.  We are looking at full sets of actual election data so the sample size = 100%, or close to it (still about 15% or so uncertified in Alabama).  The laws of large numbers really ought to apply.  And when we see historical data, like Alabama 2008, the math works fine.  So the question still remains, what is wrong in 2012?

----------


## RonRules

> depending on the region, certain candidates will do better or worse in districts near or in certain municipalities, than they will in the surrounding countryside.


Look up the word "Cumulative"
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Cumulative

The key to accept our arguments is to understand our relatively simple charts:
1) They are actual election votes, not polls. 
2) I personally use ALL the vote data that is available. (If I don't include a point in the chart, I explain why, usually because it screws up scaling)
3) And most importantly, the rightmost part of the charts (and the rightmost point specifically) includes ALL VOTES, therefore ALL DEMOGRAPHICS.

The demographics argument fails once you understand our basic charts.

----------


## dsw

> Well, if we were doing random sampling of 1000 people and expecting to get results like CNN, that would be true.  But we are not polling.  We are looking at full sets of actual election data so the sample size = 100%, or close to it (still about 15% or so uncertified in Alabama).  The laws of large numbers really ought to apply.  And when we see historical data, like Alabama 2008, the math works fine.  So the question still remains, what is wrong in 2012?


The law of large numbers ought to apply IF the way you sample the data satisfies a precondition of independence, a precondition you go on to show is not satisfied.   But then you go on to apply the law of large numbers as if that precondition were satisfied.  

Who is your target audience?  Do you expect them not to understand that there's a necessary precondition that you are omitting?  And not to realize that the precondition clearly doesn't hold in the cases where you would need it to hold for your argument to be valid?

----------


## tremendoustie

> Which is why we actually look at historical election data, for comparison.   You know, rather than just 'guessing' what we think they should look like.  We don't 'guess' what the charts should look like, we've charted elections worldwide and back to the 80's. Perhaps if you actually did any research, you might understand why the charts we see look so odd.   But instead, you do the absolute definition of jumping to conclusions.


Yep, and you get the same thing in many earlier elections -- e.g. huck did better in many rural areas too. It's completely expected, to anyone actually interested in using common sense.

But, I don't expect anyone here to change their mind -- it's practically a religion at this point.

----------


## tremendoustie

> Look up the word "Cumulative"
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Cumulative
> 
> The key to accept our arguments is to understand our relatively simple charts:
> 1) They are actual election votes, not polls. 
> 2) I personally use ALL the vote data that is available. (If I don't include a point in the chart, I explain why, usually because it screws up scaling)
> 3) And most importantly, the rightmost part of the charts (and the rightmost point specifically) includes ALL VOTES, therefore ALL DEMOGRAPHICS.
> 
> The demographics argument fails once you understand our basic charts.


You apparently don't understand your own charts. You might as well sort the results by age, and then get shocked when romney picks up more old people.

I really wouldn't mind the obviously flawed logic -- it's the arrogance that frosts me.

P.S. I graduated fourth grade; I know what the word cumulative means. Do you know what the word "patronizing" means?

----------


## tremendoustie

Whatever. I really wanted to look into why so many candidates received more votes for their delegate than they themselves did, which would seem impossible. You know, actually try to understand the meaning of the data.

Apparently I accidentally stumbled into a cool-aid festival instead, so never-mind. Instead of checking into the reason behind a behavior, we instantly declare "fraud!!!" then plot the same phenomenon 1000 different ways, and call it "mathematical proof" of a-priori assumptions. Have fun ...

----------


## dsw

> Look up the word "Cumulative"
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Cumulative
> 
> The key to accept our arguments is to understand our relatively simple charts:
> 1) They are actual election votes, not polls. 
> 2) I personally use ALL the vote data that is available. (If I don't include a point in the chart, I explain why, usually because it screws up scaling)
> 3) And most importantly, the rightmost part of the charts (and the rightmost point specifically) includes ALL VOTES, therefore ALL DEMOGRAPHICS.
> 
> The demographics argument fails once you understand our basic charts.


Obviously the demographics of the right-most point are identical to the demographics of all voters.  By definition.

You left out the part that shows why the demographics (and other factors that could be relevant) of the first N% of the precincts sorted by total votes cast can't be significantly different from the demographics of all voters.   

The smallest 40 counties by vote totals are 21% of the overall vote, but only 8.5% of the vote from the 100 top precincts.  The largest 8 counties are 52% of the overall vote, but 71% of the vote from the 100 top precincts.  So as you get toward the right-hand side of the graph you're seeing a higher percentage of votes coming from those eight larger counties than you are when you're on the left-hand side of the graph.  What is your argument that weighting the largest counties less heavily on the left and more heavily on the right, and the smaller counties more heavily on the left and less heavily on the right, isn't going to introduce any correlation with voter preference as you move from left to right in the graph?

----------


## affa

> Yep, and you get the same thing in many earlier elections -- e.g. huck did better in many rural areas too. It's completely expected, to anyone actually interested in using common sense.
> 
> But, I don't expect anyone here to change their mind -- it's practically a religion at this point.


You're just trolling this thread anyway - telling people 'good job this looks suspicious' while intentionally insulting _the very same people_ over and over in the same breath.  You didn't even understand the ballot, and have been asking super basic questions anyone that spent even 30 seconds doing their own research would know the answer to... answers that are required to even understand what's being discussed in this thread, let alone have an intelligent opinion on it.  

As for 2008, I love that you pick Huckabee, the one candidate we've identified in 2008 as having the same anomaly in a couple counties.  Love it!  You're paying just enough attention to be divisive.

----------


## drummergirl

> The law of large numbers ought to apply IF the way you sample the data satisfies a precondition of independence, a precondition you go on to show is not satisfied.   But then you go on to apply the law of large numbers as if that precondition were satisfied.  
> 
> Who is your target audience?  Do you expect them not to understand that there's a necessary precondition that you are omitting?  And not to realize that the precondition clearly doesn't hold in the cases where you would need it to hold for your argument to be valid?


That's not exactly the case.  What we see (over and over again) is a linear correlation after a certain point (also called hinge).  Before the hinge point, behavior is as expected.  Then there is a change.  And then the statistics change too.  We start looking at R-squared, t-test, f-stat (is this really a straight line and just how well does it fit the data?).  Those numbers don't assume a random sample or independence at all.

As to the target audience; it's pretty darn broad.  The first part of the summary is geared towards any literate adult.  It uses as little in depth technical information as possible since most people despise math and don't even understand how to balance a checkbook.  The technical addendum is for people with a math background; the idea being, we really need some help over here asap.  I'm sure the analysis to date is not perfect, but I do know enough to to know we have a serious problem in our electoral system.  I can't tell you who dun it, or precisely how (though we are getting closer on this all the time), but this data smells fishier than the dumpster behind a Red Lobster.

----------


## drummergirl

> You apparently don't understand your own charts. You might as well sort the results by age, and then get shocked when romney picks up more old people.


Look, I'm truly sorry that you never made it past the fourth grade.  But please understand that the math we are using here is taught in basic statistics classes everywhere.  If you have questions, by all means ask them.  But making careless remarks is counterproductive and does nothing to further your education.

----------


## tremendoustie

> You're just trolling this thread anyway - telling people 'good job this looks suspicious'


It's not "good job". It's obvious: candidates got more votes for their delegates than they themselves recieved. I think that's obviously unexpected, given the rules, and worth looking into. (note: "looking into" does not mean plotting the same data 100 different ways)




> while intentionally insulting _the very same people_ over and over in the same breath.


I'm sorry if you feel insulted, but these threads have been rife with absurd, obviously fallacious arguments asserted as "mathematial proof", and I do find it embarassing.




> You didn't even understand the ballot, and have been asking super basic questions anyone that spent even 30 seconds doing their own research would know the answer to... answers that are required to even understand what's being discussed in this thread, let alone have an intelligent opinion on it.


So answer: Why did some candidates get more votes for delegates than they got themselves?




> As for 2008, I love that you pick Huckabee, the one candidate we've identified in 2008 as having the same anomaly in a couple counties.  Love it!  You're paying just enough attention to be divisive.


Yes, another candidate that appeals to rural folks. And oh my God!!!! He gets more votes in smaller, more rural precincts!!! What a shocker!! It must mean a massive multi state conspiracy to commit fraud according to an absurd and unnecessarily complicated algorithm!!! Give me a flipping break.

----------


## tremendoustie

> Look, I'm truly sorry that you never made it past the fourth grade.


Thanks for the ad-hominem. I have advanced degrees in science and mathematics.




> But please understand that the math we are using here is taught in basic statistics classes everywhere.


Math isn't the problem with the "vote flipping" nonsense. Basic logic is the problem. Data is sorted on electorally significant bases, and then people get shocked when they see a correlation with voting results.

Extreme arrogance is another problem ...




> If you have questions, by all means ask them.  But making careless remarks is counterproductive and does nothing to further your education.


Exhibit A ...

----------


## tremendoustie

I just took 5 minutes to call the Alabama GOP, and ask them why some candidates got more votes for their delegates than they themselves recieved (one wonders why nobody had done this already).

They said that the company charged with scanning and tabulating the results had an error, where votes for delegates counted regardless of a voter's candidate preference. Apparently re-scanning the data would cost a couple million dollars, and nobody's willing to pay it.

If you believe them, this certainly explains the results -- a significant number of people who voted for other candidates went ahead and filled in bubbles for all the delegate races.

----------


## dsw

> So answer: Why did some candidates get more votes for delegates than they got themselves?


Not everyone here is a "flipper."  I think the flipper arguments are deeply flawed, and at the same time I don't think anyone has proven that it's *not* fraud either.  What we're doing (some of us, anyway) *is* trying to figure out why some candidates got more votes for delegates than they got themselves.  We know that the rule was not enforced in 2012.  (But perhaps it was enforced in 2008, where other than two discrepancies that could be corrected by adding one vote each to the totals, the rule was followed in the partial data set that we have.)  We've looked at some patterns of "voter fatigue."   Apparently the discrepancies look very different in the more urban counties than they do in some of the more rural counties.  And we know quite a few other things about the situation as well.  

Even so, let me emphasize again that I am skeptical by nature and I don't think that a compelling case has been made either for fraud, or for non-fraud.  But I do think that in the midst of a lot of noise, some real progress is being made toward figuring out why some candidates got more votes for delegates than they should have.  Where it all leads, I don't know yet.

All of which is simply to provide the context for this:  You're contributing nothing, you're either an idiot or doing a very good imitation of one, you give skepticism a bad name, and please go away.

----------


## dsw

> I just took 5 minutes to call the Alabama GOP, and ask them why some candidates got more votes for their delegates than they themselves recieved (one wonders why nobody had done this already).
> 
> They said that the company charged with scanning and tabulating the results had an error, where votes for delegates counted regardless of a voter's candidate preference. Apparently re-scanning the data would cost a couple million dollars, and nobody's willing to pay it.
> 
> If you believe them, this certainly explains the results -- a significant number of people who voted for other candidates went ahead and filled in bubbles for all the delegate races.


Yes we already knew that, and we don't think it explains why three of the candidates had small overvotes in their delegate races, but Ron Paul's delegate races got on average about 300% of what would be expected.  But we're probably wrong.  Consider it solved.  Thanks for stopping by.

----------


## tremendoustie

Could fraud have occurred? Absolutely.

I'm just sick of people going off half cocked and claiming "mathematical proof" when they have nothing of the sort.

----------


## tremendoustie

> Yes we already knew that, and we don't think it explains why three of the candidates had small overvotes in their delegate races, but Ron Paul's delegate races got on average about 300% of what would be expected.  But we're probably wrong.  Consider it solved.  Thanks for stopping by.


Well, if a number of people went ahead and voted for delegates, for all campaigns, what would be more significant is the total numbers, not the percentages.

Newt received roughly 30K more votes for delegates than he himself received as a candidate.
Paul received roughly 55K more.

Say there are 60K people who went straight across and voted for both Newt and Paul delegates (gotta have a complete ballot!). That'd mean 30K of Newt's 180K voters didn't bother to vote for delegates, and 5K of Paul's 30K voters didn't bother to vote for delegates. 

That sounds plausible to me.

----------


## RonRules

I think we need an Alabama "NO FRAUD" thread. See how popular that is.

----------


## dsw

> Well, if a number of people went ahead and voted for delegates, for all campaigns, what would be more significant is the total numbers, not the percentages.
> 
> Newt received roughly 30K more votes for delegates than he himself received as a candidate.
> Paul received roughly 55K more.
> 
> Say there are 60K people who went straight across and voted for both Newt and Paul delegates (gotta have a complete ballot!). That'd mean 30K of Newt's 180K voters didn't bother to vote for delegates, and 5K of Paul's voters didn't bother to vote for delegates. 
> 
> That sounds plausible to me.


Boy are WE embarrassed!  Fifty-three pages and nobody has come up with anything like that!  Thanks for clearing it up.  Bye.

----------


## tremendoustie

> Boy are WE embarrassed!  Fifty-three pages and nobody has come up with anything like that!  Thanks for clearing it up.  Bye.


The "vote flipping" had 200 pages, and even you admit it's fallacious on a basic, logical level.

How is this explanation not plausible?

I think people are spending entirely too much time plotting things, and not enough time thinking through the issue.

----------


## tremendoustie

//

----------


## affa

> To date, all of the “vote flipping” theory is based on the comparison between low and high vote total vote percentages. Whether you are a believer or not, many of us have devoted hundreds of hours to proving and disproving vote fraud.   
> 
> The graphs below make NO camparison between low and high vote total precincts. The analysis is TOTALLY AND INDEPENDENTLY based on the differential between the vote reconstruction graph using reported vote totals AND the delegate reconstruction graph using the average of ALL reported delegates in each precinct for each candidate's delegate "score". Although all of the graphs below utilize this averaging method for computing delegates, I have constructed all of the below graphs using delegate 1, delegate 2. delegate 3, and variations of weighting. Every single method I used demonstrated the same anomaly that is shown below;*The rate at which Romney received new precinct votes increases by 4.2% (of the overall votes cast) at vote count 300k, or precinct votes cast = 850.* Also from this precinct and greater which includes more than 250 of the largest Alabama precincts, Ron Paul receives less than 100 extra votes total in precincts with more candidate votes than delegate votes. The largest 100 precincts, Paul NEVER has a single precinct where he has a single vote more than delegate votes! In those same precincts, Santorum and Romney consistently receive hundreds of candidate votes versus delegate votes in each precinct. 
> 
>  It's beyond me how to begin to explain this ANY other way besides vote theft. It appears to corroborate the notion that Romney is receiving votes that are not intended for him in larger precincts. Note that graph totals will vary depending on the delegate score methods used, but what DOES NOT change is that ]*At 300k total votes with precinct delegate totals arranged in ascending vote total order, the rate at which Romney receives new votes increases by 4.2% of the Total Vote.*  
> 
> 
> 
> Note that at 300k total votes, Romney's new vote receiving percentage instantaneously increases by 4.2 percent in relation to the TOTAL vote, which gains him 12k additional votes.



Getting this back on track from the attempted derail,
if you look at figure 2 and don't see something worth massive investigation, you don't need to be here.  You're either not understanding the charts, or you're on someone else's team.   

And we would never have discovered this if we weren't making lots of charts, trying to sort out what was happening.

Chalking this up to 'oh, romney just does better once 300k votes are hit' is just trolling.

----------


## RonRules

> They said that the company charged with scanning and tabulating the results had an error, where votes for delegates counted regardless of a voter's candidate preference. Apparently re-scanning the data would cost a couple million dollars, and nobody's willing to pay it.


There is NO WAY this re-scanning project would cost "a couple million dollars". 


First: Who's problem is it? "*the company charged with scanning and tabulating the results had an error"*

They screwed up, they need to fix the problem and re-scan *FREE OF CHARGE*

Second: Have you done the math. *Have you ever done the math?*

In Alabama, in 2012: Ballots Cast:  828,761

Model 650 High Speed Scanner $ 71,440.00
http://www.sos.idaho.gov/elect/clerk...12.15.2005.pdf

M650 Central Ballot Tabulator
The ES&S Model 650 Central Ballot Counter is an easy-to-use, high-speed central paper ballot counter and vote tabulator that supports a full range of jurisdiction sizes and ballot complexities. The Model 650 with its advanced OMR scanning technology securely processes a variety of ballot lengths — 14", 17", and 19" — all at a *speed of over 300 ballots per minute*.

*LET ME DO THE MATH FOR YOU:*

*46.04 Man-Hours*

Technically 6 clerks with 6 rented machines can do that in ONE DAY. 

ES&S should provide the machines (Alabama probably already has them) and ES&S should reimburse the county for the 46 hours of labor.

I estimate the labor cost to be around $5,000 without the machines

If anybody is from Alabama reading this thread, could you PLEASE call back your county and have a little word with them?

----------


## dsw

> if you look at figure 2 and don't see something worth massive investigation, you don't need to be here.  You're either not understanding the charts, or you're on someone else's team.


Ouch.  I look at figure 2 and scratch my head because I'm not sure what to expect from graphing the cumulative difference between a candidates vote total and the average of his delegate race totals, plotted against the cumulative average of total votes cast at a precinct with precincts sorted by the total votes cast.  

But I'm not one to give up THAT easily.  So I first tried to make sure I could replicate the result, to see if I at least understood the calculation being performed even if I didn't have a prior expectation for what that calculation should yield.  I initially had it wrong, too, because I hadn't noticed that the y-axis is also cumulative.  My result doesn't have a sharp "knee" though.  Is that just the effect of having straight lines superimposed over it?  I calculated the difference at each precinct, then graphed the cumulative sum of that.  Anyway this is close:



I didn't have any prior expectation for what this graph would look like so it's hard to be surprised.  But I can try to dig further and understand what's going on.

I also did a scatter plot, not cumulative on either axis:



The vertical blue line separates the precincts that come before the 300,000 "crime happens here" point from the ones that come after.   Now I'm not clear on what flipping theory says would be done to the votes at each precinct, but it's a small number of points (with big vote counts) that are doing a lot of the work here.  

I started wondering about those large precincts that were doing the work here.  Was there perhaps some geographical clustering, like there was in Va Beach City?  I wondered how the votes on the right-hand side of a cumulative graph were distributed around the state, compared to the votes on the left-hand side.  A calculation that I posted earlier showed that the top few counties account for a significantly larger proportion of the 100 largest precincts than they do overall.  Not surprising really.  But I wanted to look closer.

I grabbed the 2011 census data for Alabama counties.  They range in size from 9k to 659k.  I sorted the precincts by vote count, and with a moving window of 100 precincts I plotted the percentage within that window that came from the 20 (out of 68) most populous counties:



Can I get a "just wow"?  No?  Maybe if I drew some straight lines to emphasize a slope change at around the 300,000 point where it flattens out?  

What does this tell us?  Over on the left-hand side of the many cumulative graphs we've seen, the precincts are predominantly from the less-populous regions of Alabama.  That gradually changes, and right around the "crime" point of 300,000 the geographic composition has changed to being around 80% from the most-populous regions of Alabama, and continues that way to the end of the graph.  After you cross that 300k point nearly half the counties in Alabama are not represented at all, and just 5 counties account for 58% of the remaining precincts even though those 5 account for only 24% of all precincts.  (I also did the same graph with county population density.  Very similar graph.)  

People keep saying that the demographic argument is dead.  With this graph in mind, tell me why that is.  Why would you expect there NOT to be demographic differences from a sample weighted heavily toward the least-populous areas of the state (the left hand part of the graph) and another sample weighted heavily from the most-populous areas of the state?   It's true that even a large county can have some tiny precincts, right next to very large precincts.  But where those tiny precincts from populous counties are showing up on the left side of the graph, they're far outnumbered by tiny precincts from sparsely populated areas.  

And considering that the curve of the Mitt minus dels graph slopes more sharply upward (when suitably smoothed on both the x and y axes) over the same region where the third graph flattens out because from there on out we're drawing >80% of the precincts from the most populous counties, can anyone at least entertain the possibility that there could be a demographic difference at work here?   That if your samples are 80% from the most populous counties you might just be looking at some significant demographic differences compared to samples drawn mostly from less populous counties?

----------


## The Man

> Ouch.  I look at figure 2 and scratch my head because I'm not sure what to expect from graphing the cumulative difference between a candidates vote total and the average of his delegate race totals, plotted against the cumulative average of total votes cast at a precinct with precincts sorted by the total votes cast... 
> 
> 
> Can I get a "just wow"?  No?  Maybe if I drew some straight lines to emphasize a slope change at around the 300,000 point where it flattens out?  
> 
> What does this tell us?  Over on the left-hand side of the many cumulative graphs we've seen, the precincts are predominantly from the less-populous regions of Alabama.  That gradually changes, and right around the "crime" point of 300,000 the geographic composition has changed to being around 80% from the most-populous regions of Alabama, and continues that way to the end of the graph.  After you cross that 300k point nearly half the counties in Alabama are not represented at all, and just 5 counties account for 58% of the remaining precincts even though those 5 account for only 24% of all precincts.  (I also did the same graph with county population density.  Very similar graph.)  
> 
> People keep saying that the demographic argument is dead.  With this graph in mind, tell me why that is.  Why would you expect there NOT to be demographic differences from a sample weighted heavily toward the least-populous areas of the state (the left hand part of the graph) and another sample weighted heavily from the most-populous areas of the state?   It's true that even a large county can have some tiny precincts, right next to very large precincts.  But where those tiny precincts from populous counties are showing up on the left side of the graph, they're far outnumbered by tiny precincts from sparsely populated areas.  
> 
> And considering that the curve of the Mitt minus dels graph slopes more sharply upward (when suitably smoothed on both the x and y axes) over the same region where the third graph flattens out because from there on out we're drawing >80% of the precincts from the most populous counties, can anyone at least entertain the possibility that there could be a demographic difference at work here?   That if your samples are 80% from the most populous counties you might just be looking at some significant demographic differences compared to samples drawn mostly from less populous counties?


Hey DSW If anyone can appreciate your Replication diligence, it's me. You need to graph (vote minus delegate) cumulative versus precinct cumulative vote total in ascending vote total order. YOU DON'T AVERAGE ANYTHING. It's true that for my original example, I used the average of all delegates, but I also told you it doesn't matter which delegate you use. You should have 1,864 REAL data points. Sorry to disappoint you, but there is simply no smoke and mirrors in my work. I figure that you may use the word "average" against my work's credibility so this is for you- the same "figure#2" using 12 different Romney delegate calculations.



How to duplicate: In your spreadsheet, create a column headed "Romney votes minus delegates." Each value in this column will be the difference of votes minus delegates for Romney. Create another column headed "Romney votes minus delegates cumulative". In this column, you will add each individual value to the previous total. Then graph the "Romney votes minus delegates cumulative" versus "cumulative vote count by increasing precinct vote totals."

----------


## RonRules

I am tempted to annotate each of those 14 charts with my trademark "Crime Occurs Here!" and a red arrow pointing at the hinge point.

----------


## dsw

> The Y Axis value is obtained by adding the "Romney votes minus delegates" precinct data point to the sum of the preious calculation for a total of 1,864 REAL data points. Sorry to disappoint you, but there are simply no smoke and mirrors in my work. I figure that you may use the word "average" against my work's credibility so this is for you- the same "figure#2" using 12 different Romney delegate calculations.


I used the word "average" because you said you took the "average of ALL reported delegates in each precinct".  I calculated the difference using that as the delegate score, then as I said "I calculated the difference at each precinct, then graphed the cumulative sum of that."  And all using the same 1,864 REAL data points.  

I'm not saying the graph isn't real.  In my first graph I'm just trying to replicate it.

----------


## The Man

> I used the word "average" because you said you took the "average of ALL reported delegates in each precinct".  I calculated the difference using that as the delegate score, then as I said "I calculated the difference at each precinct, then graphed the cumulative sum of that."  And all using the same 1,864 REAL data points.  
> 
> I'm not saying the graph isn't real.  In my first graph I'm just trying to replicate it.


Just in case you and/or I am missing something here, maybe this will help. In your spreadsheet, create a column headed "Romney votes minus delegates." Each value in this column will be the difference of votes minus delegates for Romney in each horizontal precinct row. Create another column headed "Romney votes minus delegates cumulative". In this column, you will add each individual value to the previous total. Then graph the "Romney votes minus delegates cumulative" versus "cumulative vote count by increasing precinct vote totals."

----------


## dsw

> How to duplicate: In your spreadsheet, create a column headed "Romney votes minus delegates." Each value in this column will be the difference of votes minus delegates for Romney in each horizontal precinct row. Create another column headed "Romney votes minus delegates cumulative". In this column, you will add each individual value to the previous total. Then graph the "Romney votes minus delegates cumulative" versus "cumulative vote count by increasing precinct vote totals."


I'm doing it with python and gnuplot, but otherwise that's exactly what I was trying to do.  Here's the graph again with some straight lines added, and the axes scaled to match, and an exerpt of yours for comparison.  I could have made a mistake, but if so it's not intentional.  The real point, if I've successfully replicated the phenomenon, is what followed in the rest of the post trying to look at what might explain it.  

EDIT: more specifically, the rest of that post looks at the way that around the time you get to the "knee" in the graph, you've also gotten to a point at which the remaining data points are 80% from the 20 highest population counties, with just five of those largest counties having twice as much weight from there to the right hand side of the graph than they do overall.  What I don't see is why people think the demographics of the precincts represented on the left hand side of the graph should be expected to be close enough to those on the right-hand side of the graph that you can make the inferences that are made.   That would only be expected if the counties with lower population density should be demographically equivalent to the counties with the highest population density, but why would anyone expect that?

----------


## The Man

OK- Your red graph line is distorting the sharpness of the elbow but looks like you've done it. Your "straight" line is way off. If there's any way to distort the natural sharpness of the elbow any more than you have, I'd be shocked.

 I need to make sure you understand the ramifications here. Up until the Alabama analysis, you could argue that demographical variances from small to large precincts MIGHT could be the cause of this sudden change in Romney's vote receiving percentage. You could argue this because ALL of the analysis compared percentages from small to large vote- total precincts. In other words, IF you REALLY believe that ANY demographical conditions are the cause of a sudden change in percentage of 2%, you yell "demographics" and the researchers would be required to run demographical analysis from now on and NEVER satisfy the cries of the trolls.

Now, however, the "demographics" cry is irrelevant. Now, you face a much steeper challenge. The graph below does NOT compare small and large precinct percentages. The graph compares the delegates curve, X- Axis,  to the reported votes curve, Y- Axis. The ever- widening gap between the green line and the X-Axis IS the cumulative difference of Reported Votes minus Reported Delegates. Here is what you have to explain:

There are more than 18 Romney Delegate positions on the Alabama 2012 Presidential Primary ballot on which voters voted. ALL of them, when compared to the reported vote total graph, clearly show that Romney's new vote receiving% jumps 2-5% at 300k total votes. I hope you understand. This analysis does NOT compare small and large precinct vote totals.

There is NO rational way to explain WHY the delegate vote does not closely follow the slope of the graph below. You can invent all kinds of ridiculous "what ifs", but I don't believe there is but one REAL explanation: *Electronic Vote Manipulation* 




I have been in a brain storming session today with 2 (former) skeptics who are totally stumped at this.

----------


## drummergirl

> People keep saying that the demographic argument is dead.  With this graph in mind, tell me why that is.


Because the charts with the straight sloped lines are anomalous.  If these slopes are what is to be expected because of demographics, we should see them consistently.  We don't.  For instance, there are only 2 anomalous counties in Nevada (of course, they represent over 70% of the total votes), but the remaining counties have nice normal mathematics.  Historical data (alabama 2008, New Hampshire back into the 90s, etc.) follow the early noise then flat line at a percentage expected pattern.  Why would "demographics" be at work only in certain places and not others.  The latest is Outagamie county in Wisconsin (posted by Ron Rules on the other thread) other demographically and politically similar counties are flipping like pancakes at the ihop, but not Outagamie county.

This was really put to bed about six weeks ago here : http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...arolina/page99

and is abbreviated in the technical addendum here p.29-37  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...cuxJTo1iE/edit

but I think it is worth repeating for the newcomers even though it's a little long.  If you don't understand the math, please read the relevant parts of the tech addendum before questions.  Here is the series Liberty1789 did for the counties of South Carolina (for those interested in the county level demographics there were numerous maps posted in the above thread; look them over if you like)

----------


## drummergirl



----------


## dsw

> OK- Your red graph line is distorting the sharpness of the elbow but looks like you've done it. Your "straight" line is way off. If there's any way to distort the natural sharpness of the elbow any more than you have, I'd be shocked.


I'm not sure what you mean.  The red line is the data.  The "straight" lines actually are straight.  With my data it only starts to look like an elbow with the y-axis compressed, and with the linear overlays.   Plot it without compressing the y-axis, and without the linear overlays, and it's the first graph I posted.  If there really is an elbow then my calculation is wrong.  I'll append the data below, with x and y values scaled by 100,000 and 1000 respectively to match your graph.

