# Start Here > Ron Paul Forum >  Flipping the vote against Ron Paul in South Carolina?

## low preference guy

From the Daily Paul, somebody presents the case that votes were stolen from Paul in South Carolina. It's not evident that he is correct, but he has good arguments.




> Upon reviewing the Greenville County Precinct election vote data from the 2012, a disturbing pattern arose: *Ron Paul averaged 24% in precincts where less than 250 people voted; he averaged less than 12 percent in precincts with more than 800.* A spreadsheet was created to help me understand how this could be. Why was Ron Paul’s percentage in large precincts half of that in small precincts?





> Why does Romney's reported total equal Paul's expected total and Paul's reported total equal Romney's expected total?


Read the rest

Rev9

Edit: Daily Paul thread

----------


## rp08orbust

//

----------


## low preference guy

> For or from?


fixed

----------


## walt

Can someone send that to Rachel Maddow?

----------


## bcreps85

Interesting read...I can't think of any obvious problems with the logic.  It seems to me that larger counties could vote different than smaller counties and it would be believable...the smoking gun is how Romney/Paul ended up within a percent or so of where the other was projected to be though.

If nothing was taking place here, I'd expect both lines to deviate, but not follow any obvious pattern.  Would be interested to see this logic applied to all of the primaries.  That being said, it would not be a good way to check the integrity of caucus states.

----------


## S.Shorland

I let out an audible 'awww' when looking at the graphs.What a sickener for Paul.

----------


## Diashi

> Can someone send that to Rachel Maddow?


Interesting speculation alone isn't worth broadcasting. If we had hard evidence here of a flipped vote with testimony to back it up, that would be worth bugging anchors and drudge about...

----------


## Mark37snj

You have got to be f.................................................  ..................................................  ............ing kidding me!!!

----------


## S.Shorland

Where does he get his expected figures for Anderson from? RealClearPolitics SC polls had Romney well in the lead over Paul.

----------


## bcreps85

> Where does he get his expected figures for Anderson from? RealClearPolitics SC polls had Romney well in the lead over Paul.


That was the one thing I wasn't sure about when reading the document, but that still doesn't really affect the argument of the paper since the statistics are based on actual votes and not polls.

----------


## Mark37snj

> Where does he get his expected figures for Anderson from? RealClearPolitics SC polls had Romney well in the lead over Paul.


Just above Figure 1 it says at the top of the paragraph that "_A spreadsheet was created with vote data downloaded from the SC Election Commision's website for Anderson County_. Not sure if thats what you are looking for.

----------


## S.Shorland

Sorry.I just can't believe it was so blatant.I was thinking that in the RCP average Paul was always behind and this was so outrageous,maybe it was a spoof! as long as the figures are as he claims,I can't hole his logic.

----------


## Mark37snj

Nevada is begging for this kind of statistical analysis, especially in Washoe County.

----------


## low preference guy

> Interesting speculation alone isn't worth broadcasting. If we had hard evidence here of a flipped vote with testimony to back it up, that would be worth bugging anchors and drudge about...


we need hidden cameras recording a flipped vote

Rev9

----------


## bcreps85

> Nevada is begging for this kind of statistical analysis, especially in Washoe County.


Does anybody know where to get all of these numbers by county, or possibly even already in excel format?  If we could get that information on here, maybe somebody with the know-how would take that up.

*NOTE*  I don't think that the statistical calculations used in the document for SC will be accurate for caucuses, only primaries.  A small vocal minority can skew the numbers in a caucus much more.

----------


## low preference guy

added a link to the Daily Paul thread to the OP.

----------


## goldpants

This stuff is so unreal that it is real. I guess RP was proven right to campaign in SC and advertise there as well. Let's flood the caucuses, it seems it is our only shot to overthrow this tyranny.

----------


## amonasro

So basically Ron gets Mitt's projected totals and Mitt got Ron's. The graphs line up nearly perfectly. 

That's pretty messed up.

----------


## roversaurus

Plausible.

I want to see the same analysis run for different counties.
Then for different states.

I'd also like to see the number for Rick Perry included in there. I know he got some votes. Maybe not enough.

I'd also like to know more about that particular county and the precincts.

This could always be just corruption in one county or just one statistical fluke in one county.

Why would Ron Paul and Romney "flip" in voters minds? If you say Paul is strong in the small precincts you must say that Romney is strong in the big precincts. And Santorum and Gingrich have the same appeal to small and large.

But we don't know WHY some precincts are small and some large. Was it turnout? Was it rural/urban? Democrat/Republican? Black/White? Regardless it has to be something the uniquely impacts only Paul and Romney.

It would be nice to see this analysis for Iowa and New Hampshire where there were more candidates.