If I've got the data wrong, could  you perhaps append your own data points for that original #2 graph (or for that matter, any other delegate scoring method you think is more clear as long as the calculation method is clear)?   I want to be sure I understand what's going on around that 300,000 point, with data I can replicate, before getting deeper into your analysis.  



```
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, 0.0
1e-05, 0.001
2e-05, 0.001
3e-05, 0.001
4e-05, 0.001
5e-05, 0.0
6e-05, -0.001
7e-05, -0.001
8e-05, -0.000777777777778
9e-05, -0.000777777777778
0.0001, -0.000777777777778
0.00011, 0.000166666666667
0.00012, 0.000166666666667
0.00013, 0.000166666666667
0.00014, 0.000166666666667
0.00015, 0.00116666666667
0.00016, 0.00116666666667
0.00017, 0.00116666666667
0.00018, 0.00116666666667
0.00019, 0.00116666666667
0.0002, 0.00116666666667
0.00021, 0.00116666666667
0.00022, 0.00116666666667
0.00023, 0.00116666666667
0.00025, 0.000166666666667
0.00027, 0.00116666666667
0.00029, 0.00116666666667
0.00031, 0.00316666666667
0.00033, 0.00316666666667
0.00035, 0.00277777777778
0.00037, 0.00277777777778
0.00039, 0.00372222222222
0.00041, 0.00272222222222
0.00043, 0.00272222222222
0.00045, 0.00172222222222
0.00047, 0.00172222222222
0.00049, 0.00316666666667
0.00051, 0.00316666666667
0.00053, 0.002
0.00055, 0.002
0.00057, 0.00194444444444
0.00059, 0.00294444444444
0.00061, 0.00294444444444
0.00063, 0.00283333333333
0.00065, 0.00311111111111
0.00067, 0.00311111111111
0.00069, 0.00311111111111
0.00072, 0.0035
0.00075, 0.0035
0.00078, 0.0035
0.00081, 0.00333333333333
0.00084, 0.00338888888889
0.00087, 0.00527777777778
0.0009, 0.00727777777778
0.00093, 0.00638888888889
0.00096, 0.00461111111111
0.00099, 0.00361111111111
0.00102, 0.00366666666667
0.00105, 0.00405555555556
0.00108, 0.007
0.00111, 0.00755555555556
0.00115, 0.0085
0.00119, 0.0085
0.00123, 0.00877777777778
0.00127, 0.00877777777778
0.00131, 0.00777777777778
0.00135, 0.00644444444444
0.00139, 0.00744444444444
0.00143, 0.00744444444444
0.00147, 0.00744444444444
0.00151, 0.00716666666667
0.00155, 0.00616666666667
0.0016, 0.00522222222222
0.00165, 0.00522222222222
0.0017, 0.006
0.00175, 0.006
0.0018, 0.00505555555556
0.00185, 0.00505555555556
0.0019, 0.00405555555556
0.00195, 0.00305555555556
0.002, 0.00305555555556
0.00205, 0.00305555555556
0.0021, 0.00366666666667
0.00215, 0.00266666666667
0.0022, 0.000722222222222
0.00225, -5.55555555556e-05
0.0023, 0.00394444444444
0.00235, 0.00405555555556
0.0024, 0.00405555555556
0.00245, 0.00427777777778
0.00251, 0.00444444444444
0.00257, 0.00383333333333
0.00263, 0.00377777777778
0.00269, 0.00672222222222
0.00275, 0.00672222222222
0.00281, 0.00866666666667
0.00287, 0.0075
0.00293, 0.00744444444444
0.00299, 0.00644444444444
0.00305, 0.00544444444444
0.00311, 0.00344444444444
0.00317, 0.0025
0.00323, 0.0025
0.00329, 0.00216666666667
0.00336, 0.00133333333333
0.00343, 0.00133333333333
0.0035, 0.000388888888889
0.00357, 0.000388888888889
0.00364, -0.000333333333333
0.00371, 0.000666666666667
0.00378, -0.000722222222222
0.00385, -0.00172222222222
0.00392, -0.0025
0.00399, -0.00188888888889
0.00406, -0.000444444444444
0.00413, -0.00138888888889
0.0042, -0.00233333333333
0.00427, -0.00238888888889
0.00435, -0.000388888888889
0.00443, 0.00222222222222
0.00451, 0.00222222222222
0.00459, 0.00288888888889
0.00467, 0.00388888888889
0.00475, 0.00394444444444
0.00483, 0.00144444444444
0.00491, -0.0005
0.005, -0.00116666666667
0.00509, -0.00255555555556
0.00518, -0.00355555555556
0.00527, -0.00594444444444
0.00536, -0.00433333333333
0.00545, -0.00533333333333
0.00554, -0.00733333333333
0.00563, -0.00722222222222
0.00572, -0.00616666666667
0.00581, -0.00722222222222
0.0059, -0.00916666666667
0.00599, -0.00816666666667
0.00608, -0.00861111111111
0.00617, -0.0107222222222
0.00626, -0.0126666666667
0.00635, -0.00727777777778
0.00644, -0.00638888888889
0.00653, -0.00572222222222
0.00662, -0.00688888888889
0.00671, -0.00688888888889
0.00681, -0.00988888888889
0.00691, -0.0104444444444
0.00701, -0.0101111111111
0.00711, -0.0121111111111
0.00721, -0.00866666666667
0.00732, -0.00705555555556
0.00743, -0.00644444444444
0.00754, -0.00577777777778
0.00765, -0.00777777777778
0.00776, -0.00744444444444
0.00787, -0.00944444444444
0.00798, -0.0108888888889
0.00809, -0.0104444444444
0.0082, -0.0075
0.00831, -0.00877777777778
0.00842, -0.00711111111111
0.00854, -0.00711111111111
0.00866, -0.00722222222222
0.00878, -0.00622222222222
0.0089, -0.00761111111111
0.00902, -0.00861111111111
0.00914, -0.00744444444444
0.00926, -0.00744444444444
0.00938, -0.00838888888889
0.0095, -0.00838888888889
0.00962, -0.009
0.00974, -0.0119444444444
0.00986, -0.00794444444444
0.00999, -0.0130555555556
0.01012, -0.0115555555556
0.01025, -0.0106111111111
0.01038, -0.0117222222222
0.01051, -0.00972222222222
0.01064, -0.011
0.01077, -0.00727777777778
0.0109, -0.00633333333333
0.01104, -0.00588888888889
0.01118, -0.00694444444444
0.01132, -0.00661111111111
0.01146, -0.00661111111111
0.0116, -0.008
0.01174, -0.00816666666667
0.01188, -0.0075
0.01202, -0.00794444444444
0.01216, -0.00438888888889
0.0123, -0.00633333333333
0.01244, -0.00488888888889
0.01258, -0.00688888888889
0.01272, -0.00988888888889
0.01286, -0.0107222222222
0.01301, -0.00983333333333
0.01316, -0.00777777777778
0.01331, -0.00777777777778
0.01346, -0.00877777777778
0.01361, -0.007
0.01376, -0.00405555555556
0.01391, -0.00294444444444
0.01406, -0.00394444444444
0.01421, -0.00405555555556
0.01436, -0.00711111111111
0.01451, -0.00172222222222
0.01466, -0.00233333333333
0.01482, -0.000666666666667
0.01498, -0.00272222222222
0.01514, -0.00244444444444
0.0153, -0.00444444444444
0.01546, -0.00477777777778
0.01562, -0.00694444444444
0.01578, -0.00411111111111
0.01594, -0.00227777777778
0.0161, -0.000277777777778
0.01627, -0.00327777777778
0.01644, 0.000388888888889
0.01661, 0.00338888888889
0.01678, -0.00211111111111
0.01695, -0.00144444444444
0.01712, -0.000444444444444
0.01729, -0.0005
0.01747, -0.000166666666667
0.01765, 0.000111111111111
0.01783, 0.000444444444444
0.01801, 0.000111111111111
0.01819, -0.00461111111111
0.01837, -0.00761111111111
0.01855, -0.00855555555556
0.01873, -0.00694444444444
0.01891, -0.007
0.0191, -0.00577777777778
0.01929, -0.00688888888889
0.01948, -0.00894444444444
0.01967, -0.01
0.01986, -0.009
0.02005, -0.00805555555556
0.02024, -0.00677777777778
0.02043, -0.0075
0.02062, -0.00633333333333
0.02081, -0.00355555555556
0.02101, 0.000666666666667
0.02121, -0.000888888888889
0.02141, -0.00527777777778
0.02161, -0.00527777777778
0.02181, -0.00655555555556
0.02202, -0.00483333333333
0.02223, -0.00944444444444
0.02244, -0.00727777777778
0.02265, -0.00333333333333
0.02286, -0.00533333333333
0.02307, -0.00261111111111
0.02329, -0.00566666666667
0.02351, -0.00422222222222
0.02373, -0.00633333333333
0.02395, -0.00694444444444
0.02417, -0.0105555555556
0.02439, -0.00972222222222
0.02461, -0.00488888888889
0.02484, -0.00388888888889
0.02507, -0.00388888888889
0.0253, -0.00616666666667
0.02553, -0.00527777777778
0.02576, -0.00433333333333
0.02599, -0.00138888888889
0.02623, 0.00155555555556
0.02647, 0.00294444444444
0.02671, 0.00494444444444
0.02695, 0.00494444444444
0.02719, 0.00288888888889
0.02743, 0.00394444444444
0.02767, 0.000722222222222
0.02791, -0.000944444444444
0.02815, -0.00377777777778
0.02839, -0.00533333333333
0.02863, -0.00477777777778
0.02887, -0.00377777777778
0.02912, -0.00605555555556
0.02937, -0.00166666666667
0.02962, 0.000333333333333
0.02987, 0.00566666666667
0.03012, 0.00266666666667
0.03037, -0.000333333333333
0.03062, 0.000333333333333
0.03088, 0.003
0.03114, 0.0103333333333
0.0314, 0.00844444444444
0.03167, 0.00916666666667
0.03194, 0.0159444444444
0.03221, 0.0153888888889
0.03249, 0.0122777777778
0.03277, 0.00844444444444
0.03305, 0.00994444444444
0.03333, 0.012
0.03362, 0.0120555555556
0.03391, 0.0150555555556
0.0342, 0.0133333333333
0.03449, 0.0153333333333
0.03478, 0.00972222222222
0.03507, 0.00672222222222
0.03536, 0.00855555555556
0.03565, 0.0075
0.03595, 0.00172222222222
0.03625, -0.00138888888889
0.03655, 0.00566666666667
0.03685, 0.00538888888889
0.03715, 0.00544444444444
0.03745, 0.0131666666667
0.03775, 0.0112222222222
0.03805, 0.014
0.03835, 0.0172222222222
0.03865, 0.0164444444444
0.03895, 0.0171111111111
0.03925, 0.0161666666667
0.03955, 0.0142222222222
0.03986, 0.0225555555556
0.04017, 0.0224444444444
0.04048, 0.0263888888889
0.04079, 0.0262222222222
0.0411, 0.0255555555556
0.04141, 0.0272222222222
0.04173, 0.028
0.04205, 0.0243333333333
0.04237, 0.0249444444444
0.04269, 0.0177222222222
0.04301, 0.0193333333333
0.04333, 0.0168333333333
0.04365, 0.0201111111111
0.04397, 0.0229444444444
0.04429, 0.0227777777778
0.04461, 0.0252777777778
0.04494, 0.0265
0.04527, 0.0247777777778
0.0456, 0.025
0.04593, 0.024
0.04626, 0.0298333333333
0.04659, 0.0298888888889
0.04692, 0.0268888888889
0.04725, 0.0306111111111
0.04759, 0.0301666666667
0.04793, 0.0279444444444
0.04827, 0.0277222222222
0.04861, 0.0307777777778
0.04895, 0.0301111111111
0.0493, 0.0269444444444
0.04965, 0.0253333333333
0.05001, 0.0231666666667
0.05037, 0.0231111111111
0.05073, 0.0241111111111
0.05109, 0.0219444444444
0.05145, 0.0206666666667
0.05181, 0.017
0.05217, 0.0137777777778
0.05253, 0.0117222222222
0.05289, 0.0189444444444
0.05325, 0.0208333333333
0.05362, 0.00911111111111
0.05399, 0.00588888888889
0.05436, 0.00661111111111
0.05473, 0.00555555555556
0.0551, 0.00122222222222
0.05547, 0.00188888888889
0.05585, 0.00355555555556
0.05623, 5.55555555556e-05
0.05661, -0.000333333333333
0.05699, -0.00516666666667
0.05737, 0.00361111111111
0.05776, 0.00311111111111
0.05815, 0.000444444444444
0.05854, 0.00233333333333
0.05893, 0.00655555555556
0.05932, 0.0118888888889
0.05971, 0.0126666666667
0.0601, 0.0126111111111
0.06049, 0.0133888888889
0.06088, 0.0130555555556
0.06127, 0.0134444444444
0.06166, 0.0139444444444
0.06206, 0.0141666666667
0.06246, 0.0151111111111
0.06286, 0.0146666666667
0.06326, 0.0146666666667
0.06366, 0.0118333333333
0.06406, 0.0126666666667
0.06446, 0.011
0.06486, 0.0109444444444
0.06527, 0.00966666666667
0.06568, 0.00911111111111
0.06609, 0.0114444444444
0.0665, 0.0101111111111
0.06691, 0.0114444444444
0.06732, 0.0141666666667
0.06773, 0.0140555555556
0.06814, 0.0172222222222
0.06856, 0.0145
0.06898, 0.0134444444444
0.0694, 0.0205
0.06982, 0.0253888888889
0.07024, 0.0163333333333
0.07066, 0.0146111111111
0.07108, 0.0141111111111
0.0715, 0.0195555555556
0.07192, 0.0193888888889
0.07234, 0.0208888888889
0.07276, 0.0208333333333
0.07319, 0.0230555555556
0.07362, 0.0250555555556
0.07405, 0.0225
0.07448, 0.0248333333333
0.07491, 0.0222222222222
0.07535, 0.0291111111111
0.07579, 0.0295
0.07623, 0.0312222222222
0.07667, 0.0260555555556
0.07711, 0.028
0.07755, 0.0322777777778
0.07799, 0.0333888888889
0.07843, 0.032
0.07887, 0.0195555555556
0.07932, 0.0182222222222
0.07977, 0.0192777777778
0.08022, 0.0158888888889
0.08067, 0.0168888888889
0.08112, 0.0159444444444
0.08157, 0.0128888888889
0.08203, 0.0122777777778
0.08249, 0.0134444444444
0.08295, 0.006
0.08341, 0.00905555555556
0.08387, 0.0209444444444
0.08433, 0.0175
0.08479, 0.0242777777778
0.08525, 0.0237777777778
0.08571, 0.0174444444444
0.08617, 0.0175555555556
0.08663, 0.0165555555556
0.0871, 0.0145
0.08757, 0.0130555555556
0.08804, 0.0119444444444
0.08851, 0.0158333333333
0.08898, 0.0146111111111
0.08945, 0.0127777777778
0.08992, 0.007
0.09039, 0.00905555555556
0.09086, 0.0199444444444
0.09134, 0.0227777777778
0.09182, 0.0178888888889
0.0923, 0.0194444444444
0.09278, 0.0190555555556
0.09326, 0.0127222222222
0.09374, 0.0184444444444
0.09423, 0.0206666666667
0.09472, 0.0217222222222
0.09521, 0.0173888888889
0.09571, 0.0154444444444
0.09621, 0.0145555555556
0.09671, 0.0116111111111
0.09722, 0.0121111111111
0.09773, 0.0104444444444
0.09824, 0.0154444444444
0.09875, 0.0119444444444
0.09926, 0.0106666666667
0.09977, 0.0116111111111
0.10028, 0.0105
0.10079, 0.0111666666667
0.10131, 0.0165
0.10183, 0.0155555555556
0.10235, 0.0172222222222
0.10287, 0.0173888888889
0.10339, 0.0191111111111
0.10391, 0.0209444444444
0.10443, 0.0166111111111
0.10495, 0.0212777777778
0.10548, 0.0204444444444
0.10601, 0.0244444444444
0.10654, 0.0276666666667
0.10707, 0.0244444444444
0.1076, 0.0255
0.10813, 0.0250555555556
0.10866, 0.0267777777778
0.10919, 0.0197777777778
0.10973, 0.0132777777778
0.11027, 0.0152222222222
0.11081, 0.0159444444444
0.11136, 0.0147222222222
0.11191, 0.0142777777778
0.11246, 0.0166666666667
0.11301, 0.0225555555556
0.11357, 0.0247777777778
0.11413, 0.0328888888889
0.11469, 0.0437777777778
0.11525, 0.0535
0.11582, 0.0510555555556
0.11639, 0.0569444444444
0.11696, 0.0506666666667
0.11754, 0.0506666666667
0.11812, 0.0488888888889
0.1187, 0.0472777777778
0.11928, 0.045
0.11986, 0.0439444444444
0.12045, 0.0522222222222
0.12104, 0.0501666666667
0.12163, 0.0463888888889
0.12222, 0.045
0.12281, 0.0422777777778
0.12341, 0.0416666666667
0.12401, 0.0417222222222
0.12461, 0.0353888888889
0.12521, 0.0343333333333
0.12581, 0.0313888888889
0.12641, 0.0321666666667
0.12701, 0.0347777777778
0.12762, 0.0387222222222
0.12823, 0.0285
0.12885, 0.0220555555556
0.12947, 0.0273333333333
0.13009, 0.0406666666667
0.13071, 0.0383888888889
0.13134, 0.0516111111111
0.13197, 0.0474444444444
0.1326, 0.0546666666667
0.13323, 0.0534444444444
0.13387, 0.0621666666667
0.13451, 0.0663888888889
0.13515, 0.0637777777778
0.13579, 0.0572222222222
0.13644, 0.0606666666667
0.13709, 0.0644444444444
0.13774, 0.0730555555556
0.13839, 0.0796666666667
0.13904, 0.0857777777778
0.13969, 0.0803333333333
0.14034, 0.0800555555556
0.14099, 0.0786111111111
0.14164, 0.0790555555556
0.14229, 0.0705555555556
0.14294, 0.0636666666667
0.1436, 0.0643333333333
0.14426, 0.0797777777778
0.14492, 0.103333333333
0.14558, 0.104833333333
0.14624, 0.110055555556
0.1469, 0.111611111111
0.14756, 0.119944444444
0.14823, 0.123166666667
0.1489, 0.122722222222
0.14957, 0.126611111111
0.15024, 0.125333333333
0.15092, 0.124722222222
0.1516, 0.131111111111
0.15229, 0.134055555556
0.15298, 0.134222222222
0.15367, 0.133333333333
0.15436, 0.134722222222
0.15505, 0.131333333333
0.15574, 0.1415
0.15643, 0.138555555556
0.15712, 0.144833333333
0.15781, 0.145944444444
0.15851, 0.141444444444
0.15921, 0.154944444444
0.15991, 0.154277777778
0.16061, 0.158611111111
0.16131, 0.162111111111
0.16201, 0.162722222222
0.16272, 0.174055555556
0.16343, 0.175444444444
0.16414, 0.167111111111
0.16485, 0.166222222222
0.16556, 0.172722222222
0.16627, 0.1735
0.16698, 0.166222222222
0.1677, 0.173111111111
0.16842, 0.173666666667
0.16914, 0.177277777778
0.16986, 0.179055555556
0.17059, 0.170055555556
0.17133, 0.183166666667
0.17207, 0.182277777778
0.17281, 0.185666666667
0.17356, 0.190888888889
0.17431, 0.184777777778
0.17506, 0.183777777778
0.17581, 0.179888888889
0.17657, 0.183888888889
0.17733, 0.187611111111
0.17809, 0.191333333333
0.17885, 0.192
0.17961, 0.196111111111
0.18037, 0.205388888889
0.18113, 0.207333333333
0.18189, 0.199388888889
0.18265, 0.204944444444
0.18341, 0.206
0.18417, 0.205944444444
0.18494, 0.205833333333
0.18572, 0.21
0.1865, 0.213388888889
0.18728, 0.210888888889
0.18807, 0.210444444444
0.18886, 0.209333333333
0.18965, 0.206666666667
0.19044, 0.198888888889
0.19124, 0.202722222222
0.19204, 0.2105
0.19284, 0.225944444444
0.19365, 0.221111111111
0.19446, 0.221944444444
0.19527, 0.226777777778
0.19608, 0.241555555556
0.19689, 0.248888888889
0.1977, 0.241444444444
0.19851, 0.245222222222
0.19933, 0.247277777778
0.20015, 0.251111111111
0.20097, 0.248444444444
0.20179, 0.254444444444
0.20261, 0.258833333333
0.20344, 0.257111111111
0.20427, 0.253388888889
0.2051, 0.262388888889
0.20593, 0.262666666667
0.20676, 0.262388888889
0.20759, 0.267166666667
0.20842, 0.269666666667
0.20925, 0.261777777778
0.21008, 0.265777777778
0.21092, 0.273722222222
0.21176, 0.269777777778
0.2126, 0.270277777778
0.21344, 0.261277777778
0.21429, 0.262888888889
0.21514, 0.266333333333
0.21599, 0.263833333333
0.21684, 0.266222222222
0.21769, 0.260611111111
0.21854, 0.253333333333
0.21939, 0.250611111111
0.22025, 0.252777777778
0.22111, 0.265222222222
0.22197, 0.261777777778
0.22283, 0.270833333333
0.22369, 0.272277777778
0.22455, 0.267611111111
0.22541, 0.261166666667
0.22628, 0.272
0.22716, 0.280777777778
0.22804, 0.282444444444
0.22893, 0.280666666667
0.22982, 0.270277777778
0.23071, 0.269222222222
0.2316, 0.268555555556
0.23249, 0.264944444444
0.23338, 0.259833333333
0.23427, 0.2605
0.23517, 0.257
0.23607, 0.266555555556
0.23697, 0.267888888889
0.23787, 0.265277777778
0.23877, 0.259666666667
0.23968, 0.264888888889
0.24059, 0.267666666667
0.24151, 0.258944444444
0.24243, 0.251388888889
0.24335, 0.240222222222
0.24427, 0.240111111111
0.2452, 0.2405
0.24613, 0.244111111111
0.24706, 0.256777777778
0.24799, 0.273222222222
0.24892, 0.279
0.24986, 0.286777777778
0.2508, 0.293388888889
0.25174, 0.292055555556
0.25269, 0.298611111111
0.25364, 0.302277777778
0.25459, 0.302444444444
0.25554, 0.310111111111
0.2565, 0.291111111111
0.25746, 0.296722222222
0.25842, 0.299166666667
0.25938, 0.304055555556
0.26034, 0.303055555556
0.2613, 0.305277777778
0.26227, 0.296222222222
0.26324, 0.305166666667
0.26422, 0.302833333333
0.2652, 0.307555555556
0.26618, 0.316666666667
0.26716, 0.3145
0.26814, 0.305833333333
0.26913, 0.304611111111
0.27012, 0.296166666667
0.27112, 0.285666666667
0.27212, 0.282666666667
0.27312, 0.277222222222
0.27412, 0.259611111111
0.27512, 0.2645
0.27612, 0.278444444444
0.27713, 0.277722222222
0.27814, 0.285666666667
0.27915, 0.295277777778
0.28016, 0.297555555556
0.28118, 0.317944444444
0.2822, 0.328388888889
0.28322, 0.327777777778
0.28425, 0.331722222222
0.28528, 0.339222222222
0.28631, 0.333888888889
0.28734, 0.347333333333
0.28837, 0.349055555556
0.2894, 0.3465
0.29043, 0.342277777778
0.29147, 0.356388888889
0.29251, 0.347777777778
0.29355, 0.336666666667
0.2946, 0.337777777778
0.29565, 0.345111111111
0.2967, 0.354333333333
0.29775, 0.350277777778
0.2988, 0.340666666667
0.29986, 0.3385
0.30092, 0.344166666667
0.30198, 0.358444444444
0.30304, 0.359333333333
0.3041, 0.352111111111
0.30516, 0.350166666667
0.30623, 0.341388888889
0.30731, 0.330222222222
0.30839, 0.343833333333
0.30947, 0.355
0.31055, 0.364611111111
0.31163, 0.365833333333
0.31272, 0.3715
0.31381, 0.379388888889
0.3149, 0.380055555556
0.31599, 0.378388888889
0.31708, 0.367555555556
0.31818, 0.365
0.31928, 0.355833333333
0.32038, 0.358388888889
0.32149, 0.372111111111
0.32261, 0.374888888889
0.32373, 0.371222222222
0.32485, 0.372722222222
0.32598, 0.377
0.32711, 0.378
0.32825, 0.381277777778
0.32939, 0.381444444444
0.33053, 0.393222222222
0.33167, 0.397055555556
0.33281, 0.394222222222
0.33396, 0.401388888889
0.33511, 0.420611111111
0.33626, 0.413444444444
0.33742, 0.420944444444
0.33859, 0.423611111111
0.33976, 0.424777777778
0.34093, 0.418277777778
0.3421, 0.421222222222
0.34327, 0.414166666667
0.34444, 0.428388888889
0.34562, 0.421722222222
0.3468, 0.410277777778
0.34798, 0.398666666667
0.34916, 0.392944444444
0.35035, 0.401055555556
0.35154, 0.401555555556
0.35274, 0.400777777778
0.35394, 0.404666666667
0.35514, 0.415222222222
0.35635, 0.431722222222
0.35756, 0.443944444444
0.35878, 0.438888888889
0.36, 0.444777777778
0.36122, 0.452833333333
0.36245, 0.473055555556
0.36368, 0.487166666667
0.36491, 0.502277777778
0.36614, 0.487555555556
0.36738, 0.481777777778
0.36862, 0.482388888889
0.36986, 0.484388888889
0.3711, 0.500388888889
0.37234, 0.509833333333
0.37358, 0.512277777778
0.37482, 0.505388888889
0.37607, 0.508388888889
0.37733, 0.514277777778
0.37859, 0.501111111111
0.37985, 0.5
0.38111, 0.488944444444
0.38237, 0.491833333333
0.38363, 0.478111111111
0.3849, 0.486333333333
0.38617, 0.494555555556
0.38744, 0.506444444444
0.38871, 0.497388888889
0.38998, 0.492277777778
0.39125, 0.486944444444
0.39252, 0.499888888889
0.39379, 0.497277777778
0.39507, 0.496722222222
0.39635, 0.491444444444
0.39763, 0.481222222222
0.39892, 0.464666666667
0.40021, 0.455444444444
0.40151, 0.448722222222
0.40281, 0.457
0.40411, 0.428
0.40541, 0.421055555556
0.40672, 0.429277777778
0.40803, 0.4235
0.40934, 0.421888888889
0.41066, 0.410277777778
0.41198, 0.404444444444
0.4133, 0.402166666667
0.41462, 0.402611111111
0.41594, 0.407555555556
0.41726, 0.408611111111
0.41858, 0.417944444444
0.41991, 0.441388888889
0.42124, 0.436611111111
0.42257, 0.422277777778
0.42391, 0.433
0.42525, 0.427222222222
0.4266, 0.429722222222
0.42795, 0.434388888889
0.4293, 0.442833333333
0.43065, 0.432166666667
0.432, 0.4205
0.43335, 0.420833333333
0.43471, 0.411777777778
0.43607, 0.4235
0.43743, 0.421611111111
0.43879, 0.415666666667
0.44015, 0.421277777778
0.44152, 0.443055555556
0.44289, 0.439555555556
0.44427, 0.450333333333
0.44565, 0.451722222222
0.44704, 0.458388888889
0.44844, 0.465611111111
0.44985, 0.475111111111
0.45127, 0.472555555556
0.45269, 0.461555555556
0.45412, 0.475333333333
0.45555, 0.464777777778
0.45698, 0.460944444444
0.45841, 0.447333333333
0.45984, 0.462222222222
0.46128, 0.477111111111
0.46272, 0.476666666667
0.46416, 0.467222222222
0.4656, 0.468055555556
0.46705, 0.473388888889
0.4685, 0.483277777778
0.46996, 0.499666666667
0.47142, 0.496333333333
0.47289, 0.511111111111
0.47436, 0.4955
0.47584, 0.493055555556
0.47732, 0.492055555556
0.4788, 0.4995
0.48028, 0.491722222222
0.48177, 0.487722222222
0.48328, 0.502944444444
0.48479, 0.496
0.48631, 0.499833333333
0.48783, 0.499888888889
0.48935, 0.504833333333
0.49088, 0.496666666667
0.49241, 0.5115
0.49394, 0.538777777778
0.49547, 0.5335
0.497, 0.529888888889
0.49854, 0.528
0.50008, 0.518777777778
0.50162, 0.517111111111
0.50316, 0.525277777778
0.5047, 0.533444444444
0.50625, 0.541222222222
0.5078, 0.551222222222
0.50935, 0.556277777778
0.5109, 0.574333333333
0.51245, 0.576666666667
0.514, 0.578055555556
0.51555, 0.571444444444
0.5171, 0.571555555556
0.51865, 0.589222222222
0.52021, 0.576444444444
0.52177, 0.575666666667
0.52333, 0.572888888889
0.52491, 0.583666666667
0.52649, 0.585555555556
0.52807, 0.574055555556
0.52966, 0.559555555556
0.53125, 0.548555555556
0.53285, 0.556722222222
0.53446, 0.5605
0.53607, 0.571222222222
0.53769, 0.592722222222
0.53931, 0.585611111111
0.54093, 0.585833333333
0.54255, 0.600055555556
0.54417, 0.597611111111
0.5458, 0.603333333333
0.54743, 0.612166666667
0.54907, 0.617277777778
0.55071, 0.607666666667
0.55235, 0.608222222222
0.554, 0.598222222222
0.55565, 0.595888888889
0.5573, 0.593888888889
0.55895, 0.606444444444
0.56061, 0.602722222222
0.56227, 0.591666666667
0.56394, 0.594333333333
0.56561, 0.588166666667
0.56728, 0.585777777778
0.56895, 0.585111111111
0.57063, 0.584222222222
0.57232, 0.581166666667
0.57401, 0.581222222222
0.57571, 0.574444444444
0.57741, 0.591
0.57912, 0.605277777778
0.58084, 0.590111111111
0.58256, 0.583444444444
0.58428, 0.595833333333
0.586, 0.597833333333
0.58772, 0.578555555556
0.58946, 0.566222222222
0.5912, 0.568722222222
0.59294, 0.554444444444
0.59469, 0.5715
0.59645, 0.569666666667
0.59821, 0.556055555556
0.59997, 0.548
0.60173, 0.539555555556
0.60351, 0.548944444444
0.60529, 0.537777777778
0.60707, 0.547555555556
0.60885, 0.537555555556
0.61064, 0.550277777778
0.61244, 0.556166666667
0.61424, 0.540666666667
0.61604, 0.535555555556
0.61785, 0.535222222222
0.61966, 0.560888888889
0.62147, 0.571222222222
0.62328, 0.585388888889
0.62509, 0.568222222222
0.62692, 0.574388888889
0.62875, 0.584444444444
0.63058, 0.587333333333
0.63241, 0.579944444444
0.63425, 0.604888888889
0.63609, 0.594611111111
0.63793, 0.584611111111
0.63978, 0.582555555556
0.64163, 0.578388888889
0.64348, 0.570111111111
0.64534, 0.549111111111
0.64721, 0.523222222222
0.64908, 0.509888888889
0.65095, 0.508777777778
0.65282, 0.500666666667
0.6547, 0.485277777778
0.65658, 0.4765
0.65847, 0.477111111111
0.66036, 0.475277777778
0.66226, 0.477777777778
0.66417, 0.494833333333
0.66608, 0.493222222222
0.66799, 0.493666666667
0.66992, 0.497166666667
0.67185, 0.495055555556
0.67378, 0.510333333333
0.67572, 0.529
0.67766, 0.516
0.67961, 0.517666666667
0.68156, 0.497722222222
0.68352, 0.507333333333
0.68548, 0.512111111111
0.68746, 0.512222222222
0.68944, 0.499222222222
0.69142, 0.512611111111
0.6934, 0.514777777778
0.69539, 0.530444444444
0.69738, 0.527055555556
0.69938, 0.523888888889
0.70138, 0.543722222222
0.70338, 0.547111111111
0.70538, 0.552166666667
0.70738, 0.601222222222
0.70939, 0.604722222222
0.7114, 0.595611111111
0.71342, 0.594111111111
0.71544, 0.595833333333
0.71746, 0.591722222222
0.71949, 0.583277777778
0.72153, 0.571944444444
0.72357, 0.586611111111
0.72561, 0.564777777778
0.72768, 0.552055555556
0.72975, 0.556833333333
0.73182, 0.561277777778
0.73389, 0.574666666667
0.73597, 0.580666666667
0.73805, 0.583166666667
0.74013, 0.571666666667
0.74221, 0.550055555556
0.7443, 0.546166666667
0.74639, 0.544833333333
0.74848, 0.544833333333
0.75058, 0.560388888889
0.75268, 0.561111111111
0.75478, 0.5605
0.75689, 0.545444444444
0.759, 0.555555555556
0.76111, 0.552055555556
0.76322, 0.546777777778
0.76533, 0.571722222222
0.76745, 0.587611111111
0.76957, 0.587944444444
0.7717, 0.589277777778
0.77383, 0.580722222222
0.77596, 0.571
0.7781, 0.580611111111
0.78025, 0.565277777778
0.7824, 0.561111111111
0.78455, 0.558555555556
0.7867, 0.580166666667
0.78885, 0.568722222222
0.79101, 0.579722222222
0.79317, 0.581388888889
0.79533, 0.582388888889
0.79749, 0.572111111111
0.79965, 0.589833333333
0.80182, 0.593611111111
0.80399, 0.590333333333
0.80616, 0.591611111111
0.80833, 0.61
0.81051, 0.617555555556
0.81269, 0.627
0.81488, 0.6375
0.81708, 0.652166666667
0.81928, 0.6715
0.82148, 0.686944444444
0.82369, 0.684944444444
0.8259, 0.697777777778
0.82811, 0.696833333333
0.83033, 0.708722222222
0.83255, 0.724722222222
0.83477, 0.714111111111
0.837, 0.7165
0.83923, 0.690944444444
0.84146, 0.686611111111
0.84369, 0.7205
0.84592, 0.721111111111
0.84816, 0.719333333333
0.8504, 0.701611111111
0.85264, 0.700333333333
0.85489, 0.685
0.85714, 0.700888888889
0.85939, 0.7605
0.86164, 0.752444444444
0.8639, 0.754166666667
0.86616, 0.765944444444
0.86843, 0.776277777778
0.87071, 0.780055555556
0.87299, 0.766611111111
0.87527, 0.767333333333
0.87755, 0.764444444444
0.87984, 0.753833333333
0.88213, 0.766833333333
0.88442, 0.776944444444
0.88671, 0.779833333333
0.889, 0.794777777778
0.8913, 0.781777777778
0.89361, 0.764888888889
0.89592, 0.748611111111
0.89824, 0.777555555556
0.90056, 0.767722222222
0.9029, 0.791555555556
0.90524, 0.791277777778
0.90758, 0.778333333333
0.90992, 0.779944444444
0.91226, 0.827388888889
0.91461, 0.805777777778
0.91696, 0.807722222222
0.91931, 0.795333333333
0.92167, 0.805555555556
0.92403, 0.801111111111
0.9264, 0.794055555556
0.92877, 0.812444444444
0.93115, 0.805222222222
0.93353, 0.787444444444
0.93592, 0.792666666667
0.93831, 0.819611111111
0.94071, 0.850222222222
0.94312, 0.823055555556
0.94553, 0.827611111111
0.94795, 0.813111111111
0.95037, 0.818166666667
0.9528, 0.836111111111
0.95523, 0.8415
0.95766, 0.823
0.96009, 0.808388888889
0.96253, 0.81
0.96497, 0.808333333333
0.96741, 0.817388888889
0.96985, 0.811666666667
0.97229, 0.861777777778
0.97473, 0.841666666667
0.97718, 0.863
0.97963, 0.887388888889
0.98208, 0.881777777778
0.98454, 0.871611111111
0.987, 0.870222222222
0.98946, 0.898055555556
0.99192, 0.911666666667
0.99439, 0.939777777778
0.99686, 0.966888888889
0.99933, 0.968833333333
1.00181, 0.961777777778
1.00429, 0.976722222222
1.00678, 0.973777777778
1.00928, 1.00922222222
1.01178, 1.03
1.01428, 1.03605555556
1.01679, 1.05311111111
1.01932, 1.07144444444
1.02185, 1.08694444444
1.02438, 1.12911111111
1.02692, 1.13227777778
1.02946, 1.13744444444
1.03201, 1.14805555556
1.03456, 1.172
1.03711, 1.14405555556
1.03966, 1.13266666667
1.04222, 1.12033333333
1.0448, 1.13544444444
1.04739, 1.11083333333
1.04998, 1.13161111111
1.05258, 1.13272222222
1.05518, 1.14227777778
1.05779, 1.19661111111
1.06041, 1.22633333333
1.06303, 1.22383333333
1.06565, 1.23116666667
1.06827, 1.22694444444
1.07089, 1.23983333333
1.07351, 1.22272222222
1.07613, 1.23305555556
1.07875, 1.22144444444
1.0814, 1.22033333333
1.08405, 1.216
1.0867, 1.24855555556
1.08936, 1.26666666667
1.09203, 1.27005555556
1.0947, 1.26194444444
1.09738, 1.25472222222
1.10007, 1.25705555556
1.10276, 1.27288888889
1.10546, 1.27311111111
1.10817, 1.28438888889
1.11088, 1.28116666667
1.1136, 1.292
1.11633, 1.28477777778
1.11906, 1.28905555556
1.1218, 1.27511111111
1.12455, 1.26305555556
1.12731, 1.32827777778
1.13008, 1.34077777778
1.13285, 1.35066666667
1.13562, 1.38711111111
1.13839, 1.37372222222
1.14117, 1.376
1.14395, 1.36622222222
1.14674, 1.35438888889
1.14953, 1.35205555556
1.15232, 1.33866666667
1.15512, 1.33344444444
1.15793, 1.34283333333
1.16074, 1.345
1.16355, 1.3085
1.16637, 1.3135
1.16919, 1.33522222222
1.17201, 1.34244444444
1.17484, 1.37044444444
1.17767, 1.37772222222
1.18051, 1.34211111111
1.18335, 1.38533333333
1.1862, 1.38083333333
1.18905, 1.37277777778
1.19191, 1.39494444444
1.19477, 1.41122222222
1.19763, 1.42472222222
1.20049, 1.42133333333
1.20337, 1.42594444444
1.20625, 1.42788888889
1.20914, 1.42661111111
1.21203, 1.41988888889
1.21493, 1.42672222222
1.21783, 1.4265
1.22073, 1.40972222222
1.22363, 1.4355
1.22653, 1.42711111111
1.22945, 1.44222222222
1.23238, 1.437
1.23532, 1.44627777778
1.23827, 1.43722222222
1.24122, 1.45583333333
1.24417, 1.42855555556
1.24713, 1.44677777778
1.2501, 1.45338888889
1.25307, 1.4585
1.25604, 1.4735
1.25901, 1.46438888889
1.26199, 1.4665
1.26497, 1.49033333333
1.26795, 1.50661111111
1.27094, 1.51266666667
1.27393, 1.54033333333
1.27692, 1.54838888889
1.27992, 1.55416666667
1.28292, 1.58511111111
1.28593, 1.60738888889
1.28895, 1.60144444444
1.29197, 1.6155
1.29499, 1.63077777778
1.29801, 1.65844444444
1.30104, 1.64244444444
1.30407, 1.68572222222
1.3071, 1.70227777778
1.31015, 1.7335
1.3132, 1.72588888889
1.31627, 1.69811111111
1.31934, 1.70455555556
1.32241, 1.6795
1.32549, 1.67122222222
1.32857, 1.65822222222
1.33166, 1.64994444444
1.33476, 1.634
1.33787, 1.63933333333
1.34098, 1.626
1.3441, 1.63066666667
1.34724, 1.61272222222
1.35039, 1.61433333333
1.35356, 1.6175
1.35673, 1.62566666667
1.3599, 1.63088888889
1.36307, 1.614
1.36624, 1.59966666667
1.36941, 1.58766666667
1.37258, 1.60122222222
1.37576, 1.60805555556
1.37894, 1.609
1.38213, 1.5985
1.38533, 1.59338888889
1.38853, 1.58916666667
1.39174, 1.57783333333
1.39495, 1.57494444444
1.39816, 1.54977777778
1.40138, 1.55455555556
1.4046, 1.56588888889
1.40783, 1.61888888889
1.41107, 1.64644444444
1.41432, 1.65844444444
1.4176, 1.65
1.42089, 1.65633333333
1.4242, 1.62761111111
1.42751, 1.63077777778
1.43082, 1.63838888889
1.43415, 1.62672222222
1.43749, 1.63877777778
1.44083, 1.64211111111
1.44417, 1.66011111111
1.44752, 1.6605
1.4509, 1.65327777778
1.45429, 1.6245
1.45768, 1.62683333333
1.46109, 1.6125
1.4645, 1.62238888889
1.46792, 1.616
1.47139, 1.608
1.47486, 1.63294444444
1.47834, 1.66322222222
1.48182, 1.6705
1.48533, 1.64205555556
1.48885, 1.59088888889
1.49238, 1.59516666667
1.49593, 1.66994444444
1.49948, 1.66
1.50304, 1.66527777778
1.5066, 1.68488888889
1.51016, 1.70977777778
1.51372, 1.69255555556
1.51729, 1.68366666667
1.52087, 1.71944444444
1.52445, 1.7435
1.52803, 1.75388888889
1.53162, 1.8025
1.53521, 1.81277777778
1.53881, 1.8135
1.54242, 1.80755555556
1.54603, 1.80811111111
1.54966, 1.79955555556
1.5533, 1.79072222222
1.55695, 1.78505555556
1.5606, 1.77072222222
1.56425, 1.79294444444
1.56792, 1.76611111111
1.5716, 1.80322222222
1.57529, 1.78416666667
1.57898, 1.77872222222
1.58267, 1.78477777778
1.58637, 1.75766666667
1.59007, 1.75444444444
1.59378, 1.72638888889
1.59749, 1.73961111111
1.60122, 1.75872222222
1.60495, 1.80272222222
1.60868, 1.81316666667
1.61242, 1.787
1.6162, 1.78844444444
1.61998, 1.81105555556
1.62382, 1.76522222222
1.62766, 1.77427777778
1.6315, 1.78327777778
1.63535, 1.76883333333
1.6392, 1.74755555556
1.64307, 1.73511111111
1.64695, 1.76055555556
1.65085, 1.74288888889
1.65475, 1.79311111111
1.65867, 1.78633333333
1.66259, 1.74422222222
1.66654, 1.75672222222
1.67052, 1.7415
1.6745, 1.73455555556
1.67848, 1.75366666667
1.68249, 1.77588888889
1.68652, 1.73533333333
1.69055, 1.69861111111
1.69458, 1.68016666667
1.69862, 1.82194444444
1.70266, 1.84655555556
1.70671, 1.88722222222
1.71078, 1.867
1.71486, 1.86722222222
1.71898, 1.887
1.72312, 1.87038888889
1.72726, 1.88422222222
1.7314, 1.88566666667
1.73555, 1.87688888889
1.7397, 1.87344444444
1.74385, 1.88011111111
1.74803, 1.88933333333
1.75222, 1.86422222222
1.75643, 1.8385
1.76064, 1.84266666667
1.76485, 1.85105555556
1.76907, 1.83894444444
1.77329, 1.91261111111
1.77753, 1.93166666667
1.78177, 1.97894444444
1.78602, 1.94155555556
1.79027, 1.99133333333
1.79453, 1.98472222222
1.79879, 2.0025
1.80305, 2.02816666667
1.80733, 2.00688888889
1.81162, 2.02288888889
1.81592, 2.01661111111
1.82022, 1.99738888889
1.82452, 2.04427777778
1.82884, 2.06561111111
1.83316, 2.06844444444
1.83748, 2.10111111111
1.84181, 2.097
1.84615, 2.15927777778
1.85049, 2.146
1.85484, 2.14188888889
1.8592, 2.20961111111
1.86356, 2.15905555556
1.86795, 2.16761111111
1.87234, 2.14877777778
1.87675, 2.15888888889
1.88117, 2.20961111111
1.8856, 2.22383333333
1.89006, 2.25422222222
1.89452, 2.28427777778
1.89898, 2.30116666667
1.90345, 2.38111111111
1.90793, 2.39683333333
1.91242, 2.42572222222
1.91692, 2.45261111111
1.92143, 2.45211111111
1.92594, 2.48933333333
1.93046, 2.43933333333
1.935, 2.49211111111
1.93954, 2.487
1.94409, 2.45994444444
1.94865, 2.47322222222
1.95322, 2.47588888889
1.95779, 2.48783333333
1.9624, 2.48405555556
1.96702, 2.49305555556
1.97166, 2.48044444444
1.9763, 2.44161111111
1.98094, 2.42727777778
1.9856, 2.41877777778
1.99026, 2.44005555556
1.99493, 2.45661111111
1.9996, 2.48811111111
2.00428, 2.47472222222
2.00896, 2.501
2.01365, 2.51661111111
2.01837, 2.50416666667
2.02309, 2.51005555556
2.02783, 2.53161111111
2.03258, 2.49522222222
2.03734, 2.50566666667
2.0421, 2.52488888889
2.04688, 2.55827777778
2.05167, 2.56933333333
2.05647, 2.61505555556
2.06127, 2.64261111111
2.06607, 2.66416666667
2.07087, 2.65111111111
2.07571, 2.68894444444
2.08057, 2.69844444444
2.08544, 2.75661111111
2.09033, 2.73833333333
2.09522, 2.77405555556
2.10012, 2.76977777778
2.10503, 2.80166666667
2.10995, 2.86194444444
2.11488, 2.84866666667
2.11981, 2.89505555556
2.12474, 2.89505555556
2.12967, 2.88266666667
2.13462, 2.87422222222
2.13959, 2.873
2.14456, 2.87566666667
2.14955, 2.88611111111
2.15455, 2.89733333333
2.15956, 2.92738888889
2.16458, 2.89933333333
2.1696, 2.91516666667
2.17463, 2.93588888889
2.17967, 2.93688888889
2.18472, 2.95516666667
2.18978, 2.93505555556
2.19484, 2.92922222222
2.1999, 2.92505555556
2.20498, 2.96466666667
2.21007, 2.96072222222
2.21518, 2.9905
2.2203, 3.03311111111
2.22542, 3.04333333333
2.23055, 3.06033333333
2.23568, 3.09972222222
2.24081, 3.06477777778
2.24595, 3.0505
2.25111, 3.05944444444
2.25629, 3.05233333333
2.26149, 3.05744444444
2.26671, 3.05222222222
2.27196, 3.11538888889
2.27721, 3.08816666667
2.28252, 3.15094444444
2.28783, 3.14477777778
2.29316, 3.11983333333
2.29852, 3.07944444444
2.30393, 3.13266666667
2.30934, 3.18344444444
2.31477, 3.2045
2.32022, 3.17461111111
2.3257, 3.17877777778
2.33118, 3.17072222222
2.33667, 3.19894444444
2.34217, 3.19455555556
2.34769, 3.19816666667
2.35321, 3.2045
2.35876, 3.21455555556
2.36432, 3.20538888889
2.36989, 3.18911111111
2.37546, 3.24638888889
2.38104, 3.26505555556
2.38662, 3.32544444444
2.39222, 3.30727777778
2.39782, 3.32966666667
2.40344, 3.34244444444
2.40908, 3.293
2.41472, 3.38016666667
2.42038, 3.34305555556
2.42606, 3.34138888889
2.4318, 3.35494444444
2.43758, 3.36522222222
2.44337, 3.37577777778
2.44919, 3.37855555556
2.45502, 3.44416666667
2.46087, 3.49205555556
2.46675, 3.49933333333
2.47267, 3.56688888889
2.47861, 3.56661111111
2.48459, 3.57466666667
2.49058, 3.54944444444
2.4966, 3.57916666667
2.50262, 3.61511111111
2.50864, 3.61411111111
2.51469, 3.6445
2.52078, 3.78305555556
2.52687, 3.79138888889
2.53297, 3.81044444444
2.53908, 3.8425
2.54519, 3.8545
2.55131, 3.87472222222
2.55744, 3.89427777778
2.56358, 3.95338888889
2.56973, 3.94777777778
2.57589, 3.92588888889
2.58205, 3.91877777778
2.58823, 3.913
2.59441, 3.94166666667
2.6006, 3.93144444444
2.60679, 3.95155555556
2.61299, 3.91133333333
2.61919, 3.99005555556
2.62539, 3.98188888889
2.6316, 4.02666666667
2.63784, 4.05288888889
2.64409, 4.101
2.65038, 4.10766666667
2.65671, 4.15527777778
2.66306, 4.17977777778
2.66944, 4.21744444444
2.67583, 4.18922222222
2.68224, 4.20522222222
2.68867, 4.17411111111
2.6951, 4.18827777778
2.70154, 4.13766666667
2.70799, 4.12233333333
2.71445, 4.11011111111
2.72093, 4.0775
2.72741, 4.07255555556
2.73392, 4.06844444444
2.74045, 4.05988888889
2.74703, 4.07027777778
2.75363, 4.0525
2.76027, 4.13216666667
2.76691, 4.14433333333
2.77356, 4.21994444444
2.78021, 4.27155555556
2.78689, 4.27944444444
2.79357, 4.27805555556
2.80026, 4.32605555556
2.80695, 4.32477777778
2.81366, 4.40094444444
2.82043, 4.38738888889
2.82722, 4.3955
2.83404, 4.45994444444
2.84086, 4.51288888889
2.8477, 4.52711111111
2.85455, 4.52961111111
2.8614, 4.5495
2.86825, 4.56266666667
2.8751, 4.53883333333
2.88195, 4.51322222222
2.8888, 4.46566666667
2.89568, 4.45222222222
2.90256, 4.4795
2.90948, 4.54577777778
2.91641, 4.55033333333
2.92337, 4.53805555556
2.93036, 4.53227777778
2.93735, 4.57294444444
2.94436, 4.62294444444
2.95139, 4.61088888889
2.95843, 4.62066666667
2.96549, 4.65305555556
2.97258, 4.65794444444
2.97976, 4.65933333333
2.98696, 4.68955555556
2.9942, 4.78961111111
3.00144, 4.79022222222
3.00868, 4.81461111111
3.01595, 4.90394444444
3.02332, 4.95388888889
3.03072, 4.94016666667
3.03816, 5.0045
3.04562, 5.0605
3.05309, 5.0555
3.06058, 5.0015
3.06811, 5.003
3.07565, 5.0635
3.08319, 5.12094444444
3.09076, 5.256
3.09835, 5.23166666667
3.10597, 5.24294444444
3.11361, 5.40688888889
3.12126, 5.416
3.12894, 5.35555555556
3.13662, 5.32716666667
3.14431, 5.3695
3.152, 5.42155555556
3.15981, 5.46722222222
3.16762, 5.43044444444
3.17545, 5.49733333333
3.18334, 5.56072222222
3.19126, 5.57105555556
3.1992, 5.60572222222
3.20714, 5.66716666667
3.21509, 5.70638888889
3.22309, 5.68744444444
3.23111, 5.68844444444
3.23913, 5.74138888889
3.24716, 5.772
3.25519, 5.86966666667
3.26323, 5.901
3.27135, 5.98672222222
3.27951, 6.0655
3.28767, 6.064
3.29583, 6.139
3.304, 6.17883333333
3.31221, 6.20683333333
3.32047, 6.22244444444
3.32883, 6.27288888889
3.33719, 6.26422222222
3.34557, 6.31038888889
3.35396, 6.36494444444
3.36235, 6.39
3.37079, 6.401
3.37931, 6.45583333333
3.38784, 6.43477777778
3.39638, 6.44111111111
3.40492, 6.40855555556
3.41347, 6.43177777778
3.42206, 6.42338888889
3.43066, 6.3715
3.43933, 6.42238888889
3.44801, 6.35811111111
3.45672, 6.34394444444
3.46543, 6.43266666667
3.47415, 6.47022222222
3.48295, 6.47288888889
3.49176, 6.54627777778
3.50059, 6.56683333333
3.50945, 6.60561111111
3.51832, 6.64233333333
3.52723, 6.73811111111
3.53616, 6.82961111111
3.5451, 6.82072222222
3.55409, 6.814
3.56309, 7.09222222222
3.57209, 7.20783333333
3.58124, 7.28377777778
3.59039, 7.31355555556
3.59956, 7.35277777778
3.60877, 7.33044444444
3.61798, 7.38527777778
3.6272, 7.42083333333
3.63643, 7.43527777778
3.64569, 7.50038888889
3.65498, 7.54788888889
3.66429, 7.79883333333
3.67367, 7.98922222222
3.68305, 8.05444444444
3.69249, 8.09255555556
3.70199, 8.05005555556
3.71149, 8.07644444444
3.72099, 8.04494444444
3.7305, 8.08727777778
3.74005, 8.131
3.74962, 8.17883333333
3.75921, 8.15372222222
3.76892, 8.165
3.77865, 8.14738888889
3.78839, 8.21233333333
3.79815, 8.2755
3.80804, 8.40572222222
3.81796, 8.44938888889
3.82789, 8.54138888889
3.83788, 8.65627777778
3.84793, 8.64538888889
3.858, 8.76055555556
3.8681, 8.74583333333
3.87827, 8.76811111111
3.88845, 8.79716666667
3.89864, 8.81344444444
3.90887, 8.88788888889
3.91913, 9.08216666667
3.9294, 9.17766666667
3.93976, 9.21527777778
3.95013, 9.25033333333
3.96054, 9.40677777778
3.971, 9.48244444444
3.98153, 9.61655555556
3.99206, 9.70561111111
4.00267, 9.70216666667
4.01336, 9.75788888889
4.02406, 9.81294444444
4.03476, 9.94633333333
4.04547, 10.0123333333
4.05628, 10.0885555556
4.06713, 10.1291111111
4.07798, 10.325
4.08884, 10.4777222222
4.09973, 10.4912222222
4.11063, 10.6904444444
4.12154, 10.8445
4.13249, 11.1003333333
4.14351, 11.2891666667
4.15455, 11.2839444444
4.16566, 11.2891111111
4.17677, 11.3548888889
4.18794, 11.3962777778
4.19917, 11.4430555556
4.21046, 11.5277222222
4.22187, 11.6029444444
4.23334, 11.6542777778
4.24483, 11.6971666667
4.25634, 11.77
4.26787, 11.9270555556
4.27952, 11.9767222222
4.29118, 11.9572777778
4.30285, 11.9859444444
4.31458, 12.0375555556
4.32636, 12.0994444444
4.33829, 12.0913333333
4.35036, 12.0947777778
4.36245, 12.1192777778
4.37464, 12.3388888889
4.38684, 12.6725
4.39906, 12.8648888889
4.4113, 12.9002222222
4.42354, 12.9908888889
4.43587, 13.0437222222
4.44821, 13.1266111111
4.46055, 13.1751111111
4.47296, 13.2877777778
4.48548, 13.4130555556
4.49804, 13.7123333333
4.51061, 14.0063888889
4.52326, 14.0853333333
4.53593, 14.0876666667
4.54867, 14.1268333333
4.56166, 14.1324444444
4.57465, 14.2511666667
4.58788, 14.4002777778
4.60124, 14.5351666667
4.6146, 14.5261666667
4.62798, 14.6666111111
4.64142, 14.7617222222
4.65491, 14.8588888889
4.66843, 14.9558333333
4.68207, 14.9965
4.69579, 15.0158333333
4.70953, 15.0229444444
4.72346, 15.3309444444
4.73741, 15.4267222222
4.75141, 15.4143888889
4.7655, 15.5152222222
4.77965, 15.5786111111
4.79396, 15.6520555556
4.80837, 15.7883333333
4.82279, 15.8955
4.83733, 15.9909444444
4.85192, 16.0939444444
4.86657, 16.3196666667
4.88141, 16.4916666667
4.89642, 16.5978333333
4.9116, 16.5509444444
4.92699, 16.5923333333
4.94247, 16.9575
4.95801, 16.9417222222
4.97362, 17.2235
4.98929, 17.3282222222
5.00518, 17.4108888889
5.02108, 17.5067222222
5.03699, 17.6870555556
5.05295, 17.7644444444
5.06901, 17.73
5.08508, 17.7691111111
5.10118, 17.9225555556
5.11728, 18.2572777778
5.13343, 18.348
5.14973, 18.3560555556
5.16609, 18.3221111111
5.18291, 18.3886111111
5.19974, 18.5835555556
5.21661, 18.7804444444
5.23348, 19.0343888889
5.25042, 19.142
5.26743, 19.2558888889
5.28447, 19.4403888889
5.3016, 19.4451666667
5.31874, 19.5598333333
5.33599, 19.6006666667
5.35332, 19.7729444444
5.37068, 19.9007777778
5.38843, 20.0347222222
5.40672, 20.1298333333
5.42537, 20.1114444444
5.44453, 20.4510555556
5.46399, 20.4484444444
5.48397, 20.6762777778
5.50398, 20.7580555556
5.52412, 20.9785555556
5.54461, 21.1073333333
5.56534, 21.3353333333
5.5863, 21.4079444444
5.60828, 21.6375555556
5.63065, 21.6405
5.65319, 21.9128333333
5.67597, 22.1199444444
5.70755, 22.4641111111
5.74065, 22.5589444444
5.77559, 22.822
5.82875, 23.2131666667
```