----------


## S.Shorland

Malkusm or someone statistically minded needs to verify it and then send it to Rachel M and ben Swann.

----------


## RPit

I'm no statistical genius, but honestly I find this very compelling that at least 'something' is wrong. Whoever put this together deserves applause.

----------


## affa

> Interesting speculation alone isn't worth broadcasting. If we had hard evidence here of a flipped vote with testimony to back it up, that would be worth bugging anchors and drudge about...


This is statistically damning.   It needs to be peer reviewed, and number checked, but it seems accurate.   Clear case of vote flipping.   The statistical model is able to predict Santorum and Gingrich with, as the author notes, "deadly precision".   This sort of precision in statistics is why they can often call elections early, or base polls on only a couple hundred respondents.

This is, assuming the numbers are correct, which they do appear to be... well, damning.   Absolutely damning.    There is no conceivable reason why in any county over a certain population every predicted Ron Paul vote, based on such a large sampling, would be perfectly flipped over to Romney.

This needs to get out.  Again, it needs peer review by statisticians... but this is a smoking gun.

We need people, preferably trusted professionals, looking at this.

----------


## goldpants

I do have one question though. If we really did turn out the vote, were our votes spread out across age groups we normally fail to do well with or were the young voters out in multiple levels to the ones reported?

----------


## BUSHLIED

Nothing surprises me, I am convinvced there is fraud taking place. Just look at how the media treated Ron since '07....if they can get away with that out in the open then switching votes is so much easier...the media and the establishment don't care about Paul...

----------


## RPit

> Plausible.
> 
> I want to see the same analysis run for different counties.
> Then for different states.
> 
> I'd also like to see the number for Rick Perry included in there. I know he got some votes. Maybe not enough.
> 
> I'd also like to know more about that particular county and the precincts.
> 
> ...


Rigging can be customized, so to assume the same analysis would 'transfer' isn't fair. Depends on the riggers.

----------


## affa

Can anyone dig up exit poll information pronto.  Like, immediately, while it's still available.  It would be interesting to know if exit poll results were in line with these predictions. 

I'm off to go see Ron Paul in Vancouver or I'd do it myself.

----------


## Mark37snj

> Does anybody know where to get all of these numbers by county, or possibly even already in excel format?  If we could get that information on here, maybe somebody with the know-how would take that up.
> 
> *NOTE*  I don't think that the statistical calculations used in the document for SC will be accurate for caucuses, only primaries.  A small vocal minority can skew the numbers in a caucus much more.


I suspect the campaign is gona take a good look at this and probably launch an investigation like the one with the Huntsman video.

----------


## FrancisMarion

Did you do this for any of the other counties?  Its well done, but in order to convince you have to include other data sets as a measure of control.  

1.  Do the same 20% as the basis for your straight line in other counties please.  Charleston would be nice, that's mine.
2.  For arguments sake, what are the results if you went back and used 10% for the straight line estimation?  Is there a large deviation?  Shouldn't be to much work if you are using excel....
3.  Again, its eye-opening but it has to be compared to prove its not an anomaly.

Read the whole thing, its well presented.

----------


## S.Shorland

In the Maine Caucus it was 'don't count the votes aloud'.Evidence from Belfast of shenanigans due to one thoughtful chairman going against the state gop edict.Electronic and procedural rigging to solve the caucus/primary difference.

  What a blessing that Maine is so small,actually.It forced them to deal with small precincts.

----------


## low preference guy

> In the Maine Caucus it was 'don't count the votes aloud'.


I feel like there should be a national campaign FOR counting the vote aloud after this. There is video to make a cool ad.

Rev9

----------


## flsurfer

I agree, this needs to be done on more counties.  If the graphs match up in a similar manner it should be a pretty solid evidence that is was rigged. 

Those of you who haven't already looked at these graphs all the way please do: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&p...U2ZGU1OWZkZjhk

----------


## bcreps85

> I suspect the campaign is gona take a good look at this and probably launch an investigation like the one with the Huntsman video.


It would be good, but we can't rely on that.  Remember...they might not even know some of what is going on...they are running a campaign and likely not scouring the forums.  If I could get the numbers, I'd try to work with this some and post what I come up with.  My last statistics course was a while ago, but I could probably try to use excel to duplicate his methodology.

----------


## roversaurus

Along with doing the same thing for other counties and other states. We should look at exit polling for this specific county AND we should go back and look at 2008 voting results for this same county.

Perhaps we have discovered a "real" phenomena that people who vote in small vs large precincts have a Paul/Romney preference difference. We should see this in other locations then. We should probably see it in 2008.

I guess it's possible that Romney sent out campaign workers to large precincts in that county. But at the moment it seems best explained by statistical fluke or fraud.