----------


## drummergirl

So, if demographics explains all the sloped lines, like Horry, SC, then how does demographics explain all the flat lines, like Kershaw, SC?

----------


## drummergirl

> Thanks for the ad-hominem. I have advanced degrees in science and mathematics.


Then presumably you can read and do simple statistics.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...cuxJTo1iE/edit

This is the cliff notes version.  If you have some critique that's deeper than, "that's a crock", please use your brain cells and do something useful.  Go ahead, find scientific evidence for your case.  I dare you.  Heck, I'll triple dog dare you.

Otherwise, we have more trolls than bridges, so you may need to find housing elsewhere.

----------


## dsw

> Because the charts with the straight sloped lines are anomalous.  If these slopes are what is to be expected because of demographics, we should see them consistently.  We don't.  For instance, there are only 2 anomalous counties in Nevada (of course, they represent over 70% of the total votes), but the remaining counties have nice normal mathematics.  Historical data (alabama 2008, New Hampshire back into the 90s, etc.) follow the early noise then flat line at a percentage expected pattern.  Why would "demographics" be at work only in certain places and not others.


BTW, did someone come up with the full 2008 data?  I only saw the one county, Baldwin I think.  

In any case, there are two arguments being made here, and I'm only trying to respond to one of them.  It's sometimes argued that the graph (the other kind, not the latest one TheMan posted) should flatten out for purely statistical reasons, which would only make sense if the sample represented by the first 25% of the vote, with precincts sorted by total votes cast, is very close to being demographically equivalent to the overall sample.  And various people have argued that in various ways.  In the thread you just pointed me to, someone replies to an objection by saying that the precincts sorted by size are going to be scattered all over the state, and I've been told that before.  But when I ran the data on Alabama ... not true.  (It wasn't true in Va Beach City either, BTW.)   By the time you get to the right hand side of the graph you're looking at precincts that are twice as likely to come from a few very large counties than precincts at the left side of the graph.   Why would it be surprising for there to be demographic differences, that could be reflected in %vote, between the left-hand counties and the right-hand counties, and a correlation between %vote and total votes cast?

And if there is such a correlation, what happens to this argument from the thread you just pointed me to?



> And if you tell me that Romney has got 50% of the votes in that ballot, I can tell you that he needs to be real close that 50% by the time we have counted 90% of the votes, a bit less close at 80%, etc... Poll science shows that 10/20% might suffice for the oscillator to turn into a complete flat line. But maths allow another nice trick as well. If you tell me after 25% of the votes counted what Romney's score is, I can actually tell you the probability that he will get to a score of 50% at the end of the vote tally. Isn't hypergeometry nifty?
> 
> As we have seen, Romney's lines do not converge flatly towards the final result. It does not everytime the ballot is relevent to the final outcome. His score starts by oscillating and flattening but then shoots up in a straight line in dozens of counties. That is mathematically impossible.


"And if you tell me that Romney has got 50% of the votes in that ballot, I can tell you that he needs to be real close that 50% by the time we have counted 90% of the votes," ... only if that ballot sample is statistically random.   If you know that your sample is unbiased (or if you are analyzing an exit poll and you massage the data, as they do, to try to approximate a random sample based on the demographics of your samples and the demographics your model predicts for the overall turnout) then and only then can you predict the expected error.   

If Romney has got 50% of the vote in a sample and the demographics for that sample are different from the overall demographics, the math does not work that way.  If the precincts counted on the left side of a cumulative graph are different demographically than the precincts further to the right, then (assuming that different demographic segments may vote in different ways, but presumably we agree on that) then the graph may or may not flatten out.

Back to your question:  Why would "demographics" be at work only in certain places and not others.

That's not a mathematical question, it's an empirical question.  And an interesting one, but any time I start responding to the empirical question the (bogus) mathematical argument comes up as a reply.  So I'd like to make some progress on the mathematical question first, then come back to he other one.

Two questions:

Do you agree that the marble drawing analogy, and the math that works in that kind of situation, does not apply if the initial sample might be biased in some way?  Strictly as a math question.  

If we agree on that, then do you agree that the demographics of the more densely-populated counties in a state may reasonably be expected to *possibly* differ demographically from the more sparsely-populated counties in a state?  Just as a general question about voter demographics, not about anything else.

----------


## affa

> The vertical blue line separates the precincts that come before the 300,000 "crime happens here" point from the ones that come after.   Now I'm not clear on what flipping theory says would be done to the votes at each precinct, but it's a small number of points (with big vote counts) that are doing a lot of the work here.


You're missing the point.  The Man's charts are charting Romney votes - Romney Delegate Votes.   
I'll say that again:  Romney votes - Romney Delegate Votes.

At 300k he suddenly starts gaining votes at a significantly different pace AGAINST HIMSELF.

As The Man said, "The rate at which Romney received new precinct votes increases by 4.2% (of the overall votes cast) at vote count 300k, or precinct votes cast = 850."

We're seeing the same sudden increase in Romney votes at a specific point in cumulative vote totals, but here?  We have the holy grail of benchmarks - Romney's own delegate performance.   He suddenly starts out performing his own delegates as his 'candidate' votes shift into high gear while his delegate votes trail behind.  This is (one of several reasons) why The Man's newest charts are important.  For you to suddenly try to hide behind demographics again is plain silly, unless you're positing some magical demographic that suddenly kicks in to vote for Romney while this same demographic magically ignores his delegates.  I

It fits perfectly with the flipping theory.  Clean as a whistle.  If Romney's votes get magical at 300k, but they did not touch the delegates, then you'd see exactly this -- a sharp increase in slope of Romney Votes - Romney Delegate Votes.  Again, anyone looking at this chart that does not think it's worth further investigation either doesn't understand the chart or is trying to derail the discussion.  

The charts also explain everything I've been saying about the Romney/Santorum discrepancy.  If Romney actually had less candidate votes, that would mean his 'conversion rate' would be much higher, which makes absolute sense based on everything we've been discussing.  




> That would only be expected if the counties with lower population density should be demographically equivalent to the counties with the highest population density, but why would anyone expect that?


You're trying to make the case that high density areas suddenly vote more for Romney but don't vote for Romney delegates? C'mon.

----------


## dsw

> You're trying to make the case that high density areas suddenly vote more for Romney but don't vote for Romney delegates? C'mon.


Nope.  See my two questions (in blue) to drummergirl a couple of posts back for what may be a better starting point for where I'm going with that. 

I'm also waiting on some clarification from The Man, I hope, about whether my calculations replicated his, or whether I made a mistake.  The graph looks roughly right but if I made a mistake on it, even a small one, I want to get that corrected before going deeper into it.