----------


## Mark37snj

> It would be good, but we can't rely on that.  Remember...they might not even know some of what is going on...they are running a campaign and likely not scouring the forums.  If I could get the numbers, I'd try to work with this some and post what I come up with.  My last statistics course was a while ago, but I could probably try to use excel to duplicate his methodology.


I think affa is on the case. 




> Can anyone dig up exit poll information pronto.  Like, immediately, while it's still available.  It would be interesting to know if exit poll results were in line with these predictions. 
> 
> I'm off to go see Ron Paul in Vancouver or I'd do it myself.


It's on Daily Paul, no way they are gona miss this. But I'm all for kicking around the numbers some more.

----------


## hillertexas



----------


## EaSy

> I do have one question though. If we really did turn out the vote, were our votes spread out across age groups we normally fail to do well with or were the young voters out in multiple levels to the ones reported?


I think the voter info is comming from exit polls, not from actual voting.

----------


## Mark37snj

> I think the voter info is comming from exit polls, not from actual voting.





> Just above Figure 1 it says at the top of the paragraph that "_A spreadsheet was created with vote data downloaded from the SC Election Commision's website for Anderson County_. Not sure if thats what you are looking for.


The data for this analysis was actual votes.

----------


## EaSy

I wasn't talking about spreadsheet but about where more info about actual voters is comming from.  Official results from SC are just precicts and numbers of votes.

----------


## Mark37snj

> I wasn't talking about spreadsheet but about where more info about actual voters is comming from.  Official results from SC are just precicts and numbers of votes.


Ah, sorry, CNN should be a good spot to look. They ran all kinds of polls on variables like that.

----------


## S.Shorland

Read point 8.Anderson apparently isn't a county that shows wide discrepancy between rural and urban.He used the votes actually cast and then extrapolated.My question was just about opinion polls on realclearpolitics running up to election day showing Romney well ahead but if his figures are correct,I can't see anything wrong with his logic.

----------


## EaSy

One more thing. Lets assume that this spreadsheet is correct. What about an exit poll? Exit poll shows almost the same results as official counts.

----------


## jmdrake

Well considering that they just freaking stole a caucus (and some of us thought that was beyond them) anything is possible.

----------


## Mark37snj

> Well considering that they just freaking stole a caucus (and some of us thought that was beyond them) anything is possible.


Exactly, fixing a poll is childs play these days.

EDIT: Plus Romney was in a steep decline just before the election according to RCP poll and it takes a few days for them to catch up so he could have dropped even further. Romney was ahead of Paul by 14.7 points with Romney in steep decline and Paul slowly rising.

EDIT 2.0: In that same poll Gingrich dropped 17.3 points in 4 days, man when those SC change their minds they really move en mass.

EDIT 3.0: RCP final numbers had Gingrich at +5.0, but the actual was +12.5, they were off by 7.5

----------


## bcreps85

> One more thing. Lets assume that this spreadsheet is correct. What about an exit poll? Exit poll shows almost the same results as official counts.


Exit polls are usually small samples, which means a higher margin of error.  There are actually times during our elections where exit polls have been pretty far off, which signifies vote fraud, but in the end we just change those polls to match the "official result".  Still, it's generally people in the media conducting exit polls...and they clearly have a bias.  Can we actually trust them?

----------


## FrancisMarion

Here are the 2008 Anderson County Republican Primary by Precinct Results: http://www.state.sc.us/cgi-bin/scsec...ANDERSON&pr=rp

If the person who did this wants to let me know which counties he used so I can stay consistent I'd be happy to run these.  I could filter through all of it myself but it would be easier if I could just get the same spreadsheet template.

----------


## chris41336

Guys, as a scientist I have to tell you that this is pretty eerily similar to fixing results in a lab. You fix it in a way that you are least likely to get caught, but other scientists, always armed with comparison graphs and facts, can tear it down.

We HAVE HAVE HAVE to get this kind of stuff out there. Not just for Paul, but for the future of America and of the human race.

----------


## Mark37snj

> Guys, as a scientist I have to tell you that this is pretty eerily similar to fixing results in a lab. You fix it in a way that you are least likely to get caught, but other scientists, always armed with comparison graphs and facts, can tear it down.
> 
> We HAVE HAVE HAVE to get this kind of stuff out there. Not just for Paul, but for the future of America and of the human race.


One of my former bosses, a ph.D Biochemist, showed me a book about how to lie with statistics, LOL, thats some crazy $hit. He showed me two graphs for the same assay, same data, I ran and they looked exactly opposite.