----------


## The Man

Try this DSW. This data is using delegates 2 and 3 averaged, which is what I had in my spreadsheet. 




```
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 5
1 5
1 5
1 8
2 9
3 9
4 10
5 10
7 12
8 12
9 12
10 14
10 14
11 14
12 14
13 14
14 14
15 14
17 15
19 15
21 15
23 15
25 15
27 15
29 15
31 15
32 15
34 15
36 15
37 15
39 15
41 16
44 16
47 16
50 16
52 20
55 21
58 21
60 21
63 22
65 21
68 21
71 22
75 25
78 25
82 25
86 26
90 25
94 24
98 24
102 24
106 23
110 23
114 29
116 29
120 32
125 32
129 31
134 30
138 29
143 29
147 29
151 29
156 29
161 29
165 30
170 31
175 31
180 31
184 31
188 33
192 32
197 33
203 33
209 36
214 35
220 35
226 34
232 34
236 33
242 33
248 33
254 34
260 34
266 33
273 32
279 33
287 32
294 31
301 30
307 30
314 31
321 31
328 32
335 31
342 30
349 30
357 31
364 31
373 35
380 34
388 35
396 35
404 36
413 35
421 35
430 36
438 39
446 37
455 36
463 36
472 35
480 37
489 37
498 36
508 35
516 35
525 37
535 37
544 36
553 38
563 38
573 38
582 37
592 36
601 37
610 37
618 36
629 38
639 39
651 38
661 39
672 44
682 44
693 47
704 48
715 48
726 47
738 45
749 43
759 44
771 43
782 43
793 42
806 47
817 45
829 48
840 49
851 47
863 50
875 51
887 51
898 53
910 52
922 53
936 51
947 50
959 53
971 52
983 52
996 51
1005 49
1018 56
1032 54
1045 52
1059 50
1071 52
1083 57
1097 57
1110 56
1123 58
1136 60
1150 60
1164 58
1178 58
1193 64
1207 64
1220 63
1233 64
1248 67
1261 67
1276 68
1291 68
1306 66
1319 64
1335 68
1350 66
1365 69
1380 70
1396 71
1411 69
1429 70
1445 68
1461 69
1477 68
1492 69
1509 69
1527 70
1543 67
1561 66
1577 65
1595 66
1613 65
1630 64
1647 64
1665 71
1683 68
1701 70
1719 73
1737 71
1754 70
1773 70
1790 68
1809 67
1830 64
1849 63
1870 66
1889 68
1909 65
1930 72
1949 75
1968 82
1988 82
2009 82
2029 85
2048 84
2069 83
2090 82
2110 80
2131 81
2152 81
2174 82
2194 82
2217 83
2240 81
2260 80
2283 77
2304 78
2323 78
2345 77
2367 77
2389 79
2409 81
2433 86
2458 90
2481 90
2504 90
2528 91
2551 90
2572 90
2596 93
2620 90
2642 91
2666 100
2691 98
2716 96
2741 98
2764 96
2788 94
2814 91
2836 91
2861 96
2886 96
2912 96
2939 100
2965 100
2992 104
3018 104
3045 105
3071 105
3099 104
3125 105
3154 105
3182 104
3210 98
3237 95
3263 94
3291 94
3317 113
3345 115
3374 113
3401 112
3426 113
3454 114
3481 111
3510 111
3538 110
3568 111
3598 108
3629 108
3657 110
3688 117
3720 115
3750 111
3782 108
3813 103
3843 98
3874 97
3906 104
3939 106
3972 107
4004 108
4034 108
4068 108
4099 107
4128 110
4157 108
4191 114
4223 111
4252 107
4285 113
4319 111
4350 110
4379 111
4411 111
4444 111
4478 111
4512 109
4546 105
4577 108
4609 104
4643 106
4677 105
4712 106
4745 105
4780 104
4814 104
4844 103
4878 113
4912 114
4946 109
4978 107
5015 131
5051 140
5087 138
5123 137
5159 140
5197 138
5234 139
5269 140
5301 140
5338 146
5378 147
5414 144
5453 141
5493 138
5533 137
5571 134
5611 132
5648 131
5686 134
5726 131
5765 142
5803 140
5843 143
5880 139
5920 143
5960 141
5999 143
6038 143
6078 141
6114 138
6154 139
6194 136
6236 139
6275 133
6316 133
6358 142
6398 143
6441 137
6483 138
6522 139
6564 136
6606 135
6649 135
6691 136
6733 138
6776 144
6820 145
6862 145
6903 143
6943 155
6983 163
7027 172
7071 178
7113 179
7154 180
7197 202
7242 200
7286 198
7331 203
7376 201
7424 207
7467 204
7513 210
7560 210
7607 213
7654 216
7701 217
7746 216
7790 215
7837 212
7883 235
7930 235
7975 233
8023 229
8072 230
8117 228
8163 232
8210 231
8256 230
8299 235
8349 235
8393 236
8440 237
8490 235
8537 231
8587 231
8636 231
8686 233
8734 229
8782 239
8830 238
8880 236
8930 240
8976 242
9025 243
9069 241
9114 246
9166 260
9211 261
9265 267
9316 266
9368 268
9417 274
9469 280
9521 279
9573 275
9623 271
9674 272
9724 271
9779 265
9831 263
9883 261
9931 259
9984 261
10037 259
10086 258
10139 266
10193 266
10247 278
10301 281
10356 278
10408 277
10463 284
10515 282
10573 284
10626 279
10681 276
10733 274
10787 276
10841 275
10895 277
10949 281
11005 283
11061 284
11115 282
11172 285
11231 279
11289 277
11344 274
11403 272
11461 273
11519 271
11575 273
11633 273
11693 272
11752 265
11808 263
11867 265
11927 263
11985 260
12038 268
12092 274
12147 280
12205 296
12262 292
12322 290
12383 290
12444 285
12501 285
12562 294
12622 286
12681 292
12744 303
12807 298
12862 301
12923 312
12986 313
13046 316
13109 318
13171 320
13233 331
13291 330
13356 340
13421 334
13478 334
13545 343
13607 342
13669 343
13734 346
13801 359
13867 357
13933 353
13996 352
14062 349
14127 352
14191 352
14252 355
14319 360
14382 361
14447 362
14513 367
14573 366
14639 382
14709 381
14776 382
14845 385
14907 373
14973 381
15040 387
15106 390
15176 388
15242 388
15310 396
15374 392
15442 396
15507 400
15576 413
15645 416
15713 411
15780 422
15842 420
15906 429
15976 444
16046 440
16116 437
16181 435
16251 440
16322 435
16393 437
16464 440
16532 446
16603 440
16674 439
16750 438
16822 435
16894 439
16965 437
17038 442
17112 439
17185 438
17257 447
17327 445
17400 448
17475 444
17550 437
17622 440
17695 438
17772 435
17847 434
17919 434
17996 436
18069 438
18145 437
18218 433
18296 437
18374 442
18451 443
18526 444
18604 446
18682 453
18761 456
18840 454
18916 458
18992 466
19065 470
19142 480
19219 474
19294 475
19374 479
19453 471
19532 470
19610 463
19687 466
19766 478
19845 480
19927 488
20007 476
20085 511
20167 512
20248 514
20327 514
20407 515
20485 523
20565 528
20648 528
20731 522
20813 520
20896 535
20976 538
21055 551
21139 557
21226 551
21309 551
21394 558
21479 558
21565 563
21649 563
21734 562
21817 576
21902 593
21987 590
22075 588
22161 591
22243 594
22330 592
22421 598
22510 590
22596 595
22684 595
22770 599
22852 592
22942 603
23032 610
23118 605
23207 605
23299 605
23388 603
23478 618
23571 616
23665 625
23758 622
23848 625
23941 622
24035 618
24128 615
24220 620
24312 615
24408 623
24500 613
24598 617
24694 622
24790 614
24888 608
24983 612
25080 605
25173 618
25267 623
25360 626
25451 633
25551 645
25645 643
25746 641
25844 658
25944 656
26043 647
26141 644
26235 644
26333 649
26433 651
26533 647
26632 646
26730 648
26833 658
26931 651
27027 643
27125 642
27226 652
27323 651
27425 646
27523 640
27626 645
27727 642
27829 654
27935 661
28039 661
28142 664
28248 660
28350 651
28455 664
28558 666
28664 665
28767 656
28872 650
28967 649
29073 658
29180 668
29278 667
29385 671
29491 676
29592 678
29701 685
29808 676
29910 675
30017 687
30121 680
30224 673
30332 688
30444 689
30554 679
30664 674
30767 672
30873 673
30981 680
31087 696
31186 696
31298 708
31410 700
31525 697
31629 686
31734 713
31844 720
31953 713
32062 709
32172 717
32282 709
32396 719
32511 725
32618 727
32731 747
32845 760
32960 755
33077 752
33197 751
33309 752
33428 763
33550 751
33668 742
33785 766
33896 766
34014 782
34132 786
34253 792
34366 782
34481 795
34597 803
34716 811
34835 809
34952 806
35074 809
35192 809
35313 817
35437 817
35563 823
35681 813
35803 807
35925 814
36049 837
36177 831
36303 821
36431 817
36557 810
36680 808
36809 813
36932 822
37061 821
37189 823
37315 822
37439 816
37563 814
37687 824
37812 835
37943 843
38073 845
38205 841
38329 833
38456 879
38584 893
38705 891
38839 899
38967 899
39097 903
39229 898
39358 895
39494 918
39618 924
39753 941
39884 934
40016 942
40154 935
40285 950
40429 963
40567 955
40702 945
40822 935
40946 957
41087 972
41223 962
41359 970
41498 1035
41638 1031
41781 1031
41917 1018
42050 1033
42186 1031
42330 1040
42460 1023
42597 1042
42737 1041
42879 1040
43025 1037
43171 1035
43306 1034
43449 1047
43598 1046
43746 1039
43891 1033
44039 1021
44184 1024
44332 1025
44479 1015
44624 1010
44775 1024
44923 1019
45072 1017
45221 1011
45371 1003
45518 1002
45666 998
45816 988
45965 982
46117 985
46270 976
46409 962
46561 988
46713 1001
46866 994
47021 991
47175 988
47327 990
47484 992
47632 997
47784 1007
47940 1010
48096 1021
48252 1025
48409 1016
48567 1010
48717 1000
48878 999
49032 993
49189 1001
49351 988
49496 977
49662 991
49815 985
49977 983
50139 982
50292 982
50453 1021
50602 1027
50761 1032
50915 1040
51077 1043
51241 1039
51407 1033
51564 1029
51721 1032
51881 1048
52044 1053
52198 1061
52355 1082
52517 1077
52681 1129
52847 1121
53013 1123
53174 1101
53336 1113
53502 1110
53669 1116
53833 1100
54000 1087
54162 1096
54335 1099
54500 1088
54666 1088
54828 1097
54997 1095
55167 1093
55333 1092
55505 1122
55670 1113
55842 1108
56017 1104
56196 1107
56369 1095
56535 1081
56700 1080
56875 1089
57049 1087
57224 1076
57398 1068
57569 1080
57744 1085
57923 1076
58097 1073
58272 1074
58443 1073
58618 1089
58793 1079
58965 1077
59147 1070
59326 1057
59511 1060
59692 1046
59873 1045
60053 1055
60234 1046
60419 1041
60596 1025
60777 1036
60961 1047
61146 1050
61330 1037
61516 1037
61695 1027
61880 1030
62063 1025
62250 1010
62435 1020
62623 1035
62811 1025
62996 1038
63175 1042
63369 1056
63554 1048
63740 1040
63928 1072
64117 1068
64306 1062
64493 1055
64674 1058
64864 1087
65056 1101
65245 1090
65436 1099
65624 1101
65817 1114
66004 1098
66197 1108
66390 1116
66582 1124
66774 1128
66971 1134
67164 1130
67366 1124
67559 1113
67754 1128
67951 1129
68142 1175
68342 1226
68531 1209
68734 1250
68933 1249
69128 1236
69326 1249
69532 1252
69733 1249
69927 1238
70100 1254
70307 1302
70515 1292
70706 1281
70913 1302
71112 1287
71310 1307
71513 1293
71726 1299
71932 1308
72139 1306
72352 1307
72564 1277
72771 1272
72982 1273
73191 1264
73405 1276
73616 1265
73826 1253
74035 1244
74245 1228
74460 1222
74676 1216
74886 1205
75091 1205
75304 1206
75499 1196
75716 1196
75924 1202
76131 1210
76338 1204
76552 1212
76763 1221
76976 1238
77193 1236
77410 1234
77629 1227
77826 1226
78043 1239
78263 1241
78480 1233
78702 1246
78922 1228
79135 1223
79355 1234
79573 1224
79790 1220
80009 1216
80241 1215
80445 1200
80665 1209
80881 1199
81101 1209
81320 1224
81524 1231
81737 1258
81963 1278
82187 1267
82413 1253
82636 1252
82851 1247
83076 1277
83294 1280
83501 1295
83727 1297
83953 1289
84177 1287
84404 1278
84630 1294
84856 1281
85087 1281
85317 1273
85547 1266
85776 1268
86008 1270
86239 1268
86473 1269
86703 1256
86939 1272
87170 1270
87406 1274
87639 1272
87873 1257
88092 1284
88324 1305
88563 1313
88797 1302
89031 1313
89252 1309
89488 1325
89710 1339
89949 1360
90189 1349
90429 1345
90653 1361
90889 1384
91132 1382
91376 1382
91605 1363
91851 1376
92096 1375
92342 1373
92576 1365
92820 1358
93061 1362
93305 1366
93554 1367
93794 1349
94038 1352
94281 1353
94531 1377
94780 1369
95027 1355
95261 1384
95505 1393
95754 1402
96004 1418
96254 1413
96510 1416
96763 1414
97013 1404
97270 1395
97519 1383
97772 1394
98015 1406
98272 1429
98517 1419
98777 1437
99030 1432
99290 1417
99540 1411
99797 1416
100055 1416
100311 1401
100561 1408
100813 1425
101074 1423
101338 1434
101601 1416
101852 1409
102126 1446
102387 1429
102653 1437
102916 1419
103185 1418
103449 1530
103716 1529
103976 1519
104239 1544
104491 1545
104758 1573
105025 1610
105296 1624
105559 1610
105826 1623
106093 1638
106357 1644
106628 1659
106902 1665
107168 1664
107441 1691
107711 1693
107989 1700
108247 1707
108523 1718
108780 1713
109056 1780
109325 1788
109605 1794
109871 1806
110152 1837
110431 1839
110716 1829
110990 1815
111272 1826
111553 1809
111815 1818
112095 1800
112378 1791
112663 1775
112945 1762
113231 1760
113510 1750
113796 1757
114068 1754
114353 1756
114632 1753
114926 1755
115217 1730
115496 1716
115781 1743
116077 1737
116369 1723
116658 1737
116947 1732
117244 1740
117551 1748
117848 1745
118135 1730
118429 1710
118731 1719
119029 1711
119314 1697
119590 1701
119887 1728
120187 1741
120479 1716
120779 1717
121062 1716
121367 1731
121664 1732
121969 1729
122261 1734
122549 1752
122849 1803
123144 1786
123427 1809
123733 1830
124045 1832
124345 1828
124648 1827
124959 1839
125275 1833
125576 1844
125892 1854
126189 1843
126504 1890
126817 1873
127111 1843
127416 1842
127731 1851
128045 1830
128345 1814
128655 1856
128972 1848
129279 1842
129593 1872
129903 1866
130215 1846
130527 1843
130847 1832
131166 1822
131482 1794
131803 1798
132110 1790
132427 1802
132758 1802
133085 1784
133423 1771
133753 1757
134083 1759
134413 1740
134748 1744
135065 1729
135399 1755
135735 1729
136068 1713
136396 1720
136723 1726
137055 1697
137386 1696
137727 1719
138059 1721
138390 1724
138720 1725
139059 1709
139391 1716
139736 1721
140072 1724
140417 1729
140755 1717
141086 1718
141430 1735
141782 1756
142118 1753
142445 1757
142790 1772
143137 1750
143488 1761
143828 1781
144173 1769
144525 1776
144874 1783
145230 1789
145575 1779
145911 1765
146249 1833
146594 1851
146953 1877
147309 1868
147663 1868
148010 1853
148356 1863
148710 1909
149059 1898
149423 1966
149780 1969
150139 2018
150502 2037
150865 2033
151231 2022
151604 2039
151967 2039
152335 2030
152699 2018
153072 2024
153430 2006
153786 1997
154160 2004
154537 2025
154915 2011
155293 2000
155666 1981
156051 1990
156416 1980
156796 2017
157180 2003
157553 2023
157932 2033
158315 2017
158683 2036
159071 2019
159451 2011
159826 2004
160199 1993
160575 2004
160941 1974
161333 2018
161721 2013
162114 2006
162513 1994
162918 1992
163295 2011
163686 2004
164071 2023
164467 2038
164867 2055
165268 2082
165665 2075
166067 2065
166443 2068
166834 2077
167228 2108
167621 2129
168035 2120
168426 2084
168833 2143
169241 2195
169640 2192
170054 2247
170467 2220
170888 2243
171302 2243
171728 2259
172156 2220
172574 2233
172982 2248
173398 2242
173822 2251
174212 2250
174633 2278
175054 2323
175475 2333
175899 2334
176307 2349
176733 2386
177159 2367
177573 2362
178001 2384
178399 2350
178809 2364
179230 2420
179642 2446
180055 2491
180496 2533
180930 2505
181362 2482
181808 2492
182256 2465
182697 2464
183130 2448
183574 2484
184019 2483
184467 2494
184912 2496
185355 2478
185784 2470
186240 2515
186689 2509
187122 2518
187572 2535
188032 2521
188463 2499
188915 2527
189357 2508
189815 2536
190272 2541
190720 2523
191157 2541
191593 2624
192061 2666
192521 2682
192970 2683
193432 2705
193888 2701
194350 2725
194802 2732
195264 2807
195701 2794
196141 2920
196617 2938
197085 2925
197545 2919
197995 2938
198455 2966
198922 2959
199382 2929
199848 2921
200304 2917
200785 2976
201258 2942
201724 2917
202210 2927
202680 2899
203133 2961
203620 3013
204116 2987
204593 2970
205081 2993
205555 2987
206044 2989
206516 2981
206994 2998
207470 3003
207972 3041
208471 3010
208954 3010
209453 3036
209954 3029
210426 3005
210936 3043
211425 3021
211930 3051
212407 3050
212923 3081
213429 3060
213930 3069
214432 3111
214934 3128
215447 3193
215959 3169
216468 3152
216970 3127
217485 3149
217990 3150
218514 3220
219048 3215
219574 3219
220098 3230
220627 3249
221138 3220
221656 3230
222202 3281
222738 3230
223260 3212
223788 3231
224317 3224
224831 3210
225363 3223
225903 3238
226425 3244
226966 3278
227502 3251
228016 3234
228549 3289
229082 3298
229630 3342
230175 3302
230711 3263
231251 3257
231802 3267
232360 3260
232907 3205
233461 3218
234009 3209
234559 3168
235094 3156
235654 3154
236190 3160
236714 3207
237256 3271
237801 3267
238355 3260
238912 3325
239476 3364
240034 3327
240605 3347
241159 3364
241719 3442
242282 3485
242856 3479
243415 3486
243983 3496
244551 3524
245121 3510
245703 3497
246246 3457
246827 3546
247382 3538
247952 3568
248530 3548
249082 3541
249645 3586
250201 3574
250761 3571
251346 3591
251907 3578
252481 3559
253041 3619
253631 3671
254201 3662
254791 3658
255372 3687
255958 3686
256561 3711
257158 3694
257761 3692
258363 3700
258959 3694
259573 3705
260174 3700
260783 3743
261413 3748
262035 3746
262636 3721
263251 3736
263880 3721
264484 3667
265120 3706
265749 3669
266374 3673
267003 3692
267633 3677
268253 3647
268880 3692
269513 3681
270134 3651
270787 3676
271419 3623
272047 3605
272685 3648
273296 3642
273916 3703
274567 3791
275209 3746
275862 3784
276524 3782
277150 3987
277794 4097
278418 4100
279036 4146
279662 4283
280311 4367
280970 4386
281637 4351
282291 4363
282966 4368
283636 4340
284311 4326
284988 4342
285657 4348
286340 4374
287015 4382
287680 4433
288370 4438
289064 4418
289747 4404
290431 4422
291127 4415
291797 4472
292494 4512
293182 4503
293884 4506
294573 4491
295238 4503
295941 4508
296644 4491
297318 4443
298025 4457
298736 4443
299435 4443
300125 4469
300843 4516
301539 4465
302258 4524
302978 4544
303691 4525
304406 4516
305102 4551
305838 4602
306570 4581
307282 4558
307987 4577
308726 4564
309459 4558
310191 4661
310900 4662
311606 4725
312316 4895
313049 4904
313769 4900
314484 4946
315238 5076
315971 5077
316714 5078
317440 5088
318174 5112
318924 5293
319702 5488
320442 5470
321201 5560
321951 5635
322703 5740
323471 5892
324225 5877
324972 5889
325734 5959
326537 5961
327294 5907
328064 5960
328845 5992
329602 5983
330390 5947
331184 5916
331972 5882
332761 5857
333546 5881
334323 5870
335103 5943
335908 5987
336713 6006
337510 6030
338296 6067
339106 6101
339911 6089
340724 6089
341497 6156
342307 6333
343100 6343
343905 6410
344712 6477
345507 6511
346341 6511
347148 6559
347953 6566
348784 6677
349553 6666
350383 6886
351179 6907
351960 7028
352814 7088
353642 7063
354442 7094
355280 7136
356120 7111
356949 7190
357789 7158
358609 7187
359478 7367
360344 7326
361199 7278
362075 7313
362953 7286
363823 7346
364718 7382
365598 7332
366449 7589
367313 7771
368183 7916
369070 7947
369931 7920
370792 8037
371667 8123
372567 8211
373475 8197
374334 8212
375236 8233
376133 8286
377023 8336
377946 8356
378840 8329
379763 8337
380676 8320
381599 8276
382534 8283
383448 8321
384364 8407
385321 8455
386289 8493
387245 8431
388176 8448
389147 8694
390115 8673
391063 8892
392016 9095
392973 9138
393940 9212
394917 9237
395861 9424
396860 9666
397855 9606
398848 9592
399812 9595
400772 9723
401781 9745
402820 9771
403830 9751
404856 9791
405886 9764
406883 9728
407890 9801
408934 9875
409960 9920
411014 9916
412046 9896
413064 9923
414114 9972
415181 9973
416185 9943
417225 10238
418285 10260
419330 10293
420410 10337
421461 10351
422478 10399
423546 10526
424600 10501
425685 10575
426746 10657
427842 10726
428919 10756
429966 10788
431080 10843
432158 10789
433231 10897
434333 11032
435443 11078
436578 11109
437713 11060
438795 11050
439922 11187
441035 11260
442182 11250
443335 11210
444491 11210
445636 11301
446809 11329
447967 11319
449146 11360
450287 11406
451439 11714
452610 11745
453757 11872
454914 11938
456083 11998
457241 12179
458407 12227
459626 12331
460798 12264
461975 12312
463171 12329
464390 12413
465626 12409
466860 12405
468116 12498
469360 12534
470585 12626
471848 12720
473052 12715
474328 12964
475540 12916
476840 13071
478165 13042
479500 13079
480819 13141
482147 13133
483408 13321
484723 13619
486082 13935
487448 13999
488797 14146
490160 14220
491560 14327
492932 14418
494337 14516
495669 14620
497110 14856
498560 14865
499996 14942
501403 15013
502871 15029
504336 15044
505766 15015
507260 15192
508690 15276
510156 15456
511620 15537
513151 15517
514683 15496
516185 15526
517684 15602
519239 15712
520791 15751
522367 15839
523892 15921
525484 16090
527073 16192
528685 16405
530319 16444
532001 16508
533665 16484
535383 16693
537099 16793
538902 16911
540730 16875
542521 16821
544349 17041
546220 17039
548176 17090
550099 17051
551971 17178
553908 17387
555824 17586
557835 17841
559864 17919
561907 17923
563988 17980
566348 17955
568728 17900
571255 17889
574565 18224
578089 18312
583331 18531
```

----------


## affa

> Originally Posted by dsw
> 
> 
> You're trying to make the case that high density areas suddenly vote more for Romney but don't vote for Romney delegates? C'mon.
> 
> 
> Nope.  See my two questions (in blue) to drummergirl a couple of posts back for what may be a better starting point for where I'm going with that.


What?  Nice try, but no. The only reason you're discussing demographics with Drummergirl is because in your post 534, which was in response to The Man's charts, you brought them up again, even though they're meaningless in regards to The Man's charts.

Heck, you straight up wrote:



> And considering that the curve of the Mitt minus dels graph slopes more sharply upward (when suitably smoothed on both the x and y axes) over the same region where the third graph flattens out because from there on out we're drawing >80% of the precincts from the most populous counties, can anyone at least entertain the possibility that there could be a demographic difference at work here?   That if your samples are 80% from the most populous counties you might just be looking at some significant demographic differences compared to samples drawn mostly from less populous counties?


... in which you're trying to claim Romney does better against his own delegates because of demographics, which doesn't even begin to make sense.   Of course, you don't directly mention this is what The Man's charts are about, because then it would be obvious bringing up demographics made no sense.  Instead, you posted some charts and started talking about demographics in a way that implies The Man's charts can be dismissed.   Demographics have nothing to do with The Man's charts, and I fail to see why you'd try to obfuscate the conversation by drudging them up in relation to his charts.

And then, in the post I actually quoted, you wrote:



> EDIT: more specifically, the rest of that post looks at the way that around the time you get to the "knee" in the graph, you've also gotten to a point at which the remaining data points are 80% from the 20 highest population counties, with just five of those largest counties having twice as much weight from there to the right hand side of the graph than they do overall.  What I don't see is why people think the demographics of the precincts represented on the left hand side of the graph should be expected to be close enough to those on the right-hand side of the graph that you can make the inferences that are made.   That would only be expected if the counties with lower population density should be demographically equivalent to the counties with the highest population density, but why would anyone expect that?


Again, that sure looks like you're talking about what The Man's charts show, and was in response to The Man, not drummergirl.

And now you're trying to say the demographic discussion is separate from your discussion about The Man's charts? No way.  You brought demographics up about them, and more than once, which again, begs the question:

why the heck would any demographic cause people to suddenly start voting for Romney but not his delegates?

----------


## The Man

Quick point- this particular algorithm at 300k that flips to Romney is a small portion of the manipulation. This preliminary chart gives an idea all of the electronic manipulation. This is NOT my final conclusion- there is still much work to be done and new bits to be learned. Note that the X-Axis represents the reference path for all 4 candidate's curves so that all 4 curves ARE the manipulation:

----------


## dsw

> Try this DSW. This data is using delegates 2 and 3 averaged, which is what I had in my spreadsheet. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ```
> 1 0
> 1 0
> 1 0
> ...


Thanks!  My results are a bit different, and I'd like to get this exactly right before going deeper, especially because mine isn't showing a knee and that's the region I want to look at more closely. 

You start out with a vote total of 1, but I have a handful of precincts with zero votes.  One for example is Choctaw county, Halsell precinct:
http://results.enr.clarityelections....n/reports.html
I guess only democrats live there.  It shows zero votes for GOP candidates, zero in delegate races.  I'm guessing you just started the cumulative vote total at 1 rather than 0, to avoid a divide-by-zero somewhere.

But then on line 36 you get (1,1) and I'm still in the zero precincts.  (I'm sorting on total votes, then county, then precinct.  For me #36 is  Wilcox, VOC. BLDG ANNIEMANIE.)  

I don't get out of the zeros until line 40 (Choctaw, INTERSECTION).  But your cumulative vote total is 1.0 until line 55.  

I picked out a few points in the data where the total votes is unique (such as Russell, Roy Martin with 720 total), and we hit these on different lines but at least I can check that my calculation of the average of delegate 2 and delegate 3 is the same as yours, except that you round it to an integer.  But I only checked a few that way.

And there seem to be other discrepancies, but if you get a chance to look at the data to see if the above differences indicate anything I'd appreciate it.   I'm assuming we're both using the dataset that Liberty posted, right?

----------


## The Man

> Thanks!  My results are a bit different, and I'd like to get this exactly right before going deeper, especially because mine isn't showing a knee and that's the region I want to look at more closely. 
> 
> You start out with a vote total of 1, but I have a handful of precincts with zero votes.  One for example is Choctaw county, Halsell precinct:
> http://results.enr.clarityelections....n/reports.html
> I guess only democrats live there.  It shows zero votes for GOP candidates, zero in delegate races.  I'm guessing you just started the cumulative vote total at 1 rather than 0, to avoid a divide-by-zero somewhere.
> 
> But then on line 36 you get (1,1) and I'm still in the zero precincts.  (I'm sorting on total votes, then county, then precinct.  For me #36 is  Wilcox, VOC. BLDG ANNIEMANIE.)  
> 
> I don't get out of the zeros until line 40 (Choctaw, INTERSECTION).  But your cumulative vote total is 1.0 until line 55.  
> ...


OK- The "1" vote was inserted to prevent my "cumulative%" calculation from having a "0" in the denominator. That's not going to affect the Y-Axis value at all. It WILL shift the data points to the left by a whopping 1 vote, or 0.000172 % of the width of your chart, or 0.00001375 inches on a 8" wide chart. 

I am working from the excel chart that Liberty1789 posted earlier in this thread- will repost the link. So post the graph that you were to create from the data I sent to you.

----------


## dsw

> OK- The "1" vote was inserted to prevent my "cumulative%" calculation from having a "0" in the denominator. That's not going to affect the Y-Axis value at all. It WILL shift the data points to the left by a whopping 1 vote, or 0.000172 % of the width of your chart, or 0.00001375 inches on a 8" wide chart.


The difference of 1 isn't a big deal, I was just going through the differences one at a time.  Rounding the averages won't make any difference either.  But that's not the only difference, as the next few lines of what I wrote illustrated.   At line 36 you're apparently hitting a precinct with zero total votes, but your y value goes up so there would have to be some Mitt delegates there, that I don't have.  And I hit the first non-zero vote total on line 40, but your cumulative total doesn't go from 1 to 2 until line 55. 

These are not significant differences in terms of how the graph looks, but the magnitudes of the differences get larger, and it changes the shape of the graph, so hopefully the first differences encountered will help zero in on where I've got the data wrong.  A lot else about the data seems to be in agreement, based on spot checking some of the larger precincts (where I could identify that we were looking at the same precinct even though we hit the precinct at different points because of earlier differences), and where I could find those agreements my calculation of the y value matched yours.  So I'm close to being able to replicate the result and dig into it some more, but not quite there yet.

Again:  you keep reading this as if you think my using the word "average" or trying to correct a difference of one vote is a critique of what you've done, and it is NOT that in any way; I'm just trying to replicate your result so I can look at it in more depth.  




> I am working from the excel chart that Liberty1789 posted earlier in this thread- will repost the link.


I was using the link from #94 in this thread, which linked here: http://www.filedropper.com/alabamadelegateraces
But when I go there now it redirects to the front page of that website.
I reloaded my original spreadsheet and verified that in the data I have, there are only 39 precincts with zero total votes, but since your cumulative total doesn't change until line 55  you seem to have more precincts with zero total votes.  

Again:  not a significant difference in the long run, not a critique, probably my error somewhere, but I can't start digging into the phenomenon until I can replicate the result, and without fixing these early errors the later precincts don't line up and tracking down the discrepancy is much harder.

----------


## drummergirl

> Back to your question:  Why would "demographics" be at work only in certain places and not others.
> 
> That's not a mathematical question, it's an empirical question.  And an interesting one, but any time I start responding to the empirical question the (bogus) mathematical argument comes up as a reply.  So I'd like to make some progress on the mathematical question first, then come back to he other one.
> 
> Two questions:
> 
> Do you agree that the marble drawing analogy, and the math that works in that kind of situation, does not apply if the initial sample might be biased in some way?  Strictly as a math question.  
> 
> If we agree on that, then do you agree that the demographics of the more densely-populated counties in a state may reasonably be expected to *possibly* differ demographically from the more sparsely-populated counties in a state?  Just as a general question about voter demographics, not about anything else.


Obviously, if you put a "red magnet" in the bottom of the marble bag, the curve shape will be shifted; there will still be 50% red in the end though.  

The demographic question is quite important.  And a key part of it is that any demographics would have to apply in all similar cases.

Here are 7 demographically similar counties from South Carolina (based on the population density charts from the SC thread).  In Oconee County, there is flipping from Paul and Santorum to Romney.  In Georgetown there is flipping from Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul to Romney.  In Lancaster there is flipping from Gingrich to Romney.  In Kershaw and Darlington counties there is no flipping at all.

What demographic factor is there that in very similar circumstances (same election, same day, same state, same size counties, similar vote totals)  would cause a positive linear correlation for Romney in 3 cases, but not 2 and would cause inconsistent negative linear correlations for Paul, Gingrich, and Santorum?  If demographics explains the slopes, what explains the flat lines?

----------


## Joshua2585

Ron Paul has been winning a tremendous amount of delegates in states that he did not do well in the popular vote? Is this not the same thing, with the coin flipped?

----------


## The Man

> Ron Paul has been winning a tremendous amount of delegates in states that he did not do well in the popular vote? Is this not the same thing, with the coin flipped?


Are you seriously comparing the Ron Paul campaign's excellent delegate winning strategy that makes maximum use of all the GOP rules TO criminal electronic vote theft?

----------


## dsw

> Obviously, if you put a "red magnet" in the bottom of the marble bag, the curve shape will be shifted; there will still be 50% red in the end though.  
> 
> The demographic question is quite important.  And a key part of it is that any demographics would have to apply in all similar cases.


But the math won't tell you whether the cases are similar are not.  Math doesn't have anything to say about whether the 2008 Alabama race (I'd love to get a link to that data if someone turned up more than just the one county) and the 2012 Alabama race are affected by demographic differences in identical ways.  With different candidates running, that's not even a reasonable expectation.  

I'll give you one example if you wont try to read more into it than I'm saying.  The superbrochure people think the SB is super awesome.  And they've set up a web site for donations to send them out, and because of the way they set up the web site, saturation in smaller precincts (which are cheaper to "buy") is higher than saturation in larger precincts.  Someone posted some very limited data purporting to show that Ron Paul's success in SC correlated with SB saturation.  What if they were right, just for the sake of argument?  Then because they made it easier to saturate the small precincts, and because saturation correlates with Paul's %vote (they claim), Paul's %vote would tend to decline as precinct size, and SB saturation, go down.  

*I'm not making that argument.*  Their data (if it holds more widely as they claim) could just as easily be explained because Paul did worse in large precincts due to flipping, and so it's only coincidence that Paul did worse where SB saturation was lower.  Or they could be right.  They didn't publish enough data to draw any conclusions.

The point I *am* trying to make is that here's one example of an effect that, if genuine, would correlate with precinct size, and apply only in 2012.  Romney has also started using a company named TargetPoint to do targeted campaigning, and they brag (without specifics) about doing something radically awesome there about precisely targeted campaigning.  Mathematics won't tell you whether or not they're doing something like the inverse of the SB pattern, focusing feet-on-the-ground spending in the precincts that can deliver the most votes, for example.  Don't get hung up on those specifics.  The point is that Math doesn't predict that there can't be differences between the 2008 and 2012 elections.  Math doesn't know what the designers of the superbrochure web site might do in 2012 that they didn't do in 2008, along with countless other potential differences.

My point is that the mathematical argument, the probability calculations, etc., are all only valid if an assumption holds, and it's an assumption that mathematics can't answer.  In fact what you've really proven is that the assumption does *not* hold in some cases.  So you can't go back and analyze those cases using math that would only be valid if the assumption holds after proving that it does not hold.   

Which is not to say that asking *why* there's a difference isn't a valid question.  I'm only saying that the mathematical argument is invalid.




> Here are 7 demographically similar counties from South Carolina (based on the population density charts from the SC thread).  In Oconee County, there is flipping from Paul and Santorum to Romney.  In Georgetown there is flipping from Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul to Romney.  In Lancaster there is flipping from Gingrich to Romney.  In Kershaw and Darlington counties there is no flipping at all.
> 
> What demographic factor is there that in very similar circumstances (same election, same day, same state, same size counties, similar vote totals)  would cause a positive linear correlation for Romney in 3 cases, but not 2 and would cause inconsistent negative linear correlations for Paul, Gingrich, and Santorum?  If demographics explains the slopes, what explains the flat lines?


Are they demographically similar in all respects, or just population density?  You talk about "what demographic factor," singular, as if it would have to come down to one.  Elections are complex, and how people choose between one candidate and another is complex.  And to even start to look at this you'd have to look at what correlates with precinct size in those different counties.  Is there geographical clustering, as in Va Beach City?   If so, do the larger precincts tend to come from more affluent areas?  

In fact, let's just look.  I just went to zillow, looked at Va Beach City, set a min price of 1 million, and what do you know?  That large cluster in the northeast, the one that constituted 60% of the data to the right of the "crime" point, also turns out to be a cluster of the most expensive houses.  So the big jump in the graph is *exactly* at the first precinct you hit of several that are all apparently in one of the most affluent areas.  A neighborhood that is affluent and (if the data is genuine) very pro-Romney.  This happened because the precinct size order results in a strong pattern of geographical clustering, and more than half of the largest precincts are in a geographical cluster that also happens to be very affluent.  (And that wasn't the only cluster to the right of the "crime" point.)  

Nothing in math tells you that these kinds of correlations won't happen.  And notice that this wasn't a simple one.  The geographical clustering alone is suggestive, but doesn't explain the graph.  The affluence of certain areas, with affluent areas skewing pro-Romney, wouldn't be enough to explain the graph.  It took the combination of those factors, so that you hit (exactly at the "crime" point) the first of several very affluent and very pro-Romney precincts that, because the sorted order results in geographical clustering, all end up bunched together in the last precincts on the graph.

----------


## dsw

> Ron Paul has been winning a tremendous amount of delegates in states that he did not do well in the popular vote? Is this not the same thing, with the coin flipped?


Other people have asked that, but it's a misunderstanding of how things were done in Alabama.  Some states had a straw poll or whatever, and a separate thing entirely for selecting delegates, and Paul in some cases did very, very well in the latter and not so well in the former.  

In Alabama, it's one ballot for both.  But also, the delegate races aren't choosing between delegates for different candidates.  Each delegate race is for people who want to be a delegate for one candidate.  It's choosing who would be the potential first delegate for Ron Paul, for example, between two Ron Paul supporters.   So Paul's strategy for winning delegates that has been so effective elsewhere doesn't really apply in Alabama.

----------


## The Man

I need some feedback from any of you on a method of "adjusting" delegates for the purpose of eliminating noise. Some basic facts:

1. Delegate votes, regardless of position number, are believed to be proportionally representative of the cast votes in the Alabama 2012 Primary.
2. None of the delegate votes position final totals exactly matches the candidate vote final totals.

Because the delegate votes totals of just about every precinct deviate erratically, I have devised a simple "adjustment" that largely eliminates erratic noise in each candidate's "votes minus delegates"  calculation" that I have appplied in each precinct:

#Delegates each candidate for a particular precinct (Adjusted) = [(reported votes total all candidates for precinct) / (total delegates all candidates for precinct)] X candidate's reported delegates for particular precinct.

In other words, we are simply adjusting the number each candidate's delegates in each precinct according using the ratio of (total votes reported) / (total delegates reported).

The results are pretty dramatic, especially for Paul and Gingrich:   



Question: Why does the adjustment appear to dramatically reduce noise for all candidates EXCEPT Santorum? I have no idea.

----------


## drummergirl

> So you can't go back and analyze those cases using math that would only be valid if the assumption holds after proving that it does not hold.


Here is an important point about the mathematical analyses.  The marble concept - that the lines should go flat, is just for screening purposes.  It does NOT tell you for certain if there is flipping. For that question, you can chart probabilities (there's a couple of them in the summary doc for instance) or you can do the hypergeometric plots (like in the SC county series a couple pages back).  Those say, if a candidate has x percentage, standard deviation S, with y percent votes counted what are the odds of him finishing as he does?

IF that tells you that the odds are astronomical, then you might notice, say, that looks kinda like a straight line there.  Is that really a correlation?  Determining correlation between precinct size and vote percentage does NOT assume they are independent variables.  R^2, t-test, F stats do not have that underlying assumption.  So I can definitely use them.






> Nothing in math tells you that these kinds of correlations won't happen.


Yes, it does.  Go back to the marble example.  The math is pretty straightforward, even with larger and larger precincts, the amount that one precinct can significantly alter the overall percentage gets smaller and smaller as you approach 100% counted.  Major changes near the end are unusual; perfectly sloped straight lines are just down right freakish.