----------


## chris41336

> One of my former bosses, a ph.D Biochemist, showed me a book about how to lie with statistics, LOL, thats some crazy $hit. He showed me two graphs for the same assay, same data, I ran and they looked exactly opposite.


The saddest part is that lying with statistics is so easy because people are so unlikely to challenge "hard numbers."

----------


## SamuraisWisdom

If the votes really were flipped then Anderson County would not be the only county affected.  There should be more tests run on other counties, and if there is a pattern of similar results then there might be something in it.

----------


## SamuraisWisdom

> Guys, as a scientist I have to tell you that this is pretty eerily similar to fixing results in a lab. You fix it in a way that you are least likely to get caught, but other scientists, always armed with comparison graphs and facts, can tear it down.
> 
> We HAVE HAVE HAVE to get this kind of stuff out there. Not just for Paul, but for the future of America and of the human race.


As an aspiring scientist, I think you and I would agree that one trial proves nothing.  There needs to be more analysis done on other counties to see if there are similarities.  Believe me, I want this to be true as much as anybody, but we need hard evidence before jumping to any conclusions.

----------


## Mark37snj

> As an aspiring scientist, I think you and I would agree that one trial proves nothing.  There needs to be more analysis done on other counties to see if there are similarities.  Believe me, I want this to be true as much as anybody, but we need hard evidence before jumping to any conclusions.


Read the second paragraph. He states that to keep this brief he is just gona show the results for one county, it appears he has others.

----------


## chris41336

> As an aspiring scientist, I think you and I would agree that one trial proves nothing.  There needs to be more analysis done on other counties to see if there are similarities.  Believe me, I want this to be true as much as anybody, but we need hard evidence before jumping to any conclusions.


You are absolutely right.

But without getting this out there, nobody will take the time to keep looking into it. You know damn well if tis true that there is alot at stake to making sure that NOBODY else looks into this.

----------


## Mark37snj

And don't we have this South Carolina Senator...oh whats his name...oh yeah...Tom Davis who endorsed Ron Paul on our side? 
I would say for everyone to email this to him but that would crash his server. But he will get wind of it Im sure.

----------


## Liberty1789

I have run the same analysis on Iowa (all precincts together). Similar patterns are visible and would indicate votes going from Paul, Bachman and Perry to Romney. Gingrich and Santorum unaffected by precinct size.

I have run Washoe County, NV. Same pattern, only from Paul to Romney. Gingrich and Santorum unaffected by precinct size.

Run Nye County, NV, won by Paul. No one affected by precinct size.

I cannot get my head around this, to be honest. Is there another possible explanation than the sinister one? Please, tell me there is one.

----------


## FrancisMarion

> Read the second paragraph. He states that to keep this brief he is just gona show the results for one county, it appears he has others.


Well lets see it then.  As it has been mentioned showing just one county does nothing.  We came in 90000 votes behind Romney.

----------


## bcreps85

> I have run the same analysis on Iowa (all precincts together). Similar patterns are visible and would indicate votes going from Paul, Bachman and Perry to Romney. Gingrich and Santorum unaffected by precinct size.
> 
> I have run Washoe County, NV. Same pattern, only from Paul to Romney. Gingrich and Santorum unaffected by precinct size.
> 
> Run Nye County, NV, won by Paul. No one affected by precinct size.
> 
> I cannot get my head around this, to be honest. Is there another possible explanation than the sinister one? Please, tell me there is one.


It would be great if you could post the Excel files at some point, so people could verify and analyze your work.  We need to stay on this, figure out as many of the contests that have happened so far as we can, and decide what to do with it.  The most important thing right now is to keep investigating and get some of the statistical types on here to chime in and see if there are any other logical explanations.  My main hitch is that we seem to have 2 candidates that are "static" and never affected by whatever this oddity is...to me that is very telling.  One comparison I would find interesting is to see if this same thing holds true in contests where there was ballot voting vs contests where there was electronic voting...that could be the most damning part of all.

I've been thinking on it since I read the original document and have not come up with any good explanations, other than the obvious, as of yet.

----------


## Mark37snj

> Well lets see it then.  As it has been mentioned showing just one county does nothing.  We came in 90000 votes behind Romney.


He has already met with the SCGOP Chairman and will meet again next Wendesday. He doesn't say when he is gona release more data.

----------


## JorgeStevenson

Wow, keep it up guys.  I'm not saying it's proof, but it's damn interesting.

----------


## FrancisMarion

> He has already met with the SCGOP Chairman and will meet again next Wendesday. He doesn't say when he is gona release more data.


I see.

----------


## Mark37snj

> I see.


LOL, I was picturing your toon twisting his mustache when I saw what you wrote.   JK

----------


## DEGuy

> One more thing. Lets assume that this spreadsheet is correct. What about an exit poll? Exit poll shows almost the same results as official counts.


Exactly. They would have to be rigging the exit polls too. Sorry, but the burden of proof is high for a reason. I would like to see the same analysis with the point data and not just smoothed out lines.

----------


## bcreps85

> Exactly. They would have to be rigging the exit polls too. Sorry, but the burden of proof is high for a reason. I would like to see the same analysis with the point data and not just smoothed out lines.


It's not uncommon for exit poll data to not match up very well with the actual results...in this country we just change it to match the official results after the fact, so yeah...

----------


## socal

The guy who did this analysis added an update,

http://www.dailypaul.com/214415/gues...uestion?page=4



> ****Analyst Adds Update****
> 
> Hey guys. I just want you all to know that I have graphed in detail all of the counties in NH, SC and Fla that have the precinct information available on the Election Commissions' website. I have amassed a couple of hundred graphs probably. The most difficult part of this is getting this information into a form that is brief but easy to understand. Please appreciate this.
> 
> There are surely exceptions to the following observations, but here are some generalities:
> 
> 1. In any county where Ron Paul has more votes than Mitt Romney using the low vote total precincts, you get a ridiculous- looking curve like the one in Anderson County. (Anderson, Greenville, Spartanburg, and Oconee Counties). Mitt ends up at a vote total that could have been Paul's projected total and Paul crashes to the ground.
> 
> 2. In the counties where Romney has more votes than Paul in the low vote total precincts, There is no ridiculous anomaly like the one in Anderson County.
> ...

----------


## affa

This needs to get out there.

Has anyone ever seen Freakonomics?  In it, they show how statistics uncovered deep rooted cheating in the world of sumo wrestling.   It was fascinating stuff.  This is not unlike this.

This is massive.  Who the hell downvoted this thread?

----------


## slamhead

Another thing that jumped out at me. The algorithm seems to not kick in until Paul and Romney had over 1000 votes each...actually looks like 1100-1200 where the lines start to diverge. Let me know if I am reading this wrong. 

Looking at it closer it looks like that right around 1000 is where the cheating begins. Is there a way you can do a blown up graph of the diverging point?

----------


## socal

> Another thing that jumped out at me. The algorithm seems to not kick in until Paul and Romney had over 1000 votes each...actually looks like 1100-1200 where the lines start to diverge. Let me know if I am reading this wrong. 
> 
> Looking at it closer it looks like that right around 1000 is where the cheating begins. Is there a way you can do a blown up graph of the diverging point?


The 1,000 vote figure is an artifact in the way the plot was constructed.  The precincts are sorted by size, and the y-axis is the cumulative vote total.  It might be more informative if instead of the plots that were given, colored scatter plots were provided: the X-axis = the precinct size, and the Y-axis = the % of votes carried by each candidate.  Possibly that is what poster DEGuy meant above.

----------


## slamhead

My first thought was that the smaller precincts were experiencing a commonality where a small handful of supporters in each precinct were experiencing a sphere of influence and the 277 number was the statistical breaking point. Even under that scenario the break would statistically break amongst all the candidates. I think you are onto something. I would love to see NV and IA broken out the same way. Did they ever even publish the total results for Clark county. As we know, the Adelson caucus was counted in the open and Ron Paul won that caucus with twice as many votes as Romney. What were the other results in that count?

----------


## SovereignMN

I know in Minnesota Paul tended to win the lower attended precincts while Santorum cleaned up on the larger attended ones.  This was mostly a demographics issue.  The lower attended precincts were in the urban areas where there are less Republicans while the suburban ones have a huge base of evangelicals and more traditional Republican voters.  

That wouldn't explain the massive drop in Newt's graph though.

One thing that has always struck me as odd about South Carolina is that their turnout was over 30% larger than in 2008.  No other state has even come close to duplicating that.  In fact most of them have declined and the ones that increased (Iowa, NH) were increases in turnout of less than 5%.  Also, Romney's percentage increase in votes from 2008 was over 100% !!!  I think he was around 25% increase in NH but never anything that approaches a 100% increase.  Certainly seems odd that his biggest increase in total votes would be from a state like South Carolina, capital of the bible belt.

----------


## gb13

Wow. This is very suspicious looking to me. Seems too close to be coincidence.

----------


## floridasun1983

> Exactly. They would have to be rigging the exit polls too. Sorry, but the burden of proof is high for a reason. I would like to see the same analysis with the point data and not just smoothed out lines.


Well said.

----------


## J_White

wha!!