----------


## parocks

> Can you be more specific about what you mean by broken?


Allowed people to vote for a candidates delegates when they didn't vote for the candidate.

----------


## parocks

> Except for an error so small that it could be corrected with just two additional candidate votes, enforcing the rule in 2008 and not in 2012 would explain why the 2008 data looks the way it does.   It may be the same machines but it's not the same configuration files.  Simple human error.


"not the same configuration files"

this

----------


## dsw

> Here is an important point about the mathematical analyses.  The marble concept - that the lines should go flat, is just for screening purposes.  It does NOT tell you for certain if there is flipping. For that question, you can chart probabilities (there's a couple of them in the summary doc for instance) or you can do the hypergeometric plots (like in the SC county series a couple pages back).  Those say, if a candidate has x percentage, standard deviation S, with y percent votes counted what are the odds of him finishing as he does?


Those say, if a candidate has x percentage, standard deviation S, with y percent votes counted and those y percent votes are randomly selected, what are the odds of him finishing as he does?

They don't say anything about what happens if the candidate has x percentage, standard deviation S, with y percent votes counted, and the selection of those y percent votes may have been biased in some fashion.

----------


## parocks

> Yep, and you get the same thing in many earlier elections -- e.g. huck did better in many rural areas too. It's completely expected, to anyone actually interested in using common sense.
> 
> But, I don't expect anyone here to change their mind -- it's practically a religion at this point.


Righto.  Common Sense is out the window.  Some "flippers" do not believe that one candidate can do better than another candidate in rural areas and a different candidate can do better in suburban areas.

And it's more like a cult than a religion.

----------


## affa

> Righto.  Common Sense is out the window.  Some "flippers" do not believe that one candidate can do better than another candidate in rural areas and a different candidate can do better in suburban areas.


of COURSE we believe that is possible, but we a) do not think that's what we are witnessing based on research, and b) do not think that would cause the anomaly we are seeing.    See: historical and international elections, among other things.  Not to mention, actual exit polls show Paul does similarly well regardless of this.

I have no problem with one candidate doing better in one city than another, or rural vs. urban vs. suburban.  No problem whatsoever.  Obviously, Gingrich will do better in the South, etc.  But rural/urban/suburban != precinct size, and we've shown again and again that the correlation is to precinct size (as in, number of voters), not rural/urban/suburban (or even 'Republican-ness vs. Democrat-ness, as far as we can tell).  Additionally, we've shown the same anomaly regardless of whether we're talking a handful of votes between precincts in a region, or hundreds upon hundreds.  

You're using your own ignorance to completely mis-state our position, because you refuse to actually do any of your own research on the subject, but rather just keep repeating your assumption like it's genius and we never thought of it. It is downright laughable at this point.  

Isn't your candidate out of the race?  Or are we stuck with you even longer now that you can't spend any time 'analyzing' why we should vote for Santorum?

----------


## parocks

> of COURSE we believe that is possible, but we a) do not think that's what we are witnessing based on research, and b) do not think that would cause the anomaly we are seeing.    See: historical and international elections, among other things.  Not to mention, actual exit polls show Paul does similarly well regardless of this.
> 
> I have no problem with one candidate doing better in one city than another, or rural vs. urban vs. suburban.  No problem whatsoever.  Obviously, Gingrich will do better in the South, etc.  But rural/urban/suburban != precinct size, and we've shown again and again that the correlation is to precinct size (as in, number of voters), not rural/urban/suburban (or even 'Republican-ness vs. Democrat-ness, as far as we can tell).  Additionally, we've shown the same anomaly regardless of whether we're talking a handful of votes between precincts in a region, or hundreds upon hundreds.  
> 
> You're using your own ignorance to completely mis-state our position, because you refuse to actually do any of your own research on the subject, but rather just keep repeating your assumption like it's genius and we never thought of it. It is downright laughable at this point.  
> 
> Isn't your candidate out of the race?


You flippers are more expert at insults than anything else.

Me and tremendous have been here longer than anybody on this thread.

Having March 2012 people who have been here a month insulting 2007s is a joke.

----------


## parocks

> It's not "good job". It's obvious: candidates got more votes for their delegates than they themselves recieved. I think that's obviously unexpected, given the rules, and worth looking into. (note: "looking into" does not mean plotting the same data 100 different ways)
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry if you feel insulted, but these threads have been rife with absurd, obviously fallacious arguments asserted as "mathematial proof", and I do find it embarassing.
> 
> 
> 
> So answer: Why did some candidates get more votes for delegates than they got themselves?
> ...



Right on! Keep bringing  the rationality 2007er!

----------


## parocks

> The "vote flipping" had 200 pages, and even you admit it's fallacious on a basic, logical level.
> 
> How is this explanation not plausible?
> 
> I think people are spending entirely too much time plotting things, and not enough time thinking through the issue.



What happened was a sizeable chunk of people voted in all the delegate races.  In 2012, they counted those votes, in 2008, they didn't.  The machines, or the "configuration files" were wrong, or broken, in 2012.

See this chart for what happened in 2012 (approximately)

----------


## drummergirl

> Those say, if a candidate has x percentage, standard deviation S, with y percent votes counted and those y percent votes are randomly selected, what are the odds of him finishing as he does?
> 
> They don't say anything about what happens if the candidate has x percentage, standard deviation S, with y percent votes counted, and the selection of those y percent votes may have been biased in some fashion.


Yes, they do.  If the odds, assuming random selection, are outrageous (like the odds of winning the lottery 3 weeks in a row), it implies that there is a dependency in the data.  

The key thing to remember is that once you determine there is a dependency in the data, you don't continue to assume randomness.  That was the point about doing linear regression.  The subsequent analysis does not assume independence.

If you did the first step, and the graph gave a flat line to 30%, and then a parabolic looking line (thank God we don't), you might try to fit a higher ordered equation to it to see if that fit.  Again, that would no longer assume independence.

----------


## drummergirl

> You're using your own ignorance to completely mis-state our position, because you refuse to actually do any of your own research on the subject, but rather just keep repeating your assumption like it's genius and we never thought of it. It is downright laughable at this point.


Well said.

----------


## drummergirl

> Question: Why does the adjustment appear to dramatically reduce noise for all candidates EXCEPT Santorum? I have no idea.


I'm not sure.  Still thinking.

----------


## RonRules

> Question: Why does the adjustment appear to dramatically reduce noise for all candidates EXCEPT Santorum? I have no idea.


Double check your spreadsheet's adjustment coefficients for Santorum. You may be pointing at a wrong cell or you're off by a decimal point somewhere.

Probably an "honest" mistake.

----------


## drummergirl

> Allowed people to vote for a candidates delegates when they didn't vote for the candidate.


So... you don't really have any details.

----------


## drummergirl

a humorous diversion...

Argument between two numbers:

Pi, "Get real!"

i, "Be rational!"

----------


## RonRules

Amusement interlude:

Our friend Parocks has now flipped to loving Gingrich:

"If Romney is kept <1144, we have a chance to win in Tampa. 

If Romney is is not kept <1144, we don't have a chance to win in Tampa.

The way to keep Romney <1144 is for Paul and Gingrich to get a lot of votes, get a lot of delegates, and Romney to get fewer votes, fewer delegates.

How does Romney get fewer votes and fewer delegates? People can start liking Paul and Gingrich a lot more or Romney a lot less."

----------


## RonRules

Duplicate or place holder for hot smoking gun.

----------


## parocks

> So... you don't really have any details.


I was correcting YOUR LIE about ME, newby.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4345345

You said: "Parocks thinks it's just a sudden surge of stupidity."

And I replied: "No, I think the machines were broken in 2012."

----------


## parocks

> Amusement interlude:
> 
> Our friend Parocks has now flipped to loving Gingrich:
> 
> "If Romney is kept <1144, we have a chance to win in Tampa. 
> 
> If Romney is is not kept <1144, we don't have a chance to win in Tampa.
> 
> The way to keep Romney <1144 is for Paul and Gingrich to get a lot of votes, get a lot of delegates, and Romney to get fewer votes, fewer delegates.
> ...


Right, dimwit.

If Romney gets 1144, WE LOSE, PERIOD.

Don't you get this?  I don't care who gets votes, as long as it isn't Romney.
We can win over delegates, as long as they aren't Romney delegates, in TAMPA.

But we're FINISHED, if Romney gets 1144.

That's priority #1.

Romney <1144.

Am I on a Romney board now?

What is wrong with you?

What I am saying is basic common sense.

----------


## drummergirl

> Don't you get this?  I don't care who gets votes, as long as it isn't Romney.


I care.  I'm for Ron Paul. He gets my vote and full support.

----------


## drummergirl

> I was correcting YOUR LIE about ME, newby.


I really do not understand how it is that you have not been banned by the moderators for this kind of thing.  I didn't lie about you, and the name calling is just childish.




> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4345345
> 
> You said: "Parocks thinks it's just a sudden surge of stupidity."
> 
> And I replied: "No, I think the machines were broken in 2012."


You call them "wrong" voters over and over again, implying that these are people of low mental ability that do not read or understand directions.  I shortened that up to "stupidity".

And you keep harping on this nebulous "the machines were broken" and counted "wrong" ballots.  But, you have no details on what was broken, how it happened, how it worked, nothing.  If my car doesn't start, I can throw up my hands and say, "it's broken" or I can start trying to figure out why it won't start - is it the battery, am I out of gas, is it not in park, is there a loose spark plug, etc.

You just say, well, the election was broken, no biggie, nothing to see here.  Stop trolling.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

Can't y'all just be civil to each other?  Sheesh.  This is getting a bit ridiculous, and not something I'd like to warn/PM over.

----------


## parocks

> I care.  I'm for Ron Paul. He gets my vote and full support.


Oh, mine too, but unless Romney gets <1144, we're out.

Finished.

So, if you had the choice of 2 outcomes, one with Ron Paul with more delegates and Romney with over 1144 delegates, and one with Ron Paul with less delegates and Romney with less than 1144 delegates, the latter one is the better choice.  Because in that scenario, we're on to Tampa with a chance to win.   

Doug Wead in his facebook q&a on tuesday said that Santorum leaving makes our life more difficult.  

Priority One is the keep Romney <1144.  I'm in favor of any and all things that keep Romney <1144.  Some things are better than others.

Attack Romney Now is likely my favorite type of idea.  There's a very popular new thread right now about Attack Romney Now.  That's my kind of idea.

----------


## parocks

No, they voted wrongly, for whatever reason.  There are "right" voters, people who cast a vote for delegate after voting for the right candidate.  There are "wrong" voters, people cast a vote for delegate after Not voting for the right candidate.
I'm calling them stupid, probably, they didn't think there were a bunch of races they shouldn't be voting in, probably because they didn't read that section.

And, I don't think there are more of them in 2012.  The machines behaved differently.  I'm not arguing about the machines, I'm arguing about what you said that I said, and you were wrong in 2 different ways.   You clearly misrepresented what I said.







> I really do not understand how it is that you have not been banned by the moderators for this kind of thing.  I didn't lie about you, and the name calling is just childish.
> 
> 
> 
> You call them "wrong" voters over and over again, implying that these are people of low mental ability that do not read or understand directions.  I shortened that up to "stupidity".
> 
> And you keep harping on this nebulous "the machines were broken" and counted "wrong" ballots.  But, you have no details on what was broken, how it happened, how it worked, nothing.  If my car doesn't start, I can throw up my hands and say, "it's broken" or I can start trying to figure out why it won't start - is it the battery, am I out of gas, is it not in park, is there a loose spark plug, etc.
> 
> You just say, well, the election was broken, no biggie, nothing to see here.  Stop trolling.

----------


## RonRules

Nice Wisconsin slideshow with updated graphs:
http://s269.photobucket.com/albums/j...view=slideshow

Please discuss in the other thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ling-up/page21

----------


## drummergirl

> The machines behaved differently.


How do you know this?

----------


## drummergirl

> Oh, mine too, but unless Romney gets <1144, we're out.


I suppose I consider that view to be short sighted.  Obviously, if Romney gets >1144 on the first ballot, he has the nomination for 2012.  In 1976 there was a fella named Ronald Reagan in a similar spot to Ron Paul.  I'm hoping our republican party is smarter now than they were in '76 (because nominating Ford just handed the general election to Carter the same way that nominating Romney will give it to Obama).  When I vote for Ron Paul, I'm also voting for the liberty movement.

----------


## dsw

> I suppose I consider that view to be short sighted.  Obviously, if Romney gets >1144 on the first ballot, he has the nomination for 2012.  In 1976 there was a fella named Ronald Reagan in a similar spot to Ron Paul.  I'm hoping our republican party is smarter now than they were in '76 (because nominating Ford just handed the general election to Carter the same way that nominating Romney will give it to Obama).  When I vote for Ron Paul, I'm also voting for the liberty movement.


I completely agree with this, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for the liberty movement.   A vote taken from Paul and given to Santorum or Newt may have made a limited sort of strategic sense at some point in the past, but most likely not, and either way it would have been short-sighted because for some small chance of gaming the system successfully it would make someone like Newt or Santorum look more popular and diminish the impact of the liberty movement.   Very short sighted.

But NOW trying to get people to support Newt is doing nothing at all but undermining Ron Paul.  Newt isn't even campaigning.  He may not have officially dropped out, but for all practical purposes he's out.  Trying to siphon off Ron Paul votes to Newt is not only hurting the liberty movement, it also makes no strategic sense in terms of stopping Romney.  It's no longer short-sighted, it's straight out anti-Paul.

What *would* make sense would be to try to convince the dailykos types that voting for Ron Paul in the remaining primaries would not only make Romney look weak, there's a chance it could give Paul enough delegates to block Romney in a brokered convention.   To whatever extent that worked it would not only take delegates from Romney, it would give those delegates to Ron Paul.  They probably wouldn't go for it, but at least that way you wouldn't be working against Ron Paul.

----------


## The Man

I ran across this before the SC Primary and didn't really think much of it. Now it seems potentiall prophetic.
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1555.htm

----------


## parocks

> How do you know this?


And, I don't think there are more of them in 2012. The machines behaved differently. I'm not arguing about the machines, I'm arguing about what you said that I said, and you were wrong in 2 different ways. You clearly misrepresented what I said.

----------


## parocks

> I suppose I consider that view to be short sighted.  Obviously, if Romney gets >1144 on the first ballot, he has the nomination for 2012.  In 1976 there was a fella named Ronald Reagan in a similar spot to Ron Paul.  I'm hoping our republican party is smarter now than they were in '76 (because nominating Ford just handed the general election to Carter the same way that nominating Romney will give it to Obama).  When I vote for Ron Paul, I'm also voting for the liberty movement.


I'm fortunate to be in Maine.    Voting for Gingrich over Ron Paul isn't even smart in most cases. In most cases I'm thinking Ron Paul is going to be ahead of Gingrich.   I'm much much more interested in other things that can be done to keep Romney <1144.  Attack Romney Now is one.  Doing damage to Romney is the best course of action, most closely tied to the general <1144 theme.  

Why do some people say that Romney is electable?  That seems to be a rationale for voting for him. We should be making the case that Romney is #unelectable.

----------


## parocks

> I completely agree with this, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for the liberty movement.   A vote taken from Paul and given to Santorum or Newt may have made a limited sort of strategic sense at some point in the past, but most likely not, and either way it would have been short-sighted because for some small chance of gaming the system successfully it would make someone like Newt or Santorum look more popular and diminish the impact of the liberty movement.   Very short sighted.
> 
> But NOW trying to get people to support Newt is doing nothing at all but undermining Ron Paul.  Newt isn't even campaigning.  He may not have officially dropped out, but for all practical purposes he's out.  Trying to siphon off Ron Paul votes to Newt is not only hurting the liberty movement, it also makes no strategic sense in terms of stopping Romney.  It's no longer short-sighted, it's straight out anti-Paul.
> 
> What *would* make sense would be to try to convince the dailykos types that voting for Ron Paul in the remaining primaries would not only make Romney look weak, there's a chance it could give Paul enough delegates to block Romney in a brokered convention.   To whatever extent that worked it would not only take delegates from Romney, it would give those delegates to Ron Paul.  They probably wouldn't go for it, but at least that way you wouldn't be working against Ron Paul.


It doesn't look like theres any strategic value in voting for Gingrich in the northeast states.  And there's a lot of proportional states after that, again, not wise to vote other than Paul, as we'll have an opportunity to pick up delegates in the proportional states.  

Talking about the viability of voting for another Conservative in the interests of Conservative Unity and/or Romney <1144 is the kind of thing that supporters of all the candidates will like to hear.  

Have we laid the groundwork for Santorums supporters to start becoming Ron Paul voters?  If Santorum's supporters came here right now, and wanted to start researching whether or not Ron Paul is the candidate for them, they'd want to know what Ron Paul supporters thought of Santorum.

Some people on RPF thought that in some instances, it might be a smart thing to do to vote for Santorum, depending on the circumstances.

Santorum supporters would read that and think "hey, these Ron Paul people are all right".

Most people on RPF thought that was a bad idea, for many reasons including a dislike of Santorum.

Santorum supporters see that and say "These Ron Paul supporters were hating Santorum, why do I want to align myself with them?  What does Newt have to offer?"

There are a good number of reasons to discuss Conservative Unity and the methods to use Conservative Unity to achieve Romney <1144.  When Santorum was in the race, it was more wise to announce that keeping Romney <1144 was the priority, and when it was smart to do so, some Ron Paul supporters would consider voting for whatever candidate had a chance to take away delegates from Romney.  Shortly after this idea was discussed, Santorum dropped out, and we had no chance to prove our committment to Romney <1144 and the use of tactics beyond "Ron Paul!"

To have done that would've been good PR for Ron Paul supporters and for Ron Paul.

And, we would be in a position to ask Santorums supporters for their help right now.  But, nope, we're not really in that spot right now.  Obviously we have to try, but NOBP and the attitudes that go with it. does not help with getting Santorum supporters.

Agree that there isn't much if any smart reason to not vote for Ron Paul right now.

----------


## affa

> But NOW trying to get people to support Newt is doing nothing at all but undermining Ron Paul.  Newt isn't even campaigning.  He may not have officially dropped out, but for all practical purposes he's out.  Trying to siphon off Ron Paul votes to Newt is not only hurting the liberty movement, it also makes no strategic sense in terms of stopping Romney.  It's no longer short-sighted, it's straight out anti-Paul.


exactly. 
Not to mention, the vast majority of us here are hardcore Paul supporters.  One of the main things driving Paul's support (in addition to his beliefs) is his long history of voting for issues based on their Constitutionality, and never voting based on political convenience.   

We're voting for Paul.  Period.   Even if it made sense to vote for, say, Gingrich (which it doesn't), doing so would go against pretty much everything Paul stands for, in my opinion.   Paul could have made his political life much easier by changing his vote here or there, but stood firm.  As will I.

That said, can we please keep this thread on track?  We're voting for Paul. End of discussion.

----------


## drummergirl

Did The Man, or anyone else, determine the source of the noise in the Santorum line from his graphical set?  That's still a loose end wandering around in the back of my mind looking for an anchor point.

----------


## drummergirl

> Why do some people say that Romney is electable?  That seems to be a rationale for voting for him. We should be making the case that Romney is #unelectable.


I don't know why anyone thinks that a man who goes around proposing $10,000 gentleman's bets, says, "I like to fire people", and worked as a professional corporate raider could possibly get elected president.

----------


## The Man

I have NOT. I have confirmed that the spreadsheet is correct. I can think of a few causes but not a good way to confirm.


> Did The Man, or anyone else, determine the source of the noise in the Santorum line from his graphical set?  That's still a loose end wandering around in the back of my mind looking for an anchor point.

----------


## drummergirl

> I have NOT. I have confirmed that the spreadsheet is correct. I can think of a few causes but not a good way to confirm.


I will keep rolling around with it then.  And ikwym, a couple ideas, nothing definitive; this one has my brain doing some gymnastics

----------


## Liberty1789

The vote-for-all idiocy theory requires a lot of voters to keep voting wrong. In Tuscaloosa, parocks proposes a 6.4% number. Additionally he argues that some voters started to vote for all but stopped at some point in the process: those are the "partly wrong" votes cast. Their number should show gradual erosion as you go down the list of delegates on the ballot, but it is not the case. The model does not fit the data, as shown in the Tuscaloosa chart below: it requires a lot of "partly wrong" voters to get to Paul's delegates (hence the 0%), but then it requires a lot of them to suddenly disappear when you get to Romney (hence the -46%). Force-fitting in all its splendor.



The vote-for-all theory is clever, there is no denying that, but it does not work, there is no denying that either. And the chart above is further evidence that the anomaly is PAUL-SPECIFIC.

----------


## dsw

Hey Liberty -- I was trying to replicate one of The Man's graphs, and from the data he posted it looks like my version of the Alabama data differs from his.  And the filedropper link you originally posted now seems to be dead.  I had, IIRC, something like 39 precincts with zero total votes and he had over 50.  There seemed to be other differences too because my graph was very similar to his but not identical, and the differences turned out to matter in the analysis.  Do you have a working link to the "official" data-on-a-silver-platter file?  Thanks!

----------


## Liberty1789

> Hey Liberty -- I was trying to replicate one of The Man's graphs, and from the data he posted it looks like my version of the Alabama data differs from his.  And the filedropper link you originally posted now seems to be dead.  I had, IIRC, something like 39 precincts with zero total votes and he had over 50.  There seemed to be other differences too because my graph was very similar to his but not identical, and the differences turned out to matter in the analysis.  Do you have a working link to the "official" data-on-a-silver-platter file?  Thanks!


http://www.filedropper.com/alabamadelegateraces

----------


## parocks

> The vote-for-all idiocy theory requires a lot of voters to keep voting wrong. In Tuscaloosa, parocks proposes a 6.4% number. Additionally he argues that some voters started to vote for all but stopped at some point in the process: those are the "partly wrong" votes cast. Their number should show gradual erosion as you go down the list of delegates on the ballot, but it is not the case. The model does not fit the data, as shown in the Tuscaloosa chart below: it requires a lot of "partly wrong" voters to get to Paul's delegates (hence the 0%), but then it requires a lot of them to suddenly disappear when you get to Romney (hence the -46%). Force-fitting in all its splendor.
> 
> 
> 
> The vote-for-all theory is clever, there is no denying that, but it does not work, there is no denying that either. And the chart above is further evidence that the anomaly is PAUL-SPECIFIC.


I'm not going to use the word idiot.  Those aren't people who voted for ALL, those are people who voted in the wrong races.   

These aren't exact numbers, these are plausible numbers, estimates, approximations.  Certainly, the 540 and the 540 aren't going to be the same.  

Something like this.

----------


## dsw

> http://www.filedropper.com/alabamadelegateraces


Thanks!  That matches my data, and I verified that only 39 precincts have zero total votes in the preference races.  So I can't replicate the graph I wanted to look at more closely without some more information about why the datasets appear to be different.

----------


## The Man

I posted a variation of this earlier and wanted to expand. This is a graph of all candidates' "Votes minus Delegates" versus cumulative precincts vote totals ascending order. Its a great way to see ONLY the manipulated votes from the Alabama 2012 Primary.

----------


## The Man

> Thanks!  That matches my data, and I verified that only 39 precincts have zero total votes in the preference races.  So I can't replicate the graph I wanted to look at more closely without some more information about why the datasets appear to be different.


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........

----------


## dsw

> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........


Hmmm?  The data Liberty just posted has 39 precincts with zero total votes.  That agrees with the data I used.  The data you posted in #549 here doesn't change in the x value for the first 54 rows, suggesting that your data has 54 precincts with zero total votes.  That's not the only difference, it's just the first one, but later values don't line up because of it so it's hard to figure out exactly what else differs.  As things stand I can't replicate the result -- which is not to say that this won't turn out to be a silly mistake on my part in the end, it's just where I got stuck.

----------


## Liberty1789

And, by the way, I was reminded of one of my favorite quotes when reading the heated exchanges of the last week:

"Truth springs from argument amongst friends." David Hume (genius)

Friends is the keyword here.

----------


## The Man

> Hmmm?  The data Liberty just posted has 39 precincts with zero total votes.  That agrees with the data I used.  The data you posted in #549 here doesn't change in the x value for the first 54 rows, suggesting that your data has 54 precincts with zero total votes.  That's not the only difference, it's just the first one, but later values don't line up because of it so it's hard to figure out exactly what else differs.  As things stand I can't replicate the result -- which is not to say that this won't turn out to be a silly mistake on my part in the end, it's just where I got stuck.


So post your graph then. Get on with it Let's see how different yours is.

"Rule#4. Use a straw man. 
Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues."

----------


## dsw

> So post your graph then. Get on with it Let's see how different yours is.
> 
> "Rule#4. Use a straw man. 
> Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues."


I posted it once, you objected that it didn't look the same, I posted my data, you posted your data, I went digging into the reasons that it didn't look quite like yours and ended up finding that your data does not seem to agree with Liberty's.  Here it is again.  The key difference is that that the graph I was trying to replicate had a sharp "knee" and this one doesn't.  

And yet again:  it could still be my mistake, but where things stand right now is that your data appears to indicate 54 precincts with zero total votes, and Liberty's dataset only has 39 (not that that's the only difference, but it's the first one) and it would sure be nice to start out by making sure that we're on the same page at least about what data we're using.  If trying to replicate your results is what you consider a straw man, then fine, call it what you want.

----------


## drummergirl

> I'm not going to use the word idiot.  Those aren't people who voted for ALL, those are people who voted in the wrong races.   
> 
> These aren't exact numbers, these are plausible numbers, estimates, approximations.  Certainly, the 540 and the 540 aren't going to be the same.  
> 
> Something like this.


Please parocks,  your hypothesis has been discredited 6 different ways to Sunday.  Nice idea, but the math does not back it up.

----------


## The Man

> I posted it once, you objected that it didn't look the same, I posted my data, you posted your data, I went digging into the reasons that it didn't look quite like yours and ended up finding that your data does not seem to agree with Liberty's.  Here it is again.  The key difference is that that the graph I was trying to replicate had a sharp "knee" and this one doesn't.  
> 
> And yet again:  it could still be my mistake, but where things stand right now is that your data appears to indicate 54 precincts with zero total votes, and Liberty's dataset only has 39 (not that that's the only difference, but it's the first one) and it would sure be nice to start out by making sure that we're on the same page at least about what data we're using.  If trying to replicate your results is what you consider a straw man, then fine, call it what you want.


Well try these other 12. You're exposed DSW.

----------


## dsw

> Well try these other 12. You're exposed DSW.


Oh?  My data agrees with what Liberty posted.  Does yours?

 (Each line = one delegate)

----------


## RonRules

> Oh?  My data agrees with what Liberty posted.  Does yours?
>  (Each line = one delegate)


OK fine, after a week or so trying and wasting people's time you finally manage to reproduce someone's chart. Wouldn't it be more productive if you discovered new anomalies that indicate flipping?  This is the purpose of this thread. Either find positive anomalies or go nag in the "no-fraud" thread. There's plenty of more stuff to find and prove in Alabama alone. 

You tried to discredit my analysis in the other (main) thread by claiming that the Dane county WI Sheriff would not indicate flipping, without spending the time to try it. Instead I showed you that 7 of those ancillary races were favoring Republicans by flipping. That's now a major problem and embarrassment for the GOP.

Go grab fresh data analyze it and post positive results in this thread (for Alabama results) or the main thread. 

BTW, has anybody contacted the Secretary of State yet?

----------


## The Man

> Oh?  My data agrees with what Liberty posted.  Does yours?
> 
>  (Each line = one delegate)


So you're saying that because YOUR graph isn't as sharp at the elbow that it somehow lessens the fact that Romney's candidate votes slope increases dramatically in relation to his delegate curve? Plllllleeeease.

----------


## dsw

> You tried to discredit my analysis in the other (main) thread by claiming that the Dane county WI Sheriff would not indicate flipping, without spending the time to try it. Instead I showed you that 7 of those ancillary races were favoring Republicans by flipping. That's now a major problem and embarrassment for the GOP.


Without spending time to try it??  I'm the one who first posted the graph for the sheriff race, which didn't flatten out, and another old one that also didn't flatten out, and I could post a bunch more.  Then I posted one from Oregon, a vote on a bond issue, and there are a bunch more in that county as well.  Whether or not they indicate flipping is another question (I don't think they do) but if they do then I'm helping you prove that it's more widespread, and goes back more years, than anyone imagined.  

I found that last one by looking for a large-area county with a good-sized college town surrounded by small towns and farmland.  *Lots* of graphs that don't flatten out there, as I expected.  And if it's mathematically necessary that a sample taken from the smallest precincts must be a representative sample of all the data, then that means that election fraud in that Oregon county has been rampant since the 90's, as far back as they've posted data.  

And did you think I replicated The Man's graph?  The point is that I have been unable to replicate his result, using Liberty's data, and finally boiled it down to showing that his data doesn't seem to be the same as Liberty's.  It might still be my mistake, who knows?  He doesn't seem to want to answer questions about that part.   Hard to investigate a "knee" in the data if you can't replicate the knee.

But as to your real point:  if only positive results (even bogus ones, as long as they're positive) are wanted here, then I'm probably in the wrong place.  Am I getting the message clearly there?

----------


## dsw

> So you're saying that because YOUR graph isn't as sharp at the elbow that it somehow lessens the fact that Romney's candidate votes slope increases dramatically in relation to his delegate curve? Plllllleeeease.


Well I thought the whole "knee" thing was the "just wow" factor.  The straight lines superimposed on the graph showing *so clearly* the "crime" point, etc.  I guess I just misunderstood.

----------


## drummergirl

I suspect dsw is asking questions other people have but they don't necessarily post.  So, while I know it can be frustrating sometimes, I think it's good for those questions to get answers.  Remember folks, we are on the same team (i.e. trying to get Ron Paul elected).

----------


## affa

> Oh?  My data agrees with what Liberty posted.  Does yours?
> 
>  (Each line = one delegate)


Why are you acting as if this chart does not show the same exact problem that The Man's charts do?
They clearly show that Romney Votes - Romney Delegate votes change in slope after a certain number of votes counted.

That is probably the clearest evidence of fraud I've seen so far, since in order for demographics to explain it you'd need the same people that start voting for Romney in 'big' precincts to also not vote for his delegates, which doesn't even begin to make sense.

Re: the 'knee'.  C'mon. Your charts show the same thing as The Mans.   This is a chart; the knee will be more dramatic based on scale of chart, and also is a bit more evident when you have the straight lines.  However, yours show exactly the same problem.   Why are you acting like they don't?   Yours are just as 'wow' as The Man's.    That your charts don't show the knee with quite as much 'wow' factor means absolutely nothing, since your charts still duplicate The Man's work and show the same evidence of fraud.

As I've said before, these charts are perhaps the best case for fraud I've seen yet, in combination with everything else we've seen, because we finally see Romney matched up against Romney (delegates) in the same place, same year, same election... and see him outpace his OWN delegates in the exact same way we've seen him outpace his opponents in other state's counties.    Demographics can not explain this, no matter how much you torture the explanation.   Fraud would explain it perfectly.

----------


## affa

> But as to your real point:  if only positive results (even bogus ones, as long as they're positive) are wanted here, then I'm probably in the wrong place.  Am I getting the message clearly there?


Your charts ARE positive results.  They replicate the problem The Man discovered.   

As for you, you're welcome here, but you do have a history of driving conversation in circles, and focusing on random minutia while ignoring the elephant in the room.   

Your charts are just as much evidence of fraud as The Man's.  I'm more curious why you're acting like a trivial difference in the charts somehow negate's The Man's findings when your charts show the same problem.

----------


## dsw

> Your charts are just as much evidence of fraud as The Man's.  I'm more curious why you're acting like a trivial difference in the charts somehow negate's The Man's findings when your charts show the same problem.


A sharp knee, going from one linear slope to a different linear slope, would be a very interesting feature in a graph like this especially considering the smoothing effect, which will tend to turn correlations into nice gentle curves.  (But not always.  Don't forget VBC, where the "crime occurs here" point turned out to be where you hit the first of a large cluster of large contiguous precincts that also turned out to be the neighborhood with the largest concentration of homes listed for a million or more, and that one cluster of rich people skewing strongly pro-Mitt accounted for over 60% of the data to the right of the "crime" point, and that's without even considering a second geographic cluster near the first.)  

To me the knee was *the* thing that made the result look like it might be worth replicating and investigating.  Two linear regions connecting with a sharp knee would be a very interesting phenomenon, given how the data is being presented.  But if it can't be replicated from Liberty's data then it suddenly gets a lot less interesting.

When I saw that it wasn't a sharp knee, here's what I did.   The alleged crime point corresponds to a precinct size of around 724 IIRC.  So we're looking for differences between the precincts with sizes below that and precincts with sizes above that.  And since there are two numbers involved, Mitt's %vote and various ways of looking at his delegate scores, it also makes sense to separate those out and see how they're each behaving in the "under" and "over" subsets, so I did that.  And I looked at the delegate numbers as a percentage of Mitt's %vote in order to remove the often visually misleading bias of graphing (x,y) values when there's a natural correlation between x and y, as there is here.   But do you care?  You see a graph that curves, make a simplistic argument against demographic explanations (assuming implicitly that there were not enough idiot voters to be part of that explanation, since to the extent there were idiot voters voting in every delegate race you would *expect* that as Mitt's %vote goes up the ratio of delegates to mitt would go down), and then you declare victory.  Basically we're wasting each other's time here, so I'm going to help out by going into lurker mode.  Forgive me if I can't resist kibitzing occasionally but I'll try to do it on the officially sanctioned skeptics thread.