----------


## bbwarfield

this is gonna sound terrible.... but is there any connections between diebold (the original makers of the voting machines) and bain capital? or there subsidiaries.... I have this sneaky sneaky suspicion.... and im running out of tin foil at my house

----------


## affa

> Exactly. They would have to be rigging the exit polls too. Sorry, but the burden of proof is high for a reason. I would like to see the same analysis with the point data and not just smoothed out lines.


There is one sure fire way to see that analysis... and it doesn't involve dismissing someone else's work.

----------


## Liberty1789

Some illustration from Washoe County, Nevada.

Calculating correlation from the smallest precincts ordered by growing number of votes and using the first 20% votes cast (1337 of 6697), you end up with very steady straight lines, like in the SC original post. Linear correlation coefficients are 0.9992 for Gingrich, 0.9981 for Paul, 0.9995 for Romney and 0.9974 for Santorum.

Extrapolating those straight lines, you would expect Paul to get 1,628 votes and Romney 2,381 for a total of 4,009. In reality, they have got 4,004 combined, with Paul at 1,168 (460 below expected) and Romney at 2,836 (455 above expected). It is just an amazing repetition of Anderson County, SC...

----------


## wgadget

And don't forget to factor in the horrible weather that day in SC. With soaking rain and tornadoes that day, it's amazing that the turnout was so high, IMO.

----------


## bcreps85

> Some illustration from Washoe County, Nevada.
> 
> Calculating correlation from the smallest precincts ordered by growing number of votes and using the first 20% votes cast (1337 of 6697), you end up with very steady straight lines, like in the SC original post. Linear correlation coefficients are 0.9992 for Gingrich, 0.9981 for Paul, 0.9995 for Romney and 0.9974 for Santorum.
> 
> Extrapolating those straight lines, you would expect Paul to get 1,628 votes and Romney 2,381 for a total of 4,009. In reality, they have got 4,004 combined, with Paul at 1,168 (460 below expected) and Romney at 2,836 (455 above expected). It is just an amazing repetition of Anderson County, SC...


My jaw just dropped when I read this.  At first I was interested in this because I wouldn't put it past these people, but I had a suspicion that as we looked further into this we'd find some kind of pattern and start to come up with other explanations.  The chances of Romney being the exact opposite of Paul's "target" though in multiple occasions can't be that high...

Keep up the good work.  When there's enough, it needs to be documented in a pretty package and shouted on mountain tops.  I'd start making offsite backups, giving copies to friends/family as you progress, etc etc.  I'm going to go buy some tin foil now...

----------


## puppetmaster

we all need to get on your state gop committee and change them all to caucuses....stop this vote BS once and for all

----------


## socal

> Some illustration from Washoe County, Nevada.
> 
> Calculating correlation from the smallest precincts ordered by growing number of votes and using the first 20% votes cast (1337 of 6697), you end up with very steady straight lines, like in the SC original post. Linear correlation coefficients are 0.9992 for Gingrich, 0.9981 for Paul, 0.9995 for Romney and 0.9974 for Santorum.
> 
> Extrapolating those straight lines, you would expect Paul to get 1,628 votes and Romney 2,381 for a total of 4,009. In reality, they have got 4,004 combined, with Paul at 1,168 (460 below expected) and Romney at 2,836 (455 above expected). It is just an amazing repetition of Anderson County, SC...


FYI I found a random number generator on the web and got 17 numbers, (40,5,54,25,46,25,12,97,77,21,27,24,4,10,73,58,91)  , and then got a correlation coeff of 0.2488 using another web program I found.  Then when I added the random numbers together I got a coefficient of 0.988.  To repeat, it would be interesting to see a plot of %vote vs precinct size for each of the 4 candidates.

----------


## S.Shorland

Maybe just inform Ben Swann and Rachel M of the existence of the Daily Paul thread and this one? Then they can start doing some research with their own contacts.If this can get out by Super Tuesday it might be a game changer.Interesting that Newt might be affected too.This is potentially as big a story as Watergate if provable.

----------


## JJ2

> I have run the same analysis on Iowa (all precincts together). Similar patterns are visible and would indicate votes going from Paul, Bachman and Perry to Romney. Gingrich and Santorum unaffected by precinct size.
> 
> I have run Washoe County, NV. Same pattern, only from Paul to Romney. Gingrich and Santorum unaffected by precinct size.


Are you aware of the fact that the Washoe County chairman has publicly admitted that the numbers he gave the state GOP are different than the numbers they reported? He said he gave his numbers directly to the media, including the local paper and the AP, but they simply never published them. It was incredible. The state GOP even changed the numbers slightly for a number of hours, before switching them back.

After that, the county chairman just went silent about it.

Here's the Washoe County chairman's Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/dbuell53

----------


## affa

> Some illustration from Washoe County, Nevada.
> 
> Calculating correlation from the smallest precincts ordered by growing number of votes and using the first 20% votes cast (1337 of 6697), you end up with very steady straight lines, like in the SC original post. Linear correlation coefficients are 0.9992 for Gingrich, 0.9981 for Paul, 0.9995 for Romney and 0.9974 for Santorum.
> 
> Extrapolating those straight lines, you would expect Paul to get 1,628 votes and Romney 2,381 for a total of 4,009. In reality, they have got 4,004 combined, with Paul at 1,168 (460 below expected) and Romney at 2,836 (455 above expected). It is just an amazing repetition of Anderson County, SC...


Is there any professional organization or business that deals with this sort of thing?  If this guy seriously just exposed statistical proof for widespread electronic vote fraud (which it looks like he very well may have) this needs to get publicized beyond just us.

This it now officially 'out there' and it's almost certain they will modify the algorithms in future vote tallying to be harder to spot.    We need to nail them to the wall over this.   This is beyond a Ron Paul issue at this point, especially since some people are reporting seeing it affect other candidates in specific circumstances as well. 

This story could not only bring the GOP to it's knees, but also force the general to be made far more transparent for fear of a repeat.   Plus, it completely changes the narrative of this entire primary.

Is there a private organization we (or the campaign) can hire to look into this?

----------


## wgadget

Columbo?

----------


## Paul Fan

Here are some professors who worked on 'election forensics' in the past 

Jasneet Sekhon: http://polisci.berkeley.edu/people/f...php?person=281

Walter Mebane: http://www.lsa.umich.edu/polisci/peo...lter_ci.detail

I looked at a few of their paoers, which were interesting but didn't discuss vote flipping as far as I noticed.

----------


## S.Shorland

Professor Bin Yu at Berkeley runs their statistical consulting service.I emailed him the link in the OP and asked if he might take a look with his trained eye to see if any further investigation was warranted,in his opinion.(Unless there is something glaring,obviously it is).

http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/43

----------


## Liberty1789

> To repeat, it would be interesting to see a plot of %vote vs precinct size for each of the 4 candidates.


You are right. Here we go for Washoe with 369 precincts split in quintiles.

Precinct by size
Gingrich
Santorum
Paul
Romney
Paul+Romney

Smallest
26%
12%
29%
33%
62%

Small
29%
10%
24%
38%
61%

Medium
31%
12%
21%
36%
57%

Large
29%
13%
19%
38%
58%

Largest
27%
12%
14%
47%
61%

----------


## Mark37snj

> You are right. Here we go for Washoe with 369 precincts split in quintiles.
> 
> Precinct by size
> Gingrich
> Santorum
> Paul
> Romney
> Paul+Romney
> 
> ...


Nice Work. Look at that!

*4*% difference between Paul and Romney in the Smallest precincts
*33*% difference between Paul and Romney in the Lagest precincts

----------


## FrancisMarion

What is see as just as important to your observations is that the other two (Santorum and Gingrich) remained relatively static.  The more primary results, regardless of year, that prove that candidates % of votes do not change dramatically between large and small precincts the better.  I bet the analyzer in the OP has done this.  I hope.

----------


## chris41336

I'm going to email this to some statistics professors at my University to see what they think about it. Hopefully they will get upset and help make a stink or debunk this.

Also I am going to have to change my SN on this site soon. I'm running for at least two local positions, and I don't want to be implicated on this site for fear of getting shut out.

----------


## Mark37snj

> What is see as just as important to your observations is that the other two (Santorum and Gingrich) remained relatively static.  The more primary results, regardless of year, that prove that candidates % of votes do not change dramatically between large and small precincts the better.  I bet the analyzer in the OP has done this.  I hope.


Definately, those controls are very very important. If I ran a lab test without a control my boss would tell me to do it over.

----------


## bcreps85

> Nice Work. Look at that!
> 
> *4*% difference between Paul and Romney in the Smallest precincts
> *33*% difference between Paul and Romney in the Lagest precincts


Beyond that, what I found interesting was the difference between a candidates smallest and largest numbers.  Look at how consistent the other candidate's numbers are between the highest and lowest.  Grinch - 5%, Santorum, 3%, Romney 5%,.  Then we suddenly have Paul with a whopping 10% difference, discounting the largest areas and getting further out by the size of the area, 15% once the largest areas are included.  Again, if you merge Paul/Romney's numbers though they are consistent again...

Seriously, can anybody think of a logical explanation to explain all of this?

----------


## Mark37snj

15%?

----------


## bcreps85

> 15%?


Corrected lol.  Sorry, working at the same time, too many numbers going through my head!