----------


## drummergirl

> A sharp knee, going from one linear slope to a different linear slope, would be a very interesting feature in a graph like this especially considering the smoothing effect, which will tend to turn correlations into nice gentle curves.  (But not always.  Don't forget VBC, where the "crime occurs here" point turned out to be where you hit the first of a large cluster of large contiguous precincts that also turned out to be the neighborhood with the largest concentration of homes listed for a million or more, and that one cluster of rich people skewing strongly pro-Mitt accounted for over 60% of the data to the right of the "crime" point, and that's without even considering a second geographic cluster near the first.)  
> 
> To me the knee was *the* thing that made the result look like it might be worth replicating and investigating.  Two linear regions connecting with a sharp knee would be a very interesting phenomenon, given how the data is being presented.  But if it can't be replicated from Liberty's data then it suddenly gets a lot less interesting.


I'm not sure why you are getting bent out of shape here; your chart and The Man's are consistent with one another.

----------


## Liberty1789

I have no explanation for what follows. It is plain data exploration.

I have sorted Alabama's 1,864 districts by Paul's vote tally in the presidential preference ballot and then split them into 8 bins of 233 precincts each (as 1,864 is a nice multiple of 8!).

I have then plotted for each candidate the ratio of the votes in the presidential preference ballot to the votes received in his second delegate race. I have skipped the 1st delegate as we have seen that Gingrich's 1st delegate vote count is very anomalous and I believe that what I get is therefore more robust.

My point is to see if the candidates' overvotes/undervotes correlate when broken down that way.



For instance, in the first bin, the 233 smallest precincts by Paul's presidential vote tally, Paul garnered 545 votes in his 2nd delegate race, but zero in the presidential preference vote. So I plot 0%. In the 2nd bin, I plot 17% (183/1088), etc...

This is additional strong evidence that Paul's anomaly is unique. It is the only candidate to exhibit a constant and significant positive correlation to precinct's vote tally.

This is completely incompatible with the vote-for-all-idiot theory as it would indicate proportions of vote-for-all idiots all over the place, per candidate and per precinct size (umpteenth debunk).

This is incompatible with the vote-flipping theory as Paul's positive correlation to vote tally is not mirrored by anyone's negative correlation that a zero-sum vote flip would create.

I wish I had an explanation, but I do not. Suggestions welcome.

----------


## drummergirl

Not sure where it's going, but my next thoughts are (along the lines of The Man's earlier posts...)

1) what does the ratio of (Santorum + Paul total votes) to (Santorum + Paul 2nd delegates) look like?

and

2) what does the ratio of (all votes cast in PPE) to (total of second delegates) look like?

and I still have that graph with the noisy Santorum line running around in my brain as well.  Y'all are going to drive me to drink lol.

----------


## The Man

I'm digesting your graph. Explain why you say your graph is NOT consistent with vote flipping. 
1. You're expecting another candidate's ratio to decrease left to right. Assuming that arranging via Paul's vote total is somewhat correlated to arrangiing via ascending precinct vote totals, this is almost exactly what I would expect. BUT I don't follow your reasoning. I can think of lots of reasons why your graph has no relation to vote flipping. 
2. Because essentially Paul donated any votes above 5%  on behalf of Santorum start to finish/ small to large precincts (see graph below) AND because Paul legitimately received less % in the largest precincts of the delegates (the true candidate vote %), His ratio IS  higher in the larger vote precincts like in your graph. 
As I have pondered more, there are simply to many gaps to even begin to totally address. True voter "noise" due to voter error (overvoting) tends to push precincts to the right in your graph and undervoting precincts to the left. I'll wait for your explanation Libert1789.

----------


## Liberty1789

> You're expecting another candidate's ratio to decrease left to right. Assuming that arranging via Paul's vote total is somewhat correlated to arranging via ascending precinct vote totals, this is almost exactly what I would expect.


Still traveling for a couple of days, so just a brief comment. The correlation between Paul's vote count and precinct vote tally is indeed very high: 92%. Hence my expectation.




> Paul donated any votes above 5%  on behalf of Santorum start to finish/ small to large precincts


I had to re-read the thread to make sure that I follow here: you mean that the vote flipper here is a "skimmer" keeping Paul's cumulative at 5%, right? I wrote my comment more with the proportional vote flipper in mind, so I need to sit back and rethink what a skimmer would do to the data.




> Paul legitimately received less % in the largest precincts of the delegates (the true candidate vote %)


Could you help me here, I have obviously missed a step: why would Paul normally get less votes in larger precincts?

----------


## drummergirl

To summarize without the rabbit trails:

Notice how lovely the Paul + santorum lines are?






From The Man post 497



> So here is what I'm talking about. Each of these three graphs plots the difference in every precinct betwen the candidate's vote total in that precinct AND his delegate total (averaged between ALL delegates for that candidate). The precincts are arranged from lowest vote total to highest left to right as usual. There are 1,864 precincts shown on each one of these graphs. Look at Paul's graph and see how many times the red line rises above the X-Axis, or the zero point. Look at Newt's graph, who is unaffected in this particular race by vote fraud. If the delegate "errors" were random, all 4 candidates' graphs would look like Newt's, with a fairly balanced portion of positive and negative points in relation to the Zero point. Then look at Santorum and Romney's graphs. Santorum clearly stays above the zero point in most precincts from start to finish because, as I previously showed, he is siphoning from Paul in small and large precincts. Romney, on the other hand, increases his vote vote total by 4.2% at a vote count of 300,000 and can be seen in the graph below, although not as clearly as in post 493.






The man post 560



> I need some feedback from any of you on a method of "adjusting" delegates for the purpose of eliminating noise. Some basic facts:
> 
> 1. Delegate votes, regardless of position number, are believed to be proportionally representative of the cast votes in the Alabama 2012 Primary.
> 2. None of the delegate votes position final totals exactly matches the candidate vote final totals.
> 
> Because the delegate votes totals of just about every precinct deviate erratically, I have devised a simple "adjustment" that largely eliminates erratic noise in each candidate's "votes minus delegates" calculation" that I have appplied in each precinct:
> 
> #Delegates each candidate for a particular precinct (Adjusted) = [(reported votes total all candidates for precinct) / (total delegates all candidates for precinct)] X candidate's reported delegates for particular precinct.
> 
> ...






My hypothesis is that there are actually 2 algorithms at work.  The first siphons from Ron Paul to Santorum to keep RP at 5% and prevent a Gingrich win.  The second kicks in at around 300,000 votes and flips from Santorum to Romney.

Since Santorum is taking and giving at the same time (VOTES! We are talking about votes!), adjustments which reduce the noise for the other 3 candidates in the above graph from The Man, do not work on the Santorum line.

----------


## parocks

> Please parocks,  your hypothesis has been discredited 6 different ways to Sunday.  Nice idea, but the math does not back it up.

----------


## RonRules

> *Since Santorum is taking and giving at the same time (VOTES! We are talking about votes!), adjustments which reduce the noise for the other 3 candidates in the above graph from The Man, do not work on the Santorum line.*


If you squint real hard, you may be able to see that Santorum is less noisy on the above chart when the vote count is < 300,000 but retains the noise past that.

----------


## The Man

> Still traveling for a couple of days, so just a brief comment. The correlation between Paul's vote count and precinct vote tally is indeed very high: 92%. Hence my expectation.
> I had to re-read the thread to make sure that I follow here: you mean that the vote flipper here is a "skimmer" keeping Paul's cumulative at 5%, right? I wrote my comment more with the proportional vote flipper in mind, so I need to sit back and rethink what a skimmer would do to the data.
> Could you help me here, I have obviously missed a step: why would Paul normally get less votes in larger precincts?


Hey Liberty1789 it's black and white here: Paul's votes in excess of 5% are siphoned exclusively to Santorum in the smallest precincts up until the classic Romney flip, which occurs at the infamous "elbow". Paul DOES have a natural 1-3% difference in vote % in many States/ counties including Alabama, where he receives approximately 14% to 12% from smallest to largest precincts. This seems to correlate with your graph of vote:delegate ratios
(5:14 smallest precincts to 5:12). In the meanwhile, here is another analysis using individual precinct 'VOTES MINUS DELEGATES" non- cumulative.

----------


## The Man

Is Paul's curve unnaturally smoothed? I say YES. These are actual individual percentages averaged using 1, 5, and 20 precincts. These are NOT cumulative percentages. Hmmmmmmm....

----------


## Bohner

> Is Paul's curve unnaturally smoothed? I say YES. These are actual individual percentages averaged using 1, 5, and 20 precincts. These are NOT cumulative percentages. Hmmmmmmm....


Debunk argument: 

The smoothness of Paul's line could very well be due to his low percentage flat-line. If at 5 percent, he can only deviate downwards by a maximum of 5 percentage points (or else he would be negative), because of this, logic would dictate that he would not really deviate by much more than 5 percent upward either (or else he wouldn't have a 5% flatline to begin with). 

RR's graphs from the other thread:









The trend looks pretty similar...

----------


## RonRules

> RR's graphs from the other thread:
> 
> The trend looks pretty similar...


I personally accept your debunk argument about the noise, but don't assume no flipping in Canada. I've seen very curious stuff not yet posted. I'm kinda swamped right now, but suffice it to say that the Diebold GEMS Central Tabulator, is now a Canadian product owned (including source code) by the Canadian company called Dominion Voting (http://www.dominionvoting.com/)

----------


## Bohner

> I personally accept your debunk argument about the noise, but don't assume no flipping in Canada. I've seen very curious stuff not yet posted. I'm kinda swamped right now, but suffice it to say that the Diebold GEMS Central Tabulator, is now a Canadian product owned (including source code) by the Canadian company called Dominion Voting (http://www.dominionvoting.com/)


Fair enough... I only used them because I wanted to compare TM's graphs to other non-cumulative graphs in order to see whether or not it was an isolated trend. Those were the first graphs I found. 

Furthermore, it makes sense as to why diebold machines would be bought from out of the country, as it would be much harder to audit/investigate a company that you have no jurisdiction over.

----------


## drummergirl

> I personally accept your debunk argument about the noise, but don't assume no flipping in Canada. I've seen very curious stuff not yet posted. I'm kinda swamped right now, but suffice it to say that the Diebold GEMS Central Tabulator, is now a Canadian product owned (including source code) by the Canadian company called Dominion Voting (http://www.dominionvoting.com/)


I'm not so sure about dismissing the noise problem.  5% is small, but it's not 1%.  The chart clearly shows that the bottom of the RP line never hits zero after the early precincts.  That seems odd with only 5% and the number of precincts.

----------


## RonRules

> I'm not so sure about dismissing the noise problem.  5% is small, but it's not 1%.  The chart clearly shows that the bottom of the RP line never hits zero after the early precincts.  That seems odd with only 5% and the number of precincts.


OK you got me down to 50/50 on this. 



If the vote share percentage was the driving factor, Romney and Gingrich would have similar noise levels to Santorum. 

It's probable that the addition of pure candidate votes from Ron Paul to Santorum, in his highest precincts (gotta be careful to not go negative on anynone) would make Santorum larger precinct vote tallies get even larger, thus making him more "noisy".

Maybe I'm down to 35% on the debunk now.

As Rasanna Rosanna Dana from SNL used to say: "if it isn't something it's something else."

OK, one more thing. Tilt your head to the right and look at the last chart, particularly the Ron Paul line.  Do you see that the peaks are higher on the left (up if you didn't tilt your head)?  

This is one crafty little Flipper, being real careful not to take away too close to the zero line from anything but the very smallest precincts (where you could expect zero for Ron Paul). This explains the skewed distribution.

Hey Liberty1786, can you do one of those nice 20 bar histograms here for the last chart?

----------


## The Man

> Debunk argument: 
> 
> The smoothness of Paul's line could very well be due to his low percentage flat-line. If at 5 percent, he can only deviate downwards by a maximum of 5 percentage points (or else he would be negative), because of this, logic would dictate that he would not really deviate by much more than 5 percent upward either (or else he wouldn't have a 5% flatline to begin with).


I considered this before posting. It MAY be the case. I don't think so.

----------


## Bohner

> I'm not so sure about dismissing the noise problem.  5% is small, but it's not 1%.  The chart clearly shows that the bottom of the RP line never hits zero after the early precincts.  That seems odd with only 5% and the number of precincts.


Isn't this to be expected? As precinct size increases, there becomes less and less of a chance that Paul will get zero votes. 

For example, its far more likely that Paul would get 0 votes in a precinct with 10 people than it would be in a precinct with 100 people. So I don't quite follow.

----------


## Bohner

> OK, one more thing. Tilt your head to the right and look at the last chart, particularly the Ron Paul line.  Do you see that the peaks are higher on the left (up if you didn't tilt your head)?


Once again, isn't this to be expected? Smaller precincts should naturally be more noisy because fewer people are voting. As in my previous example, if a precinct only had 10 people voting, yes there would be more of a chance that Paul would get 0 votes. But if he gets only one vote in that same precinct, that automatically puts him at 10%. I would assume that the graphs would become less and less noisy as precinct size increases because if you look at it from a statistics standpoint, the sample sizes are larger. 

I find Romney to be the really sketchy one because his peaks at the end are much higher than his peaks at the beginning which clearly shouldn't be the case (but this is nothing new).

----------


## Bohner

> I find Romney to be the really sketchy one because his peaks at the end are much higher than his peaks at the beginning which clearly shouldn't be the case (but this is nothing new).


This is what I mean: 



As precinct size increases, these peaks should be getting less extreme, not more extreme. When your highest peaks in the large precincts are over 10% higher in the than the highest ones in the small precincts, to me, this is what sticks out more than anything else.

If possible, I would like to know the names of the precincts I marked so that we can see whether they are demographically, any different than any of the others.

----------


## RonRules

> Once again, isn't this to be expected? Smaller precincts should naturally be more noisy because fewer people are voting.


No. My point is that the distribution should be symmetrical, even for small precincts. I'd like to see 4 histograms.

----------


## affa

do we have any unaffected counties in NH? Lots of candidates there, we can possibly take a look at noise factors for low vote candidates?

I find the Santorum+Paul and the Romney-Romney Delegate charts far more compelling than the noise charts.  I agree with Bohner in that it's easy to rationalize less noise in a candidate receiving relatively low votes, so even if it's the result of fraud it's not that compelling.

However, I find the Romney-Romney delegate charts extremely compelling, and possibly the clearest indicator (to me) that something is going on.  He shouldn't be outpacing his own delegates in the same manner he outpaces everyone else in areas showing the anomaly.  The Santorum+Paul charts are also compelling.

----------


## drummergirl

> Once again, isn't this to be expected? Smaller precincts should naturally be more noisy because fewer people are voting. As in my previous example, if a precinct only had 10 people voting, yes there would be more of a chance that Paul would get 0 votes. But if he gets only one vote in that same precinct, that automatically puts him at 10%. I would assume that the graphs would become less and less noisy as precinct size increases because if you look at it from a statistics standpoint, the sample sizes are larger. 
> 
> I find Romney to be the really sketchy one because his peaks at the end are much higher than his peaks at the beginning which clearly shouldn't be the case (but this is nothing new).


no, he's talking about the upper level noise not the left side of the chart.

----------


## RonRules

> no, he's talking about the upper level noise not the left side of the chart.


Evidently he didn't' turn his head when I told him to.

----------


## drummergirl

> Isn't this to be expected? As precinct size increases, there becomes less and less of a chance that Paul will get zero votes. 
> 
> For example, its far more likely that Paul would get 0 votes in a precinct with 10 people than it would be in a precinct with 100 people. So I don't quite follow.


yes, as the size increases, the odds of a zero vote are lower.  And it could be nothing, but I would generally expect the level of variability to be similar for each of the 4 candidates and it's not.  It does give some information about how a vote siphoning effect would work.

----------


## drummergirl

> This is what I mean: 
> 
> As precinct size increases, these peaks should be getting less extreme, not more extreme. When your highest peaks in the large precincts are over 10% higher in the than the highest ones in the small precincts, to me, this is what sticks out more than anything else.
> 
> If possible, I would like to know the names of the precincts I marked so that we can see whether they are demographically, any different than any of the others.


+10 rep

----------


## drummergirl

> No. My point is that the distribution should be symmetrical, even for small precincts. I'd like to see 4 histograms.


Not sure how many votes are in the smallest precincts, but when you get below 20 or 30 votes in a precinct, it'll be pretty noisy.

----------


## drummergirl

You are right.  I suppose I still have noise on my mind because I'm not entirely satisfied with the extra noise in the santorum line in The Man's chart of Santorum Votes Minus Adjusted Delegates.  I don't like loose ends.

----------


## Bohner

> Evidently he didn't' turn his head when I told him to.


Ok... I see what you mean, still doesn't make any more sense. 

So you expect every 12% precinct vote that Paul receives to be cancelled out by a -2% precinct vote so that the graph looks more symmetrical? It's a non-cumulative graph so you are going to see peaks. Obviously you aren't going to see any peaks that stand out going downward because Paul is at 5%, and he can't receive a negative percentage of votes. So symmetrical or not, those peaks are ultimately canceled out... Hence the flat-line.

----------


## Bohner

> yes, as the size increases, the odds of a zero vote are lower.  And it could be nothing, but I would generally expect the level of variability to be similar for each of the 4 candidates and it's not.  It does give some information about how a vote siphoning effect would work.


The closer a candidate is to 0% (or 100%), the less variability you will see. For example: Why would you expect Paul to have a standard deviation of 5% when he only recieved 5% of the vote? On the other hand, a 5% standard deviation for Santorum would be fairly reasonable given the amount of votes he received. So I don't understand why you would expect their level of variability to be similar.

----------


## dsw

> This is what I mean: 
> 
> 
> 
> As precinct size increases, these peaks should be getting less extreme, not more extreme. When your highest peaks in the large precincts are over 10% higher in the than the highest ones in the small precincts, to me, this is what sticks out more than anything else.
> 
> If possible, I would like to know the names of the precincts I marked so that we can see whether they are demographically, any different than any of the others.


It looks to me like the top eight precincts for Romney are all from Jefferson county.  That's counting only those that have at least 100 total votes because there are some with 100% for Romney and just a handful of votes.  

I looked here for the precinct locations:
http://www.evoter.com/al/jefferson-c...polling-places
And plotted those top precincts for Romney:



Check zillow.com to see where the most expensive homes are in Birmingham.   A threshold of a cool million made the big pro-Romney area in Virginia Beach City light up, but in Birmingham you'll have to pick a lower threshold.  Or just compare the precincts that pumped out the votes for Romney with the "wealthy neighborhoods" mapped here: http://higley1000.com/archives/29

(What made Virginia Beach City interesting was that the big affluent area that was so extremely pro-Romney was, under the precinct size ordering, all bunched up together on the right-hand side of the graph.  The cumulative graph took a big jump when you hit the first of those ritzy Romney precincts, and then those precincts, and another similar cluster nearby, constituted more than half of the votes after the "crime happens here" point.  Not that demographics could ever explain anything, of course.)

Romney%, total votes, county, precinct


```
55.45,422,Jefferson,5310 BAPTIST CH COVENANT
55.62,1548,Jefferson,4806 BROOKWOOD BAP CHR
58.76,1256,Jefferson,4804 FIRE STATION #2
59.56,225,Jefferson,5216 BHM BOTANIC GARDENS
61.97,1220,Jefferson,4609 MT BRK CITY HALL
64.02,931,Jefferson,4502 CHEROKEE BEND SCH
67.44,900,Jefferson,4608 ST. LUKES EPIS CH.
70.30,404,Jefferson,4607 MT BROOK GRAM SCH
```

----------


## Bohner

> *It looks to me* like the top eight precincts for Romney are all from Jefferson county.


It LOOKS to you??? That's nice. 

It's a good thing that out of the hundreds of precincts posted in that graph, that you are able to tell from a cursory glance where those exact precincts are located.

----------


## RonRules

> It LOOKS to you??? That's nice. 
> 
> It's a good thing that out of the hundreds of precincts posted in that graph, that you are able to tell from a cursory glance where those exact precincts are located.


Bohner, I see you're quick to not let yourself trolled by DSW. He's here to trivialize, derail and exhaust member's helpful nature to respond to reasonable questions that people have.

*We have the most important fraud case in US elections, ever.  We have no time to waste with people like that.*

Here's what he was about to do again: (from The Man)
"Rule#4. Use a straw man. 
Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues."

If it has not been done yet, it's really time to contact the Secretary of State in Alabama and each county election clerk for answers. We have plenty of data indicating fraud.

I'm working Wisconsin mostly, who wants to take on this task in Alabama?

----------


## dsw

> It LOOKS to you??? That's nice. 
> 
> It's a good thing that out of the hundreds of precincts posted in that graph, that you are able to tell from a cursory glance where those exact precincts are located.


Cursory glance?  

I took liberty's data set, modified an earlier program of mine to analyze it, sorted by Romney's % of the vote, filtered out the tiny precincts, and came up with the list posted at the end.  I used the list of precinct locations to map the eight precincts that gave Romney the highest percentage of the vote (of precincts with >= 100 total votes).  They turned out to all be within a small area.  That area turned out to comprise the wealthiest neighborhoods in that county.  All of this can be confirmed by starting from the data in liberty's data set.  

You asked if they had anything in common.  I tried to answer the question by looking at the data.

----------


## affa

> Not that demographics could ever explain anything, of course.)


First off, didn't you out yourself as a troll in another thread? Oh, yea, you did.

Second, nobody is claiming demographics don't affect votes.   Of course they do.  A religious neighborhood in the deep South will vote differently than a hood in Brooklyn.  No doubt.

Acting like we don't think demographics affect voting is just silly.  However, the anomaly we're seeing is correlated directly with precinct size, and not demographics.

Not to mention, those spikes have absolutely -nothing- to do with the discussion at hand, other than someone thought they looked odd.

----------


## dsw

> First off, didn't you out yourself as a troll in another thread? Oh, yea, you did.
> 
> Second, nobody is claiming demographics don't affect votes.   Of course they do.  A religious neighborhood in the deep South will vote differently than a hood in Brooklyn.  No doubt.
> 
> Acting like we don't think demographics affect voting is just silly.  However, the anomaly we're seeing is correlated directly with precinct size, and not demographics.


When did I out myself as a troll?  I was called a troll, when I pointed out that The Man's data set didn't appear to agree with the data set liberty had posted, and the nice straight lines and sharp knee carefully annotated on the graphs disappeared when the same calculations were done with the data liberty had posted.  Was that it, or was it something else I said?

The anomaly you're seeing is correlated with precinct size.  Contrary to recent claims, precinct size can correlate with various demographic factors.  However, if you believe that's impossible and when the graphs don't flatline it proves fraud, then see the graphs I posted (and links to plenty more data) for 1990's bond measures and so on that don't flatline.   That one was particularly nice because it lined up so well with urban vs. rural, the thing that's never supposed to happen. 

The VBC  example is one where the "crime" point corresponds to hitting those large pro-Romney precincts, all clustered together, where the million dollar houses also cluster, and those affluent precincts account for more than half of the votes to the right of the "crime" point.  That's demographics and precinct size, the thing that has been proven without a shadow of a doubt cannot possibly ever happen.




> Not to mention, those spikes have absolutely -nothing- to do with the discussion at hand, other than someone thought they looked odd.


They looked odd to me too, that's why I looked at the data to see if there was an explanation.

----------


## RonRules

> The anomaly you're seeing is correlated with precinct size.


DSW, you're a little slow on the uptake. 

The charts flat line with a *CUMULATIVE* X-Axis.

Except when Romney's around.

For a second time now:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cumulative

----------


## The Man

> This is what I mean: 
> 
> 
> 
> As precinct size increases, these peaks should be getting less extreme, not more extreme. When your highest peaks in the large precincts are over 10% higher in the than the highest ones in the small precincts, to me, this is what sticks out more than anything else.
> 
> If possible, I would like to know the names of the precincts I marked so that we can see whether they are demographically, any different than any of the others.


Here you go. ALL were in Jefferson County except for Montgomery precinct 101. Honestly, this is simply astounding to me. Included are all 4 candidates' totals in these same precincts so you can gauge the tendency of that particular precinct ov over/ under voting delegates. Note that the first 4 columns are vote totals while the next 4 are the delegate#2 totals. Geeezzz:  
_note: the third from the right precinct was NOT included here (not purposefully) and, instead, the precinct "BHM Botanic Gardens" was added, which is the Romney spike at vote total 85,489._
The elephant in the room is the number of votes that Romney picks up in relation to his delegates. Now look- there was HUGE voter error happening all over Alabama in regards to delegates- it's a FACT. BUT you look for trends in each precinct as to WHAT the voters were instructed to do- how clear was it to each voter that he/she was to vote for only his/ her candidate's delegate AND for all positions at that. Precincts are manned by human beings whose communication skills/ motives vary widely. *When you see a candidate with a 300+ vote delegate/candidate gain in a single precinct(s) while the other candidates' comparisons are reasonable or exhibit losses*? I want some of you, including you trolls, to give me a good creative explanation here.

----------


## dsw

> DSW, you're a little slow on the uptake. 
> 
> The charts flat line with a *CUMULATIVE* X-Axis.
> 
> Except when Romney's around.
> 
> For a second time now:
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cumulative


I was responding to affa's comment:  "However, the anomaly we're seeing is correlated directly with precinct size, and not demographics."   That's why I said, in agreement, "The anomaly you're seeing is correlated with precinct size."    Why is that hard to understand?





> Except when Romney's around.


And 1996 votes on bond measures, etc. etc.

----------


## RonRules

> Here you go. ALL were in Jefferson County except for Montgomery precinct 101. Honestly, this is simply astounding to me.


Actually I don't have a problem with that. Romney did great in 8 rich counties. I am mostly fine with that. I just need to see how well Romney does in similarly SIZED precincts. I would expect him to do better in very rich counties like Jeffeson, probably 30-40% better with no problem.

The problem is the precinct size relationship, not the income demographics. Chart ANY demographics cumulatively, except when Romney (or establishment Republicans like McCain, Bush, Dole) are around and all candidates will flat-line.

I can pull up a chart (that I didn't post yet) that plots the Ron Paul to Romney Ratio in Madison Wisconsin. There's one precinct where Ron Paul does 600% better than Romney. It's in the University area. Again, that's perfectly fine and does not indicate fraud.

Any substantial deviation from a flat-line for a large county, with lots of precincts > 250 votes IS a problem.

----------


## The Man

> When did I out myself as a troll?  I was called a troll, when I pointed out that The Man's data set didn't appear to agree with the data set liberty had posted, and the nice straight lines and sharp knee carefully annotated on the graphs disappeared when the same calculations were done with the data liberty had posted.  Was that it, or was it something else I said?


How do you "pass off" the FACT that in relation to ALL of Romney's delegate curves, his new vote receiving % increases dramatically (even MORE dramatically, not as sharply, when arranged in correct ascending order as evidenced by the "before" and "after" slopes) iN the 300- 400K cumulative total range? As Affa eloquently stated, Romney accomplishes the impossible demographically- outpacing his OWN demographics.

----------


## drummergirl

> And 1996 votes on bond measures, etc. etc.


As I continue to poke around (causing my mother to worry over my safety), I'm finding more and more pieces pointing towards the conclusion that this exploit has been used at times since at least the 1980s (The historical data in Louisiana, the plea deal by the LA state election administrator in 1999, various information relayed to me about elections in LA from poll watchers, etc.)

We've been operating on the premise that what we are seeing is new.  However, it is actually more likely that the new thing is our "fraud detection" technique.

Now that I've looked at hundreds (are we at thousands yet?) of these charts, I can tell (and I know many of you can too) at a glance most of the time if there is flipping or not.  (Once in a while there is a chart with slight slopes and I'm not sure without looking at confidence intervals)

Also, before anyone goes spouting off that all our elections have been tainted since the invention of the central tabulator, I think it needs to be pointed out that the VAST MAJORITY of historical data we've looked at is non-flipping.  So you can put the tin foil back in the kitchen drawer.  It's more like suddenly being able to review security video for the past 20 years at a local store and finding out there were other incidents of shoplifting.

----------


## dsw

> How do you "pass off" the FACT that in relation to ALL of Romney's delegate curves, his new vote receiving % increases dramatically (even MORE dramatically, not as sharply, when arranged in correct ascending order as evidenced by the "before" and "after" slopes) iN the 300- 400K cumulative total range? As Affa eloquently stated, Romney accomplishes the impossible demographically- outpacing his OWN demographics.


So if I can't explain something that nobody else can explain either, that makes me a troll?  

"Outpacing his own demographics" may sound elegant to you, but I'm not even sure what it means.   How do I calculate a candidates's demographic pace?

----------


## Bohner

> Here you go. ALL were in Jefferson County except for Montgomery precinct 101. Honestly, this is simply astounding to me. Included are all 4 candidates' totals in these same precincts so you can gauge the tendency of that particular precinct ov over/ under voting delegates. Note that the first 4 columns are vote totals while the next 4 are the delegate#2 totals. Geeezzz:  
> _note: the third from the right precinct was NOT included here (not purposefully) and, instead, the precinct "BHM Botanic Gardens" was added, which is the Romney spike at vote total 85,489._
> The elephant in the room is the number of votes that Romney picks up in relation to his delegates. Now look- there was HUGE voter error happening all over Alabama in regards to delegates- it's a FACT. BUT you look for trends in each precinct as to WHAT the voters were instructed to do- how clear was it to each voter that he/she was to vote for only his/ her candidate's delegate AND for all positions at that. Precincts are manned by human beings whose communication skills/ motives vary widely. *When you see a candidate with a 300+ vote delegate/candidate gain in a single precinct(s) while the other candidates' comparisons are reasonable or exhibit losses*? I want some of you, including you trolls, to give me a good creative explanation here.


Name......Votes/Delegates= Ratio
Gingrich= 1672/1638= 1.02
Santorum= 1273/1077= 1.18
Paul= 306/450 = *0.68*
Romney= 4843/2923 = *1.66*

Santorum's Ratio is a little high, but Romney's ratio is through the roof. And Paul's ratio, as usual, is VERY low. 

Romney has 2/3 more votes than he has delegates, Paul has 1/3 less votes than he has delegates. I said before that those peaks didn't make sense... Looks like I had reason to be suspicious.

----------


## The Man

So I graphed only Jefferson County, Alabama. Guys, I've heard the argument that Romney does better in certain areas, which causes his spikes. Well, this is certainly true. I know it, you know it, Bob Dole knows it... and the vote manipulators Know it. So those of you that have speculated that the manipulators MAY be smart enough to play the demographics card as to throw off the would-be investigators were right. Is there some explanation why Romney gains 300- 400 votes in some precincts versus his own delegate count? I doubt it. Note that the total delegate votes to candidate votes in Jefferson County is within 831 votes (71,592 votes, 70,761 delegates). Maybe someone could simply ask the election commissioner for an explanation? 


It's obvious that County- level analysis is much more revealing than Statewide. Reason- There are some counties, like Jefferson, that were massively manipulated and some that were probably untouched. Mixing all of them dilutes what's really at play.

----------


## The Man

> So if I can't explain something that nobody else can explain either, that makes me a troll?  
> "Outpacing his own demographics" may sound elegant to you, but I'm not even sure what it means.   How do I calculate a candidates's demographic pace?


Hey DSW- I'll admit you've won me over a bit. Hey, let's get past the Troll- calling and do some analysis. The answer is very simple- the good people of Alabama are simply smarter than for what they've been given credit. The delegates ARE very accurate indicators of the voters' intent. NOTHING else makes any more sense. Look at my post above for the Jefferson County graph. The ridiculous spikes we've been discussing are seen on a county level from a different perspective- cumulative vote totals.  I want to hear your rebuttal. Why do Romney's reported vote totals severely outpace his delegate totals? Besides obvious vote- reassignment, the only possible explanations would be a)Ballot design that favors Romney receiving more unintended delegate votes or b)(out of ideas help me DSW).

----------


## RonRules

> I think it needs to be pointed out that the VAST MAJORITY of historical data we've looked at is non-flipping.  So you can put the tin foil back in the kitchen drawer.


You use a lot of kitchen analogies. If it gets too hot in there, you know what to do!

----------


## drummergirl

> . Maybe someone could simply ask the election commissioner for an explanation?


I kinda doubt that she's a happy camper right now.

----------


## The Man

Votes Minus Delegates Cumulative VERSUS ascending precinct vote count precinct-by-precinct Jefferson County Alabama. Note that the total votes outnumber the total delegates by 831. Again, WHY is Mitt Romney receiving hundreds of extra votes in many precincts versus reported delegates? Is there some legitimate reason? Remember that all along we have used small precinct vote% as a benchmark which were compared to the larger precincts. Now we have a GIFT from the Alabama Election Commission AND SOE SCYTL that does NOTHING to diminish the hypothesis and does everything to support AND give additional details- like, for example, there's a heck of a lot more going on than just 'FLIPPPING" in the larger precincts such as Paul's vote reassignment start to finish to Santorum. Help me DSW. I am depending on you and your associates to explain why there's nothing to see here. I have all the confidence in you.

*Votes Minus Delegates Cumulative VERSUS ascending precinct vote count*

----------


## affa

> So if I can't explain something that nobody else can explain either, that makes me a troll?  
> 
> "Outpacing his own demographics" may sound elegant to you, but I'm not even sure what it means.   How do I calculate a candidates's demographic pace?


I believe he meant 'outpacing his own delegates', which you should have understood as well since we've been discussing it for days.

As for the troll comment, I'll retract it.  It was based on the fact that you suddenly decided to buddy up with all the people constantly insulting us and posted graphs with no labels to ridicule us.

----------


## affa

> Name......Votes/Delegates= Ratio
> Gingrich= 1672/1638= 1.02
> Santorum= 1273/1077= 1.18
> Paul= 306/450 = *0.68*
> Romney= 4843/2923 = *1.66*
> 
> Santorum's Ratio is a little high, but Romney's ratio is through the roof. And Paul's ratio, as usual, is VERY low. 
> 
> Romney has 2/3 more votes than he has delegates, Paul has 1/3 less votes than he has delegates. I said before that those peaks didn't make sense... Looks like I had reason to be suspicious.


Well, that's easy to explain with demographics.   You see, the extremely wealthy simply must have their chauffeurs drive them post-haste to vote for Romney in droves, but they have to get to their golf, wine, and cheese outing as well so don't have time to vote for Romney's delegates.   You can calculate it based on (wealth*cheese/distraction).

----------


## dsw

> I believe he meant 'outpacing his own delegates', which you should have understood as well since we've been discussing it for days.
> 
> As for the troll comment, I'll retract it.  It was based on the fact that you suddenly decided to buddy up with all the people constantly insulting us and posted graphs with no labels to ridicule us.


I'm not sure who you think I'm buddying up with.  I've been pretty scornful of parocks, whose position would be an absurd strawman except for the fact that he's advocating it.  I blasted another fly-by person who launched into scorn before he even understood what the basic issue was.  Those sorts of things give skepticism a bad name.   

As for the graph with no labels that I posted on the "no fraud" thread ... it was a reaction to the claim that demographic factors never correlate with precinct size, and more generally a reaction to the way the arguments seem to be getting more extreme and critical analysis more scarce.  If you go back a ways you can find sub-threads where people were debating, pro and con, whether the correlations were sufficient to explain Romney's success, or not.  As far as that went, I think the "not" side was winning.  Fast forward to today, and there's a blanket claim that demographic factors *never* correlate with precinct size, without a coherent argument to support the claim.

So yeah, I picked a California county, found a demographic factor that didn't flatline, and posted a graph without labels.  Consider it a mathematical version of a facepalm.  (Just to be sure I checked a second county, then grabbed random demographic data for two other states and checked one county in each of them.  And that's not even with the kind of data that I'd expect to be most interesting, like median income.  And no, I'm not claiming that any of those demographic correlations prove anything.  The facepalm reaction was purely to the blanket claim that the cumulative graphing technique removes all demographic factors.  If I were a flipper I wouldn't want to let such a basic misunderstanding go unchallenged.  It substitutes a claim that could be defensible, namely that demographic correlations are not sufficient to explain the anomalies, with a claim that is easily refuted, namely that demographic factors never correlate with precinct size.)

Look at what I posted about Va Beach City and precincts to the right of the "crime" point accounting for more than half of the votes to the right of that point *and* aligning very prettily with a zillow map of where you find million-dollar homes.  What's that if not a correlation between a demographic factor (ritzy real estate) and precinct size?  As I've pointed out repeatedly, the "crime" point was *exactly* the point at which you hit the first precinct in that million-dollar cluster of large precincts that were overwhelmingly pro-Romney.  

Or what about when the counties with the highest population density contribute a much higher fraction of the vote to the right-most 20% of a cumulative graph than they do to the left-most 20%?  Is population density not a demographic factor?  

Or consider the 1996 bond measure that didn't flatline.  I don't have the demographic data for that county, but I can tell you why I expected to find a non-fraud example that didn't flatline there. I picked a large county with a liberal/university urban area but also a lot of small town and farmland areas.   And what could possibly skew more urban vs. rural than an attempt to tax everyone in the county to build a light-rail system that would really only benefit the people in the city?  Sure enough, the smaller precincts were, on average, very strongly opposed to the bond measure, and the larger ones were on average very strongly in favor of it.  So the cumulative graph was *far* from flat, and it happened to have the lines crossing right near the end, which was a nice touch.  There were lots of others that didn't flatten out but that was the most dramatic.  And other counties with data in a similar format that could make the same point, but again not as dramatically.

Now, I'm not claiming to have proven that it isn't fraud.  Maybe this kind of central tabulator fraud goes back to the oldest on-line data I could find, and includes even little local ballot issues and races of no national significance.  But considering the natural urban/rural divide on that particular issue, and the way the largest precincts were also the ones (on average) most positive on the issue, and the way that so many elections in that area don't flatline, my hypothesis is that it's a correlation between precinct size and urban/liberal demographics that best explains it.

----------


## drummergirl

> Or consider the 1996 bond measure that didn't flatline.  I don't have the demographic data for that county, but I can tell you why I expected to find a non-fraud example that didn't flatline there. I picked a large county with a liberal/university urban area but also a lot of small town and farmland areas.   And what could possibly skew more urban vs. rural than an attempt to tax everyone in the county to build a light-rail system that would really only benefit the people in the city?  Sure enough, the smaller precincts were, on average, very strongly opposed to the bond measure, and the larger ones were on average very strongly in favor of it.  So the cumulative graph was *far* from flat, and it happened to have the lines crossing right near the end, which was a nice touch.  There were lots of others that didn't flatten out but that was the most dramatic.  And other counties with data in a similar format that could make the same point, but again not as dramatically.
> 
> Now, I'm not claiming to have proven that it isn't fraud.  Maybe this kind of central tabulator fraud goes back to the oldest on-line data I could find, and includes even little local ballot issues and races of no national significance.  But considering the natural urban/rural divide on that particular issue, and the way the largest precincts were also the ones (on average) most positive on the issue, and the way that so many elections in that area don't flatline, my hypothesis is that it's a correlation between precinct size and urban/liberal demographics that best explains it.


If you have an extreme data set and small vote totals, you can do that.  If you look at the standard deviations and the confidence intervals, they are probably within them even though the graph may look like a flipper at first glance.  The only primary we've seen that could have small enough numbers to qualify that way was the Maine caucus (and there were definitely problems on the ground in Maine completely unrelated to vote tabulation).

The larger the total number of votes and the broader the area (states and nations as opposed to a single county), the more the law of large numbers comes into play.

----------


## Bohner

The Man... Can you do me a favor???
I think that Santorum siphoned his votes from Paul in Jefferson County which is why his ratio is a little high. 
Check this out... 




> Name......Votes/Delegates= Ratio
> Gingrich= 1672/1638= 1.02
> Santorum= 1273/1077= *1.18*
> Paul= 306/450 = 0.68
> Romney= 4843/2923 = 1.66


If I subtract Paul's delegates (450) from his vote count (306) I get 144. If I add 144 to Santorum's delegate count (1077+144) or subtract 144 from Santorum's vote count, his ratio goes from 1.18, to 1.04. 

Can you add a new line to your graphs including either an adjusted delegate count or an adjusted vote count for Santorum?

The formula should look like this: 
Santorum's adjusted delegate count = (Paul's delegate count - Paul's vote count) + Santorum's delegate count   

Or

Santorum's adjusted vote count = Santorum's vote count - (Paul's vote count - Paul's Delegate count).
For each row respectively. 

If you either replace Santorum's delegate total with the adjusted delegate total, or his vote total with his adjusted vote total (not both at the same time) I believe Santorum's line in your "Votes Minus Delegates Cumulative" graph will look a lot more like Gingrich's. And Santorum's lines in your "Picture is worth a thousand votes" graph will be much closer together.

----------


## RonRules

> it was a reaction to the claim that demographic factors never correlate with precinct size,


DSW, NOBODY has ever claimed that. 

You keep obfuscating, throwing red herrings left and right, and make our threads full of non-nonsensical discussions.

Maybe, just maybe it's because you haven't yet figured out how to do a cumulative chart. We have noticed that your charts aren't the most professional and often have no titles and label names at all.

So let me help you again. Here's how you do a cumulative chart. Take a week and go try that.

----------


## dsw

> DSW, NOBODY has ever claimed that.


(Responding to my "it was a reaction to the claim that demographic factors never correlate with precinct size,")

If demographic factors can correlate with precinct size, then a sample taken from the smallest precincts may not be a representative sample.

If a sample taken from the smallest precincts may not be a representative sample, then the graph is not guaranteed to flatline.

----------


## dsw

> If you have an extreme data set and small vote totals, you can do that.  If you look at the standard deviations and the confidence intervals, they are probably within them even though the graph may look like a flipper at first glance.  The only primary we've seen that could have small enough numbers to qualify that way was the Maine caucus (and there were definitely problems on the ground in Maine completely unrelated to vote tabulation).
> 
> The larger the total number of votes and the broader the area (states and nations as opposed to a single county), the more the law of large numbers comes into play.


How small?  The county I was looking at (Lane county, Oregon) isn't what I would consider particularly small.  The 1996 bond vote had a total of over 130k votes cast.  Around 150 precincts.  
http://www.lanecounty.org/Department.../19961105s.txt
Search for "AUTH BONDS PTLD REG LIGHT RAIL, TRANS PROJ".

----------


## RonRules

> http://www.lanecounty.org/Department.../19961105s.txt
> Search for "AUTH BONDS PTLD REG LIGHT RAIL, TRANS PROJ".


So it's a flipper. Good job. Find more.

----------


## dsw

> So it's a flipper. Good job. Find more.


Indeed, a _reductio_ argument can be rejected by embracing the _absurdum_.  Well played.  In that case, "flippers" have been happening for a long time, and not just involving Romney but deep into local politics.  That one rich guy and a programmer have been busy, busy, busy.  

But then the question is how do they decide what to flip?  Why did they care so much about funding a public transportation system in a small west-coast city that they would hijack that vote?  Why do they care about so many local races, and why is most of the flipping (i.e., graphs that don't flatline) on races and ballot measures that are such landslides that moving them a little further apart or a little closer together couldn't possibly change the outcome?   Wait ... could it be that they're just trying to make it *look* like there are demographic correlations with precinct size in order to hide their tracks?  Diabolical!

----------


## drummergirl

I'm sorry to burst your bubble DSW, but this is not a flipper.  Because of the rather extreme nature of the data set, the lines take their time about going flat (not until about 80% vote counted).  They do go flat though.  




> How small?  The county I was looking at (Lane county, Oregon) isn't what I would consider particularly small.  The 1996 bond vote had a total of over 130k votes cast.  Around 150 precincts.  
> http://www.lanecounty.org/Department.../19961105s.txt
> Search for "AUTH BONDS PTLD REG LIGHT RAIL, TRANS PROJ".


This is a flipper:



Note that the lines go flat until, for reasons still not fully understood, suddenly at about 50% of the vote counted the lines deviate in an almost perfect linear fashion.  This is IMPOSSIBLE.

----------


## dsw

> I'm sorry to burst your bubble DSW, but this is not a flipper.  Because of the rather extreme nature of the data set, the lines take their time about going flat (not until about 80% vote counted). They do go flat though.


Don't worry about bursting my bubble, I don't think it's a flipper at all.  It's just an illustration of the facepalmingly obvious fact that you can't look at 20% or 25% or 50% of the data taken from the smallest precincts and assume that you have a statistically random sample.  And because you can't assume that, graphs that don't flatline (or that sort of kind of flatten out near the end) don't prove fraud.  It could simply be, as seems to be the case here, that there's some sort of demographic correlation between precinct size and the vote outcome, in this case a particularly good example I think of larger precincts tending to be urban and smaller tending to be rural.  

Is there an objective test that could be applied by a program to determine whether a graph is a flipper?  And how does the usual statistical argument (what that argument has evolved into lately, I mean) reconcile with the idea that it would flatline only after 80% of the data has been included?  And what do you mean by "the extreme nature of the data set"?   It's just one county's data, and it happens to include some ballot measures but that's not the only place that the graphs don't flatline.   I deliberately picked a county that I knew to have a significant rural/urban and conservative/liberal split, but that's not really so unusual.

From your example, your argument seems to be a lot more subtle than what has become common here lately.  I'd love to see that turned into an objective test.  It would be fine if it were a test that were overly strict to eliminate false positives as much as possible.  I've got a lot of data ready to go.  

Or if you can point me to the Chesterfield data, the one that's clearly a flipper, I'd love to have a closer look.  Unless Virginia Beach City is clearly a flipper too in which case it would save me a bunch of time because I've already dug into that one quite a bit.

----------


## RonRules

OK, flipper the DOLPHIN is having a look at it. He'll decide.

----------


## drummergirl

> It's just an illustration of the facepalmingly obvious fact that you can't look at 20% or 25% or 50% of the data taken from the smallest precincts and assume that you have a statistically random sample.


That is incorrect.  20% is a very large sample size.  I don't think you understand the math.




> Is there an objective test that could be applied by a program to determine whether a graph is a flipper?


Did you miss the table with standard deviation, R-squared, t, and F?  What more do you want?




> And how does the usual statistical argument (what that argument has evolved into lately, I mean) reconcile with the idea that it would flatline only after 80% of the data has been included?  And what do you mean by "the extreme nature of the data set"?


You said that you chose the data set specifically because almost everyone rural voted nay and almost everyone urban voted yes. You intentionally chose the most radical data you could find.  That means the standard deviation will be high, but even still, the lines go flat at the end because mathematically they HAVE TO.  If you don't understand why the lines have to go flat by the time they reach 100%, go crack open your statistics textbook and reread.  Reread the summary; reread wikipedia; but please stop making the baseless assertion that the lines should not go flat because you don't like that fact.




> Or if you can point me to the Chesterfield data


If you want to pour through the Chesterfield data, go for it.  It's been posted before.  I got the chart from my notes, which I've also posted many times.

----------


## RonRules

> OK, flipper the DOLPHIN is having a look at it. He'll decide.


Flipper has an answer:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...lipping/page32

PS: It's best to keep this thread for Alabama only. That's why I posted the Oregon charts in the main thread.

----------


## dsw

> That is incorrect.  20% is a very large sample size.  I don't think you understand the math.


With tens of thousands of votes, 20% is a very large sample size ... if you're selecting randomly.  If you're not selecting randomly then the math doesn't work.  You keep leaving out the necessary precondition of random selection, but it's part of the math whether you state it or not, and people keep pointing it out because it's a glaring omission.




> You said that you chose the data set specifically because almost everyone rural voted nay and almost everyone urban voted yes. You intentionally chose the most radical data you could find.


What I actually said was I "picked a county that I knew to have a significant rural/urban and conservative/liberal split," and there's nothing terribly radical about that.  There are lots of areas with a college town and rural/farm/small towns around it. 

Then what I found was that there were lots of races that didn't flatline.  Not just in that one county but in others too.  I picked an example that was particularly clear because (I'm presuming, I don't have the demographic data) it's the kind of issue that will be reflected strongly in a urban/rural setting.  Another one was an RKBA vote, but I don't remember off hand what state that was from.   I looked at several.  Others were just local offices.

You haven't given an objective criterion for detecting fraud, not even one that is overly tight to prevent false positives.  The definition of "flat" seems to be a moving target, and sometimes it's not flatness per se that seems to matter but a sharp knee or a segment that's very linear when smoothed by cumulative graphing.  Most recently it seemed to be the knee and linearity that mattered, based on the effort that went into annotating those features, but then an attempt to reproduce that result that didn't have the knee or the linearity was deemed entirely consistent, so it's not clear what the criteria were.  You're also being very vague about what makes a data set too "radical" to expect the reasoning behind the fraud argument to work.  That isn't what mathematical arguments look like.  Math is about precise definitions, not knowing it when you see it.





> That means the standard deviation will be high, but even still, the lines go flat at the end because mathematically they HAVE TO.  If you don't understand why the lines have to go flat by the time they reach 100%, go crack open your statistics textbook and reread.  Reread the summary; reread wikipedia; but please stop making the baseless assertion that the lines should not go flat because you don't like that fact.


The line has to eventually hit the 100% point, by definition.  That's not the same as "going flat" which presumably means that at least the last couple of points have to have the same value, within some small margin.  But the penultimate point is the average of everything *except* the last point.  So the last point will be flat, relative to the penultimate point, if and only if its y-value is the same (within a small margin) as the overall average, i.e., if it is not an outlier.  

But there is no math that says that the last point, the largest precinct, can't be an outlier.  Math doesn't say that outliers can't exist, and it doesn't say that the largest point selected by some sorting criteria can't be one of the outliers.  And if that last one is an outlier you can get a bump at the end.  The size of the bump depends on how much of an outlier it is.  Remember the one that had a jump at the end, and it turned out to be the absentee ballots?   

Similarly the  math doesn't say that you can't end up with a group of large precincts in Va Beach City, all from a very affluent, very pro-Romney area, clustered together on the right-hand side of the graph and representing more than half of the votes after the "crime" point.  The math *would* say that this was *extremely* unlikely ... with random ordering.  But in fact, in VBC you get that geographical cluster of precincts (and another smaller one too) very un-randomly ordered in the list when you sort by size.  It wouldn't have shown up in the data so vividly if that area of large and similarly-sized precincts had not also been very pro-Romney, which is presumably because it's apparently a very affluent area based on what zillow says about where you can find million dollar homes.  The math doesn't say this is impossible.

----------


## drummergirl

[QUOTE=dsw;4367424]




> You haven't given an objective criterion for detecting fraud, not even one that is overly tight to prevent false positives.


These analyses have been done repeatedly.  We see the odds of it happening and not being fraud being the same as winning the lottery several weeks in a row.  That's what happens when Z>20.  Frankly I'd consider anything with a Z>4 to be evidence of fraud and Z>2 suspicious.  But that's just my opinion.  You think the standard should be Z>30?  You have better odds of being hit by a meteor walking down the street twice in the same day. 






> The line has to eventually hit the 100% point, by definition.  That's not the same as "going flat" which presumably means that at least the last couple of points have to have the same value, within some small margin.  But the penultimate point is the average of everything *except* the last point.  So the last point will be flat, relative to the penultimate point, if and only if its y-value is the same (within a small margin) as the overall average, i.e., if it is not an outlier.  
> 
> But there is no math that says that the last point, the largest precinct, can't be an outlier.  Math doesn't say that outliers can't exist, and it doesn't say that the largest point selected by some sorting criteria can't be one of the outliers.  And if that last one is an outlier you can get a bump at the end.  The size of the bump depends on how much of an outlier it is.  Remember the one that had a jump at the end, and it turned out to be the absentee ballots?   
> 
> Similarly the  math doesn't say that you can't end up with a group of large precincts in Va Beach City, all from a very affluent, very pro-Romney area, clustered together on the right-hand side of the graph and representing more than half of the votes after the "crime" point.  The math *would* say that this was *extremely* unlikely ... with random ordering.  But in fact, in VBC you get that geographical cluster of precincts (and another smaller one too) very un-randomly ordered in the list when you sort by size.  It wouldn't have shown up in the data so vividly if that area of large and similarly-sized precincts had not also been very pro-Romney, which is presumably because it's apparently a very affluent area based on what zillow says about where you can find million dollar homes.  The math doesn't say this is impossible.


All I can say here is you do not understand the mathematical principles involved or you would not say these things.  The final point can be a huge outlier and the line will still be virtually flat.  I've explained this several times; others have explained it.  You keep coming back to it because apparently you still do not understand it.  We've seen and covered what a real demographic shift looks like; example after example is shown and you consistently go down these two well traveled rabbit trails.  1)  you think a 20% sample size is too small or not random enough (people have even made randomized graphs for you and you just pretend they don't exist) 2) you erroneously claim the math doesn't mean the lines go flat on cumulative graphs.  You are in error sir.  If you don't believe me, do a from scratch mathematical proof of the hypergeometric distribution (hint: you can find this online with google and save yourself some work, but you'll just prove that the lines ALWAYS go flat)

----------


## Liberty1789

> I find the Romney-Romney delegate charts extremely compelling, and possibly the clearest indicator (to me) that something is going on.  He shouldn't be outpacing his own delegates in the same manner he outpaces everyone else in areas showing the anomaly.


Trying to get my head around that one...

Did Romney outperform his delegates in larger precincts in Baldwin in 2008?



He certainly did not: hard to obtain a straighter blue line...

----------


## Liberty1789

> Hey Liberty1789 it's black and white here: Paul's votes in excess of 5% are siphoned exclusively to Santorum in the smallest precincts up until the classic Romney flip, which occurs at the infamous "elbow".


We can check if this is compatible with the distributional properties of the data. If votes are added to Romney's PPP votes past the 300k cumulative "elbow" and the delegate race remains unadulterated, his bell curve in the chart below will shift right:



It does. 

However, if vote flipping is in action, someone else will tend to shift left.

Not Paul:



Not Gingrich:



Not Santorum:





What did I miss?

----------


## parocks

Wow! It's almost as if the richest people like Romney the most.  In Alabama, like almost everywhere, the upscale suburbs of the biggest city in the state are the Romney territory.  I think you have something there.





> It looks to me like the top eight precincts for Romney are all from Jefferson county.  That's counting only those that have at least 100 total votes because there are some with 100% for Romney and just a handful of votes.  
> 
> I looked here for the precinct locations:
> http://www.evoter.com/al/jefferson-c...polling-places
> And plotted those top precincts for Romney:
> 
> 
> 
> Check zillow.com to see where the most expensive homes are in Birmingham.   A threshold of a cool million made the big pro-Romney area in Virginia Beach City light up, but in Birmingham you'll have to pick a lower threshold.  Or just compare the precincts that pumped out the votes for Romney with the "wealthy neighborhoods" mapped here: http://higley1000.com/archives/29
> ...

----------


## parocks

And it probably wasn't difficult to do, really, and the results were again, not surprising.  Rich upscale suburbs of the major urban areas are Romneytown.

People who have some clue about politics (like you) know this.  It's a completely uncontroversial statement, provided you have a clue about politics.  And you do.

It's good you're doing the work.

What might be fun would be to "predict" where the "fraud" would be beforehand.

DE, PA, CT, NY, RI.

Here are Romney areas.  Places where there are rich people.  Rich people love Romney.  

DE - New Castle County.  Wilmington Suburbs.
CT - Fairfield County.  NYC Suburbs. Southern Fairfield.  Greenwich.  Darien.
NY - Westchester County. NYC Suburbs. Scarsdale.
PA - Montgomery County. Philly Suburbs. Bryn Mawr. Haverford.







> Cursory glance?  
> 
> I took liberty's data set, modified an earlier program of mine to analyze it, sorted by Romney's % of the vote, filtered out the tiny precincts, and came up with the list posted at the end.  I used the list of precinct locations to map the eight precincts that gave Romney the highest percentage of the vote (of precincts with >= 100 total votes).  They turned out to all be within a small area.  That area turned out to comprise the wealthiest neighborhoods in that county.  All of this can be confirmed by starting from the data in liberty's data set.  
> 
> You asked if they had anything in common.  I tried to answer the question by looking at the data.

----------


## The Man

_Liberty1789 quote: We can check if this is compatible with the distributional properties of the data. If votes are added to Romney's PPP votes past the 300k cumulative "elbow" and the delegate race remains unadulterated, his bell curve in the chart below will shift right:
It does.
However, if vote flipping is in action, someone else will tend to shift left.
Not Paul:
Not Gingrich:
Not Santorum:_

Check Santorum. It's clear that Paul gives essentially equally from start to finish in the direction of Santorum. I don't believe the majority of the votes really existed in the first place- looks like the Federal Reserve created the votes for Romney... out of thin air. Ballot stuffing? It doesn't seem logical to me that riggers would allow the vote totals of a precinct to differ from the actual number of voters, but it's worth investigating (see below paying attention to Romney's numbers). It's very clear from the accuracy of the delegate counts for the other 3 candidates that EITHER there is something in the ballot design that prevents Romney from receiving delegate votes OR Romney votes were artificially created in many of the larger precincts- see below. Add that to the fact that these precincts were chosen because they were large spikes in the "votes minus delegate' graph" and you have the logical answer.

----------


## The Man

> Wow! It's almost as if the richest people like Romney the most.  In Alabama, like almost everywhere, the upscale suburbs of the biggest city in the state are the Romney territory.  I think you have something there.


Uh- Explain this below. All of the candidates' vote and delegate totals are close in number... except Romney. And He picks up more than 300 votes in some of these. This is ridiculous. Is it that the wealthier a person is the less likely they are to bother to follow voting instructions? Hmmmmmm...

----------


## parocks

> I'm not sure who you think I'm buddying up with.  I've been pretty scornful of parocks, whose position would be an absurd strawman except for the fact that he's advocating it.  I blasted another fly-by person who launched into scorn before he even understood what the basic issue was.  Those sorts of things give skepticism a bad name.   
> 
> As for the graph with no labels that I posted on the "no fraud" thread ... it was a reaction to the claim that demographic factors never correlate with precinct size, and more generally a reaction to the way the arguments seem to be getting more extreme and critical analysis more scarce.  If you go back a ways you can find sub-threads where people were debating, pro and con, whether the correlations were sufficient to explain Romney's success, or not.  As far as that went, I think the "not" side was winning.  Fast forward to today, and there's a blanket claim that demographic factors *never* correlate with precinct size, without a coherent argument to support the claim.
> 
> So yeah, I picked a California county, found a demographic factor that didn't flatline, and posted a graph without labels.  Consider it a mathematical version of a facepalm.  (Just to be sure I checked a second county, then grabbed random demographic data for two other states and checked one county in each of them.  And that's not even with the kind of data that I'd expect to be most interesting, like median income.  And no, I'm not claiming that any of those demographic correlations prove anything.  The facepalm reaction was purely to the blanket claim that the cumulative graphing technique removes all demographic factors.  If I were a flipper I wouldn't want to let such a basic misunderstanding go unchallenged.  It substitutes a claim that could be defensible, namely that demographic correlations are not sufficient to explain the anomalies, with a claim that is easily refuted, namely that demographic factors never correlate with precinct size.)
> 
> Look at what I posted about Va Beach City and precincts to the right of the "crime" point accounting for more than half of the votes to the right of that point *and* aligning very prettily with a zillow map of where you find million-dollar homes.  What's that if not a correlation between a demographic factor (ritzy real estate) and precinct size?  As I've pointed out repeatedly, the "crime" point was *exactly* the point at which you hit the first precinct in that million-dollar cluster of large precincts that were overwhelmingly pro-Romney.  
> 
> Or what about when the counties with the highest population density contribute a much higher fraction of the vote to the right-most 20% of a cumulative graph than they do to the left-most 20%?  Is population density not a demographic factor?  
> ...

----------


## parocks

Delegate votes are made up of right and wrong votes.  Wrong votes are vote all and vote part.






> Uh- Explain this below. All of the candidates' vote and delegate totals are close in number... except Romney. And He picks up more than 300 votes in some of these. This is ridiculous. Is it that the wealthier a person is the less likely they are to bother to follow voting instructions? Hmmmmmm...

----------


## The Man

> Delegate votes are made up of right and wrong votes.  Wrong votes are vote all and vote part.


Is that the BEST you can do? IF this were the result of "vote all", ALL candidates would have overvotes, not just ROMNEY. Come on Parocks, WHY does Romney have 200- 300 more candidate votes than delegate votes in a precinct while the others' numbers are very close? Paul doesn't have ONE precinct where he receives more votes than delegates in the largest precincts representing 50% of the vote in Alabama!!!! Look:

----------


## Liberty1789

The discontinuities here, just before and just after Romney, will be tricky for parocks' model, that's for sure.

----------


## Liberty1789

> Check Santorum. It's clear that Paul gives essentially equally from start to finish in the direction of Santorum.


I am trying hard to detect that switch, as your charts are very intriguing, but I struggle.

Below is a scatter plot of the difference in votes between the presidential preference and the 3rd delegate race, Paul vs Santorum, district by district for the whole of Alabama. You do see very clearly that Santorum gains and Paul loses, but do they correlate?

 

Here is a very telling zoom of the crowded part:



A switch from one to the other would tend to populate the chart diagonally. A simple software bug on name allocation would be very detectable here. Is it happening? Looks more like when Paul loses presidential votes, Santorum sometimes gains, sometimes he does not. You do get some (-x, +x) dots, but many (-x, 0) and (0, +x) as well. Now the important thing is that, *when you cumulate (-x,0) and (0,+x) data points, it will average onto the diagonal* and you will get an impeccable appearance of vote flip on cumulative charts.

As things stand, I tend to think that both processes are fairly independent at district level. Only sometimes they coincided. If fraud, the data to me feels more like presidential vote suppression for Paul and/or ballot stuffing for Santorum. Well, independent or... artfully randomized... Shall we ever know?...

----------


## The Man

> A switch from one to the other would tend to populate the chart diagonally. A simple software bug on name allocation would be very detectable here. Is it happening? Looks more like when Paul loses presidential votes, Santorum sometimes gains, sometimes he does not. You do get some (-x, +x) dots, but many (-x, 0) and (0, +x) as well. Now the important thing is that, *when you cumulate (-x,0) and (0,+x) data points, it will average onto the diagonal* and you will get an impeccable appearance of vote flip on cumulative charts.
> As things stand, I tend to think that both processes are fairly independent at district level. Only sometimes they coincided. If fraud, the data to me feels more like presidential vote suppression for Paul and/or ballot stuffing for Santorum. Well, independent or... artfully randomized... Shall we ever know?...


There's no doubt that votes appear to be appearing from and vanishing into thin air. There's no doubt that if you do the math in individual precincts that it appears votes are appearing and vanishing. But how else can you explain Santorum's gains = Paul's losses? Why wouldn't Gingrich benefit from Paul? Please perform your own research by comparing the candidate vote graph(Paul+ Santorum) with the delegate vote graph (Paul + Santorum). How can Paul's vote total in the precincts representing the 300k votes in the largest precincts NEVER gain a single vote versus the delegate count? Answer- Santorum receives anything above 5% of Paul's votes.
I DO believe that the erratic delegate vote error is making it more difficult to see the Paul- Santorum siphon- like the "forest for the trees" concept. But looking as delegates in multiple precincts gives valuable information. How about if you do this:

Do the same plot above except use some averaging- maybe sample sizes of 4, 5, 10, 20. So instead of having 1864 data points you will have 466, 380, 186, or 98. Individual precincts are too noisy mainly because of the delegate voter error.

----------


## defe07

So, what's up with the delegate totals in Alabama? What's the final conclusion, that the presidential preference was off or the delegate preference was off? Reason I ask is because in Alabama, you can't vote for Santorum as the presidential preference and vote for all Paul delegates.

----------


## orenbus

Donate to Ron Paul on April 22th @ 2:30pm for the In-It-To-Win-It mini - moneybomb! LET'S DO IT! GOAL $100K Watch Live http://fbnlivestream.com

Retweet:

http://twitter.com/#!/ronpaulcountry...29621220614144

----------


## parocks

> So, what's up with the delegate totals in Alabama? What's the final conclusion, that the presidential preference was off or the delegate preference was off? Reason I ask is because in Alabama, you can't vote for Santorum as the presidential preference and vote for all Paul delegates.


I think that in 2012 the voting machines were broken in some way, allowing people to vote in delegate races even though they didn't vote for that candidate.

Others think that voting machines switched peoples votes from one candidate to a different candidate.

----------


## parocks

Not really.

What people tend to forget is that huge percentages of people

DIDN'T VOTE IN ANY DELEGATE RACES.

That shows up in that heavily Romney precinct.

1)  About 25-30% didn't vote in any delegate races
2) About 5-10% voted in ALL delegate races, wrongly
3) About 5-10% voted in SOME delegate races, wrongly
4) The rest voted only in the delegate races for the candidate they voted for in the presidential race.








> The discontinuities here, just before and just after Romney, will be tricky for parocks' model, that's for sure.

----------


## parocks

1) Wrong vote ALL
2) Wrong vote PART
3) Right vote (ALL and PART)
4) No vote.

It's not tricky.





> Is that the BEST you can do? IF this were the result of "vote all", ALL candidates would have overvotes, not just ROMNEY. Come on Parocks, WHY does Romney have 200- 300 more candidate votes than delegate votes in a precinct while the others' numbers are very close? Paul doesn't have ONE precinct where he receives more votes than delegates in the largest precincts representing 50% of the vote in Alabama!!!! Look:

----------


## The Man

> I am trying hard to detect that switch, as your charts are very intriguing, but I struggle.
> Below is a scatter plot of the difference in votes between the presidential preference and the 3rd delegate race, Paul vs Santorum, district by district for the whole of Alabama. You do see very clearly that Santorum gains and Paul loses, but do they correlate?
> A switch from one to the other would tend to populate the chart diagonally. A simple software bug on name allocation would be very detectable here. Is it happening? Looks more like when Paul loses presidential votes, Santorum sometimes gains, sometimes he does not. You do get some (-x, +x) dots, but many (-x, 0) and (0, +x) as well. Now the important thing is that, *when you cumulate (-x,0) and (0,+x) data points, it will average onto the diagonal* and you will get an impeccable appearance of vote flip on cumulative charts. As things stand, I tend to think that both processes are fairly independent at district level. Only sometimes they coincided. If fraud, the data to me feels more like presidential vote suppression for Paul and/or ballot stuffing for Santorum. Well, independent or... artfully randomized... Shall we ever know?...


Hey Liberty1789, I have previously demonstrated a simple method to greatly reduce noise from voter error (delegates). Since we know that the number of votes AND the number of delegates (position 3) should ideally be equal in every precinct, we multiply each candidate's # of delegate votes X ratio of total votes/total delegates for each precinct. NOW you begin to see the REAL votes exchange between Santorum and Paul:

Delegates (Adjusted)= reported delegates (each precinct) X (total votes all candidates each precinct/total delegates (pos 3) all candidates)

----------


## drummergirl

> As things stand, I tend to think that both processes are fairly independent at district level. Only sometimes they coincided. If fraud, the data to me feels more like presidential vote suppression for Paul and/or ballot stuffing for Santorum. Well, independent or... artfully randomized... Shall we ever know?...


I'm not sure if we'll ever have the complete answer on Alabama, but it sure is intriguing.  My brain has not had a real life puzzle this sophisticated (games not included) in quite awhile.  What surprises me is that with all the data available and the curious nature of the results, why are there no PhD statisticians drooling over this stuff?  You'd think they'd be living for an opportunity like this.  Anyway...

I suspect that there's a good reason your scatter plots don't show a good correlation and the PPE vote - adjusted delegates graphs The Man did do correlate.  If there were two manipulative processes running at the same time, one a siphon from Paul to Santorum and the other flipping from Gingrich and Santorum to Romney a lot of funny numbers suddenly make sense.

The trouble I'm having with my hypothesis is I can't think of a way to test it.  I keep running into the too many variables and not enough equations type problem.  Any ideas?

----------


## Liberty1789

> Delegates (Adjusted)= reported delegates (each precinct) X (total votes all candidates each precinct/total delegates (pos 3) all candidates)


Each data point in the scatter chart is made of X and Y which are both themselves the result of a substraction. Your adjustment multiplies one of the 2 elements of the substraction by an identical factor, (total votes all candidates each precinct/total delegates (pos 3) all candidates), itself not independent of the values of X and Y. So the probability of introducing a correlation artifact is really far from trivial.

To give you an idea of the complexity of it all, I have created below a scatter chart with 4 independent random variable (on the left), plotting V1-V2 vs V3-V4. Then I apply a transformation along the lines of your adjustment on the right. See what I mean?

----------


## drummergirl

yep; this so feels like a 3 body problem.

----------


## LibertyIn08

> I'm not sure if we'll ever have the complete answer on Alabama, but it sure is intriguing.  My brain has not had a real life puzzle this sophisticated (games not included) in quite awhile.  What surprises me is that with all the data available and the curious nature of the results, *why are there no PhD statisticians drooling over this stuff?*  You'd think they'd be living for an opportunity like this.  Anyway...
> 
> I suspect that there's a good reason your scatter plots don't show a good correlation and the PPE vote - adjusted delegates graphs The Man did do correlate.  If there were two manipulative processes running at the same time, one a siphon from Paul to Santorum and the other flipping from Gingrich and Santorum to Romney a lot of funny numbers suddenly make sense.
> 
> The trouble I'm having with my hypothesis is I can't think of a way to test it.  I keep running into the too many variables and not enough equations type problem.  Any ideas?


There are plenty of graduate level statisticians on this forum. There's a reason most don't touch these nutty threads with a ten foot pole.

----------


## RonRules

> There are plenty of graduate level statisticians on this forum. There's a reason most don't touch these nutty threads with a ten foot pole.


The chairman of the Statistics Department at my local university disagrees with you. He's taught thousands of graduate level statisticians.

Jus' sayin.

----------


## drummergirl

> There are plenty of graduate level statisticians on this forum. There's a reason most don't touch these nutty threads with a ten foot pole.


Well, they may not want to take their time to deal with noob questions and trolls.  But if there are statisticians avoiding these things for that reason, they are doing nothing to improve public opinion of statistics.  Most people hold to "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics."  As long as the statisticians stay in the ivory towers, that view will remain.

----------


## The Man

> Each data point in the scatter chart is made of X and Y which are both themselves the result of a substraction. Your adjustment multiplies one of the 2 elements of the substraction by an identical factor, (total votes all candidates each precinct/total delegates (pos 3) all candidates), itself not independent of the values of X and Y. So the probability of introducing a correlation artifact is really far from trivial.


I respect what you are saying Liberty1789. But clearly there is heavy voter error regarding delegates which tends to mask any inverse relationship between two candidates' vote-delegate differentials. What you term "identical factor" may hold TECHNICAL merit AND it is true that the "factor" relies partially on the number of that particular candidate's reported delegate votes. But we're in unchartered mathematical waters that require "outside-the-box" thinking. So I decided to create the same relationship "votes minus adjusted delegates" for all possible relationships in this Alabama GOP Race. Are you telling me this is just a coincidence? NO other relationshipe shows ANY kind of inverse correlation except Paul vs Santorum. As a reference, the red dotted line represents the perfect ideal inverse relationship (Candidate A's loss = Candidate B's gain).



RED LINE = PERFECT INVERSE RELATIONSHIP

----------


## LibertyIn08

> The chairman of the Statistics Department at my local university disagrees with you. He's taught thousands of graduate level statisticians.
> 
> Jus' sayin.


If he is that confident of your process, he would be able to generate at least one solid scholarly article (likely more) and would probably be in the running for multiple awards. Professors don't turn down those kinds of opportunities. Since he hasn't come forward and given his actual name, I guess I'll have to take your word on the above anecdote. 

I look forward to reading his published article proving fraud in the 2012 election. 

As for the ivory tower comment posited by drummergirl, since many basic principles of observational sciences and statistics are being ignored here and in the other thread, the qualified persons probably see no reason to engage you.

That being said, I'll leave the critiques for the criticism thread and make sure this is my last post on the matter on either of the flipping threads. The only reason I came to this thread is the nonsensical posting of "vote flipping 'proof'" in unrelated threads; given the preponderance of qualified individuals on this forum who don't find your "proof" reliable, I suggest you leave the discussion to these threads and stop crossposting it elsewhere claiming it proven.

----------


## drummergirl

> given the preponderance of qualified individuals on this forum who don't find your "proof" reliable, I suggest you leave the discussion to these threads and stop crossposting it elsewhere claiming it proven.


Who?

I have yet to hear from anyone even claiming to be a professional statistician.  I could be wrong, because there are thousands of posts, but I don't recall any posts from a credentialed statistician on this topic (I think it would've registered as important).

Your statement leaves me feeling a bit like Indiana Jones at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark when told, "we have top men working on it."

Who?

I know if you read my summary, it's clear that I'm not a statistician.  But I do know basic statistics well enough to have used that skill set many times for various reasons.  My graduate work involved quite a bit of statistics (and yes, it's published in a professional, peer reviewed journal in my field)  I don't think anyone is claiming that a series of forum posts is the same as a peer reviewed journal article.  I don't think professors would say that a discussion over a few beers is the same as a symposium either.  However, I know several professors that actually got some of their best research ideas from the discussions with beer.

So, if you know any hardcore statisticians avoiding this thread, I toss down the gauntlet.  Look at the data and analyze it or be known as an intellectual lily-livered, yellow bellied chicken.

----------


## The Man

When the precinct totals are averaged lot size= 20 you get this inverse correlation between Paul and Santorum. Liberty1789, if this doesn't at least earn a second look from you, then it's time to move on to the next analysis. Honestly, this graph shows absolutely that Santorum receives Paul's votes. As I have maintained, you can't look at individual precincts unless you filter noise. Then, the obvious emerges. We could go through individually and do some obvious filtering each precinct one-by-one and I will guess that this graph would look like a 45% straight line. For example, the obvious ballot stuffing in Jefferson County causes my method of filtering to err; Romney's ridiculous gift of 100's of votes causes my method of adjustment to subtract votes from the other candidates. The graph below is in precincts less than 690 votes, which corresponds to when Romney starts receiving votes out of thin air.

----------


## The Man

Same Graph for ALL precincts

----------


## RonRules

> 


The clustering on this chart is interesting to me. Pure randomness can have clusters, but more often than not, it's more like white noise on an old TV. How can we isolate the cause of this clustering?

----------


## The Man

> The clustering on this chart is interesting to me. Pure randomness can have clusters, but more often than not, it's more like white noise on an old TV. How can we isolate the cause of this clustering?


The point is that plotting candidate A vs candidate B "votes minus delegates' should produce a line with a -1 slope (y=-x) in the ideal 1:1 vote swap. Liberty1789 brilliantly introduced this as a new method to deduce that a candidate's votes transfer to another. His initial analysis of the Paul-Santorum relationship showed no such relationship. I have filtered the noise and averaged the results. You can see that no other relationships in this race produce anywhere near these results. My method of filtering is less than perfect- but good enough to see this parasitic relationship very clearly.

----------


## The Man

If you don't like my delegate adjustment method, here is Paul vs Santorum votes minus delegates (reported 3rd position) each point averaged (sample=20). The red dotted is the line y=-x, the ideal perfect parasitic vote swapping relationship.

----------


## drummergirl

> If you don't like my delegate adjustment method, here is Paul vs Santorum votes minus delegates (reported 3rd position) each point averaged (sample=20). The red dotted is the line y=-x, the ideal perfect parasitic vote swapping relationship.


Even unadjusted, that's a pretty strong correlation.

----------


## The Man

> Even unadjusted, that's a pretty strong correlation.


I guess we tend to lose level perspective of this Alabama delegate situation. Literally there is nowhere in the 1864 precincts where Paul does anything but lose votes versus delegate votes. In the only precincts where Paul has more votes than delegates (44 of them using position 3 delegate), he picks up a whopping 116 votes total. In thes same 44 precincts, Santorum and Romney gain more than 600 votes a piece versus delegates. Romney gains more than 200 votes in at least 20 precincts while Santorum gains 100+ votes in 46 precincts. Paul loses more than 100 votes in 60 precincts and his largest gain is 13 votes in a precinct, where he still gains less than 2 of the other 3 candidates. Nowhere in this thread is there any credible explanation of this. I'm not sure how it's possible to look at these latest graphs and not acknowledge the correlation. BUT you have to accept the fact that delegate data is only valuable when looking at groups of precincts.

----------


## RonRules

We're at the analysis paralysis stage now. We've got the evidence. It's up to the State to determine the actual cause.

Has anybody called the Secretary of State yet?

I was on the phone with Milwaukee today. I kinda adopted Wisconsin and don't really want to cross lines with Alabama.

----------


## Liberty1789

> When the precinct totals are averaged lot size= 20 you get this inverse correlation between Paul and Santorum. Liberty1789, if this doesn't at least earn a second look from you


How do you group the 20 precincts together? Are they sorted?

The reason I am asking is that when you look at Paul's share of votes vs Santorum's per county, which should cancel out quite a bit of noise, there is no sign of correlation whatsoever. None. The 5% "skimmer" is not apparent here either, as plenty of counties score above 5% and Paul's best score is almost all the way up to 8%.



Some more head scratching at my end, I'm afraid.

----------


## The Man

/


> How do you group the 20 precincts together? Are they sorted?
> The reason I am asking is that when you look at Paul's share of votes vs Santorum's per county, which should cancel out quite a bit of noise, there is no sign of correlation whatsoever. None. The 5% "skimmer" is not apparent here either, as plenty of counties score above 5% and Paul's best score is almost all the way up to 8%. Some more head scratching at my end, I'm afraid.


I used a running average, n=20, precincts arranged ascending totals as usual. You still end up with 1800+ data points but each averaged total is the average of the 20 previous precincts. I call it a running average (not positive that's technically the proper term).

It's interesting that you say Paul scores almost 8% in some counties... but his cumulative % statewide stays at 5% +/- 0.3%. Hey Liberty1789, I think it's healthy that you see Bama from a different viewpoint. I don't have all the answers but there's simply no other logical explanation why Paul loses in almost every precinct other than fraud. Please explain differently about the "no correlation between Paul and Santorum's vote totals between counties." I believe that the manipulation is done at the state tabulation level so that Paul is maintained at 5%. Again, it's the "can't see the forest for the trees" concept.

----------


## drummergirl

These are just my thoughts on the matter at this point, so they are subject to change in the light of more information.

I have good reason to suspect that the "flipper" virus dates back to the late 1980s.  Part of the reason it's so crude is it's age.  I also suspect we can find the author by following the bodies, but that's a rabbit trail for another day.

The vote "sucker" (I don't know virus, object, function?) mechanism has a more modern and sophisticated feel to it.  It would still need to be simple enough to avoid breaking the program to stay under the radar.  Perhaps it takes a fixed percentage rather than capping a candidate at a certain amount.  Perhaps it uses a random number generator to take a range of percentages (like 3.4 to 5.2 percent or something).

In any case I suspect that the sucker and the flipper were both expecting to utilize the cushion provided by the difference between PPE votes and delegate votes to hide their activities.  And like 2 people on a joint checking account both using the last $100 before pay day, they blew past the cushion because they both used it.

----------


## Liberty1789

Here we go, nice excel file from The Man's massive listing. Haven't analysed anything out of it yet. Best of luck.

http://www.filedropper.com/aljeffersonevmdata

----------


## dr.k.research

> About 25-30% didn't vote in any delegate races


You sure know how to waste peoples' time. Whenever anyone ANYWHERE begins to demonstrate anomalies in vote counts, with reliable data, with significant evidence of tampering, you show up and start your babbling. Don't you have anything better to do than attempt to undermine this work? They are even quoting your babble on the DailyPaul, that is when threads about the Alabama delegate anomaly are posted.

----------


## dr.k.research

> I tried to answer the question by looking at the data


Why didn't you look at the data before you made that terminally fraudulent post about Iowa? Have you cleaned up that post yet?

----------


## The Man

At first glance, I do NOT see a simple trend where Romney receives votes at a certain count. There does appear to be some correlation between precincts with a high "votes minus delegates" discrepancy AND % difference between 2 EVM's in a precinct, BUT the difference does not seem to favor a single candidate. Just digging in though.

----------


## RonRules

> Here we go, nice excel file from The Man's massive listing. Haven't analysed anything out of it yet. Best of luck.
> 
> http://www.filedropper.com/aljeffersonevmdata


Thank you so much for converting the big PDF file. I know how much work that is.

Here what I rushed to look at: 

*Difference with EVM listing: 225*

Let me emphasize once again. *THERE SHOULD NOT BE A SINGLE VOTE DIFFERENCE* between the EVM results and the State Tabulated results. *NOT ONE VOTE.* 

This is not a question of vote interpretation by humans or vote machine scanning errors. This is a question of electronic* vote counts incorrectly transferred between two computers. THERE IS NO MARGIN OF ERROR HERE.* Those counts *MUST match exactly.*

There are 67 counties in Alablama.  225 votes in one county could mean as many as 15,075 state wide.

*This is a HUGE problem* and I thank "The Man" and "Liberty1789" for doing the initial work.  We have more analysis to do, but most importantly, we need to follow up with the Secretary of State and the Atty General of Alabama.

----------


## Liberty1789

> *Difference with EVM listing: 225*
> Let me emphasize once again. *THERE SHOULD NOT BE A SINGLE VOTE DIFFERENCE* between the EVM results and the State Tabulated results. *NOT ONE VOTE.*


RonRules, I am a pretty safe hand with Excel, but the discrepancy error could be mine. It was not an easy conversion. I did not go and verify each of them manually, feeling a bit of speadsheet nausea after so many hours...

----------


## Liberty1789

Jefferson's County listing allows to look at votes per machine. Guess what: 18 machines have... 1 vote! So we get to look at 18 single ballots! Fabulous!

-> 14 ballots followed the rule: presidential vote matches delegate race votes
-> 2 Romney voters violated the rules with 1 delegate race overvote, by voting once for Gingrich 1st delegate and once for Santorum 1st delegate
-> 2 Santorum voters violated the rules with massive overvote:

 
2 out of 18 near-vote-for-all: quite high...

Below are not ballots anymore, but addition of ballots. Simple logic allows to identify rule violations and to speculate on what went wrong. Have a go: it's kind of fun:


From all the machines where I would argue that you can identify a vote-for-all pattern in all likelihood, I derive a voting error rate of 7% (i.e. 12/165). In Jefferson County, Paul scored 4% in the presidential race and more like 10% in the delegate races.

parocks, feel good 

The Man, if I may be so bold as to ask you 2 things that I would love to squeeze out of your Jefferson election official contact:

(1) the answer to the following question: was the enforcement of the delegate overvoting rule any different in 2008, through software or poll worker checks?

(2) the Jefferson EVM listing for 2008. I love pdf conversion so much

----------


## RonRules

> 


Those Santorum voters sure like to vote! Why would they miss Paul P17 and a few Romneys? Were their names Devil and Lucifer?

I like how you've laid this out, but it took me about a two minutes to understand the color code. Red is an overvote for delegate and black is an expected delegate vote. The title "PPP Votes, 1 Santorum" will most likely confuse people, and you'll be flooded with questions. May I suggest the first line say: "One Vote for Candidate Santorum", second line: "Delegates picked on that ballot. (Red= incorrect vote)"

The result above (except for the dumb Santorum voter theory) can only be explained with *disappearing candidate votes*. This is not vote flipping because the total number of votes is still 1. 

The Man: Would it be possible to get a copy of the poll tapes for machine #138 and #299?  More would be even better (#197, #270, #131, #165 above), and particularly machines with high counts.

----------


## The Man

Hey RonRules, Liberty1789- I have forwarded your request to the official. I will post any kind of response received from him. I am paying attention to your posts. Liberty1789, in order to begin to consider this "idiot voter" theory, there are some very difficulty assumptions that must be made.

----------


## The Man

Hey Liberty 1789, Any chance that I could interest you in analyzing the POSSIBLE correlation between "Romney's votes minus delegates" AND Romney's % difference from EVM1 to EVM2 within a precinct?
Update- I'm working on it already. No need to bother.

----------


## drummergirl

OF COURSE!!!
<facepalm and I coulda had a V8 moment>

Why stuff the ballot box when you can just delete your opponent's votes?

Sorry, having a bit of a brain rush because this explains SO MUCH!





> Jefferson's County listing allows to look at votes per machine. Guess what: 18 machines have... 1 vote! So we get to look at 18 single ballots! Fabulous!
> 
> -> 14 ballots followed the rule: presidential vote matches delegate race votes
> -> 2 Romney voters violated the rules with 1 delegate race overvote, by voting once for Gingrich 1st delegate and once for Santorum 1st delegate
> -> 2 Santorum voters violated the rules with massive overvote:
> 
>  
> 2 out of 18 near-vote-for-all: quite high...
> 
> ...

----------


## RonRules

It's also kinda bizzarre that SO many machines would have only ONE vote total. If this were random, you'd expect about the same number of machines with TWO votes, THREE votes and that vote count per machine increasing like the left tail of a Normal Distribution up to the median #of votes per machine.

May I have a histogram please!

I'm expecting a fat left tail. And I know tails!

Edit: My theory here is that the vote flipping algorithm is set up in such a way as to prevent the count from going negative or even zero. It just stops subtracting when it reaches 1.  This is to prevent some rather embarrassing situations like Volusia County, FL, where the vote count dropped to *negative 16,022*. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volusia_error

I also recently discovered that this "alleged" algorithm tops off at a certain count. I found that when you separate out the last top 10-20 percentile of the vote, the results flat line! That was quite a surprise until I realized that the likely reason is so the fraud can go undetected and below the margin of error count.

It is important to *DEMAND that ZERO is the only acceptable tolerance of error* with electronic transfer of vote counts.

----------


## RabbitMan

Great work guys!  That's pretty messed up!

----------


## RonRules

> Great work guys!  That's pretty messed up!


And girls

----------


## RonRules

Wrong thread!

----------


## RonRules

Wrong again!

----------


## RonRules

I moved them to the Mother thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...lipping/page67

----------


## The Man

> Hey RonRules, Liberty1789- I have forwarded your request to the official. I will post any kind of response received from him. I am paying attention to your posts. Liberty1789, in order to begin to consider this "idiot voter" theory, there are some very difficulty assumptions that must be made.


So I sent this email to Jefferson County Alabama Election Commissioner:

"Thank you for your response. I have a request from a couple of analysts that I will relay to you. Any response to these is greatly appreciated: 
(1) the answer to the following question: was the enforcement of the delegate overvoting rule any different in 2008, through software or poll worker checks?
(2) the Jefferson EVM listing .PDF for 2008 like the one to which you sent me the link. 
(3) Would it be possible to get a copy of the poll tapes for machine #138 and #299? More would be even better (#197, #270, #131, #165 above), and particularly machines with high counts.  
Sincerely,"

Here is the response received from him just now:

1)       We changed no procedures from 2008 to 2012 regarding delegates.  Realize though that in 2008, the presidential race was the only thing on the ballot.  The presidential primary was held in February, and the statewide primary was held in June.
2)   ftp://ftp.jeffcointouch.com/election...aryReport.html
3)      No.  However, they would match the reports.  We post those tapes here at the courthouse as well as at each poll location so anyone can view them and compare our published numbers to the actual tapes.  Many of the candidates will have people assigned to various polls to obtain those numbers before the poll workers can drive downtown and would quickly notice a disparity.  Also, the reports are compared to the tapes through a canvassing procedure after each election.  For a primary election, the party is responsible for conducting the canvass and we facilitate it.  For a general election, we conduct the canvass ourselves.

----------


## RonRules

> 3)      No.  However, they would match the reports.  We post those tapes here at the courthouse as well as at each poll location so anyone can view them and compare our published numbers to the actual tapes.  Many of the candidates will have people assigned to various polls to obtain those numbers before the poll workers can drive downtown and would quickly notice a disparity.  Also, the reports are compared to the tapes through a canvassing procedure after each election.  For a primary election, the party is responsible for conducting the canvass and we facilitate it.  For a general election, we conduct the canvass ourselves.


The poll tapes (depending on the machine) often only show totals. Can you ask him if the tapes only show the totals or the individual candidate numbers.

In Bev Harris videos, you'll see the machine output on a tape the results for each candidate. If that's available, that's what we need, regardless of their procedures for having checked it.

Thanks for posting though.

----------


## drummergirl

Brilliant!  So, we have Romney flipping and Santorum deleting votes.  And it does sound like the poll tapes are checked, which tends to point back to the voting machines... Unraveling the web of deception does take effort and patience.  way to go!




> So I sent this email to Jefferson County Alabama Election Commissioner:
> 
> "
> Thank you for your response. I have a request from a couple of analysts that I will relay to you. Any response to these is greatly appreciated: 
> (1) the answer to the following question: was the enforcement of the delegate overvoting rule any different in 2008, through software or poll worker checks?
> (2) the Jefferson EVM listing .PDF for 2008 like the one to which you sent me the link. 
> (3) Would it be possible to get a copy of the poll tapes for machine #138 and #299? More would be even better (#197, #270, #131, #165 above), and particularly machines with high counts.  
> Sincerely,"
> 
> ...

----------


## rb3b3

my guess is that this vote flipper will 100% be switched to on in these 3 states voting today!! i guarantee it because of rons success this past two weekends.... mark my words!!!!! vote swicth will be in full effect!!! NO DOUBT ABOUT IT! WATCH AND SEE

----------


## RonRules

> my guess is that this vote flipper will 100% be switched to on in these 3 states voting today!! i guarantee it because of rons success this past two weekends.... mark my words!!!!! vote swicth will be in full effect!!! NO DOUBT ABOUT IT! WATCH AND SEE


It's also because the machines are quarantined before the elections. If the machines have been locked up in a room with no internet access for a couple of months, then for sure, we'll see flipping.

----------


## RonRules

> For a primary election, *the party is responsible for conducting the canvass* and we facilitate it.  For a general election, we conduct the canvass ourselves.


Note that in both 2008 and 2012, the "Canvas" is simply a report that the SOE Central Tabulator spits out. These voting machine companies try to make these election officials jobs as easy as possible. A "canvas report" is now just a report that you run from the central tabulator. I don't find that satisfactory at all.

In Milwaukee County for example, they get a printed (sometimes hand written) sheet from each precinct, which they centrally compare. That's how I was able to see the huge discrepancy of Ron/Mitt 3/133 votes in the Village of Greendale.

The dirty deed may be done at the individual machine level, but the logistics of effecting it that way are much more difficult than at the Central Tab.  Based on the Centrally tabulated reports we got from Alabama, I stick with my story of the CT being the main culprit.

----------


## drummergirl

> Note that in both 2008 and 2012, the "Canvas" is simply a report that the SOE Central Tabulator spits out. These voting machine companies try to make these election officials jobs as easy as possible. A "canvas report" is now just a report that you run from the central tabulator. I don't find that satisfactory at all.
> 
> In Milwaukee County for example, they get a printed (sometimes hand written) sheet from each precinct, which they centrally compare. That's how I was able to see the huge discrepancy of Ron/Mitt 3/133 votes in the Village of Greendale.
> 
> The dirty deed may be done at the individual machine level, but the logistics of effecting it that way are much more difficult than at the Central Tab.  Based on the Centrally tabulated reports we got from Alabama, I stick with my story of the CT being the main culprit.


The difficulty of canvassing and our present circumstances is that The Flipper is not a ballot stuffer.  Canvassing just checks the total number of votes against the number of voters that came to the polling place.  It can't detect flipping or (unless it's really excessive) vote deletion.

----------


## Liberty1789

> ftp://ftp.jeffcointouch.com/election...aryReport.html


Failed to download that so far. Does it really contain 2008 by precinct/EVM? The "Summary Report" name worries me a bit.

----------


## The Man

> Failed to download that so far. Does it really contain 2008 by precinct/EVM? The "Summary Report" name worries me a bit.


Try this link: ftp://ftp.jeffcointouch.com/election...port021508.pdf

----------


## parocks

> You sure know how to waste peoples' time. Whenever anyone ANYWHERE begins to demonstrate anomalies in vote counts, with reliable data, with significant evidence of tampering, you show up and start your babbling. Don't you have anything better to do than attempt to undermine this work? They are even quoting your babble on the DailyPaul, that is when threads about the Alabama delegate anomaly are posted.


Yeah, I was in Maine, at the convention.  I think people should be focused on things like that, winning delegates, and not staring at charts.  It's pretty simple what happened in Alabama. 

Seems like theres a lot of people who joined up here in March 2012 who want Ron Paul Supporters to spend lots of time and effort on a wild goose chase that makes us seem crazy.  If someone on another site realizes that theres a simple explanation for what happened in Alabama, good for them.

----------


## Liberty1789

> Try this link: ftp://ftp.jeffcointouch.com/election...port021508.pdf


No dice... Baffles me. If you have the file locally, would you mind uploading it to filedropper?

----------


## The Man

> Yeah, I was in Maine, at the convention.  I think people should be focused on things like that, winning delegates, and not staring at charts.  It's pretty simple what happened in Alabama. 
> 
> Seems like theres a lot of people who joined up here in March 2012 who want Ron Paul Supporters to spend lots of time and effort on a wild goose chase that makes us seem crazy.  If someone on another site realizes that theres a simple explanation for what happened in Alabama, good for them.


No offense but your "simple explanation" doesn't explain the chart below. I don't have a problem IF you sincerely believe your explanation.  Romney has a 200- 300 vote to delegate differential when all the others are reasonably close... I don't find this at all random.

----------


## parocks

Yeah, don't care.  I have a basic chart which shows a plausible explanation for what happened.  You all can keep starting at charts everyday, 8 hours a day, and try to explain that what we're looking at is fraud.  I don't care.  

This here is good enough.  On to campaigning, or whatever else it is you do.

This topic should've been sent to hot topics long ago.  Actually, "staring at graphs, believing there's fraud" should be a sub topic of hot topics, so that they have their own little playground that no one else has to be bothered by.









> No offense but your "simple explanation" doesn't explain the chart below. I don't have a problem IF you sincerely believe your explanation.  Romney has a 200- 300 vote to delegate differential when all the others are reasonably close... I don't find this at all random.

----------


## The Man

> No dice... Baffles me. If you have the file locally, would you mind uploading it to filedropper?


http://www.filedropper.com/precinct20report021508

----------


## Liberty1789

Remember that chart?


Thanks to The Man, we now have the data for Jefferson County in 2008. And it looks like this:


I suppose that, over only 4 years, the vast majority of voters are *the same people* using an identically formatted ballot.

The difference is stunning.

Given that, when queried about the checks on overvoting, the Jefferson County Alabam Election Commisioner emailed to the Man that:




> We changed no procedures from 2008 to 2012 regarding delegates.


we still have no explanation whatsoever for this jaw-dropping difference. Outside the vote tampering hypothesis, that is...

----------


## drummergirl

> we still have no explanation whatsoever for this jaw-dropping difference. Outside the vote tampering hypothesis, that is...


Exactly.

----------


## RonRules

Spectacular work, Liberty.

After you take a well deserved break, if you can, please chart (histogram) the number of votes per machine. 

It's unusual that 18 of them only had one vote.

----------


## Liberty1789

> Spectacular work, Liberty.
> 
> After you take a well deserved break, if you can, please chart (histogram) the number of votes per machine. 
> 
> It's unusual that 18 of them only had one vote.


Does not look unusual. Remember typically 2 machines per site (in case of breakdown I suppose), even in the low count ones.



Last freebie. From now, it is $62/ hour

----------


## RonRules

> Does not look unusual. Remember typically 2 machines per site (in case of breakdown I suppose), even in the low count ones.
> Last freebie. From now, it is $62/ hour


Thanks for the trouble. 18 machines with one vote seemed strange, but when 13 machines have 2 votes, 11 have 3 votes, etc., it all looks pretty reasonable.

But your 2012/2008 delegate charts need to go on the cover of Statistics Magazine!

----------


## drummergirl

> Thanks for the trouble. 18 machines with one vote seemed strange, but when 13 machines have 2 votes, 11 have 3 votes, etc., it all looks pretty reasonable.
> 
> But your 2012/2008 delegate charts need to go on the cover of Statistics Magazine!


Oh yeah, that'd make a nice textbook cover.

----------


## The Man

> Remember that chart?
> Thanks to The Man, we now have the data for Jefferson County in 2008. And it looks like this:
> I suppose that, over only 4 years, the vast majority of voters are *the same people* using an identically formatted ballot.
> The difference is stunning.Given that, when queried about the checks on overvoting, the Jefferson County Alabam Election Commisioner emailed to the Man that: we still have no explanation whatsoever for this jaw-dropping difference. Outside the vote tampering hypothesis, that is...



OK Liberty1789. I have found independently of your histogram below that Paul really scored around 13% but was intentionally flatlined at 5%. IF an algorithm was used that utilized a DIVISOR instead of simple subtraction to recalculate Paul's total, would it not totally explain your histogram? Something like Paul new=5%= (Paul old%)/n where n=integer to give Paul new closest to 5%. The noise in between each X-Axis whole number integer is from true delegate voter error.

----------


## affa

> Yeah, I was in Maine, at the convention.  I think people should be focused on things like that, winning delegates, and not staring at charts.  It's pretty simple what happened in Alabama. 
> 
> Seems like theres a lot of people who joined up here in March 2012 who want Ron Paul Supporters to spend lots of time and effort on a wild goose chase that makes us seem crazy.  If someone on another site realizes that theres a simple explanation for what happened in Alabama, good for them.


oh, stop flapping your gums about your join date.  i've been here pretty much the same amount of time you've been, but unlike you i don't 'analyze' why we should all start voting for Santorum and other opposing candidates and otherwise attempt to (intentionally or unintentionally) undermine the Paul campaign.   Your 'chart' of made up numbers is laughable, nearly indecipherable, and completely meaningless.

----------


## The Man

> Yeah, don't care.  I have a basic chart which shows a plausible explanation for what happened.  You all can keep starting at charts everyday, 8 hours a day, and try to explain that what we're looking at is fraud.  I don't care.This here is good enough.  On to campaigning, or whatever else it is you do. This topic should've been sent to hot topics long ago.  Actually, "staring at graphs, believing there's fraud" should be a sub topic of hot topics, so that they have their own little playground that no one else has to be bothered by.


IF you "don't care", then don't read this. I want to believe the honest explanation- it helps me to sleep better. I don't have a problem with you believing your own explanation. But here is why your "explanation" explains nothing and it ignores logical reasoning.
Following are some basic laws of distribution regarding Alabama's delegate votes in the 2012 GOP Primary that you have ignored in your "explanation". Unless there is something in the ballot design that caused the discrepancy (I don't see it), these basic laws of distribution hold:
1. Each delegate undervote for a specific Presidential candidate's delegate was generated by that particular candidate's own voter.
2. Each delegate overvote for a specific Presidential candidate's delegate was generated by one of the other 3 candidate's voters.
3. Each candidate's share of the total delegate undervotes should be proportional to that candidate's share of the total vote while each candidate's delegate overvotes should be proportional to percentage of the total voters that voted for the other 3 candidates  (based on #1 and #2 above).
4. Each candidate's delegate overvotes minus delegate undervotes = candidate's reported delegates minus reported candidate votes.

----------


## RonRules

Come and check out the exciting Rhode Island Delegate action:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...58#post4414358

----------


## RonRules

Have you Alabama thread guys made charts that compare delegates to each other?

Romney's Delegate #1 vs. Paul's Delegate #1 vs Gingrich Delegate #1 vs. Santorum Delegate#1
Romney's Delegate #2 vs. Paul's Delegate #2 vs Gingrich Delegate #2 vs. Santorum Delegate#2
Romney's Delegate #3 vs. Paul's Delegate #3 vs Gingrich Delegate #3 vs. Santorum Delegate#3

Since you have the data already loaded this should not be too difficult to do. I'd like to see if they flat-line or flip like in Rhode Island.

Thnks.

----------


## Liberty1789

affa has made the remark in the past that the presidential vote has no reason to outperform the delegate vote. I have check this in Jefferson County.

Here is the 2008 data:



The undervote count is proportional to the presidential vote count. Correlation above 99%. Quite intuitive, right?

So what on Earth is going on in 2012?

----------


## RonRules

Liberty, you make the most graphic graphs!

They just shout the injustice and fraud.

----------