----------


## bbwarfield

This is some major statistical anomalies.... but i will say this.... I am interested in paper ballot vs. electronic voting...... the assumption has always been "electronic voting in larger counties.... were paul does better in rural were it is more likely to be paper ballots.... and that was a legitimate reason for me. But the Anderson county results are all electronic cause I believe SC shelled out the money for it state wide. New Hampshire was a mix.... i think Florida is a mix. Nevada should have been all paper (except i have heard some were don on computers for no express reason during actual tabulation) What we need is a large paper ballot precinct over 277 people (thats the majic number right?) 

The second thing we need is numbers from these same counties when they were in paper form.... 

I also want to see these places were it flipped newt romney votes. If it turns out it doesnt flip JUST against Paul but anyone within a certain percentage range of Romney.... this proves that Romney has some kinda magical electioning system. Florida to me is the smoking gun. South Carolina would seem to be the "this is fishy"

I bet Newt would go full attack if it showed he didnt lose so bad in Florida if he hadnt had some flipping down there... then we could release NH and SC numbers to prove his point

----------


## Mark37snj

> This is some major statistical anomalies.... but i will say this.... I am interested in paper ballot vs. electronic voting...... the assumption has always been "electronic voting in larger counties.... were paul does better in rural were it is more likely to be paper ballots.... and that was a legitimate reason for me. But the Anderson county results are all electronic cause I believe SC shelled out the money for it state wide. New Hampshire was a mix.... i think Florida is a mix. *Nevada should have been all paper* (except i have heard some were don on computers for no express reason during actual tabulation) What we need is a large paper ballot precinct over 277 people (thats the majic number right?) 
> 
> The second thing we need is numbers from these same counties when they were in paper form.... 
> 
> I also want to see these places were it flipped newt romney votes. If it turns out it doesnt flip JUST against Paul but anyone within a certain percentage range of Romney.... this proves that Romney has some kinda magical electioning system. Florida to me is the smoking gun. South Carolina would seem to be the "this is fishy"
> 
> I bet Newt would go full attack if it showed he didnt lose so bad in Florida if he hadnt had some flipping down there... then we could release NH and SC numbers to prove his point


I don't think these numbers are being manipulated at the precint level. I think they are being manipulated by those who collect all the results, once they are all tabulated, then the numbers are worked over. There is no way they are gona let us go over all those paper ballots, not without alot of highpower help.

EDIT: They know since the results were not manipulated at the local level, letting us count those paper ballots would be giving us another smoking gun.

----------


## hillertexas

> I bet Newt would go full attack if it showed he didnt lose so bad in Florida if he hadnt had some flipping down there... then we could release NH and SC numbers to prove his point


totally

----------


## bcreps85

> I don't think these numbers are being manipulated at the precint level. I think they are being manipulated by those who collect all the results, once they are all tabulated, then the numbers are worked over. There is no way they are gona let us go over all those paper ballots, not without alot of highpower help.
> 
> EDIT: They know since the results were not manipulated at the local level, letting us count those paper ballots would be giving us another smoking gun.


Good point to use Newt to get the word out if we can find out this was used against him as well...it would probably be ignored if the Paul campaign said it.  Let him say it, then we can point it out and not be ridiculed.  The one thing I've found interesting about a lot of these things is that they keep counting them in "secret locations" and taking abnormally long to give us the numbers...which lends an ear to what you are saying about manipulating the numbers after the fact instead of at the precinct level.

----------


## Mark37snj

> Good point to use Newt to get the word out if we can find out this was used against him as well...it would probably be ignored if the Paul campaign said it.  Let him say it, then we can point it out and not be ridiculed.  The one thing I've found interesting about a lot of these things is that they keep counting them in "secret locations" and taking abnormally long to give us the numbers...which lends an ear to what you are saying about manipulating the numbers after the fact instead of at the precinct level.


Yup, and another interesting note is if we do give Newt a smoking gun and he doesn't use it...

----------


## bbwarfield

> I don't think these numbers are being manipulated at the precint level.


I dont think they messed with any paper ballot counted on sight locations (assuming this is what it looks like I doubt they were stupid enough to mess with it after the fact) because those ones are posted on site on the door. With the electronic they are tabulated by the machine and spit out (someone said over an offsite main frame but im not sure) so no one really knows but the hunk of electronics. So they would be manipulated at the precinct.... but before any human being sees the numbers. So even double checking shows nothing. You would have to really try hard to mess with paper ballots (except when they are tabulated on a computer not publicly). 
If you work over the numbers after the precinct has recieved there approved tabulation report.... any precinct head would scream foul.... trust me... i know a few. They were suprised by the results but said they matched.... (of course they matched! the numbers were created by the people you reported them too!)

----------


## Mark37snj

> I dont think they messed with any paper ballot counted on sight locations (assuming this is what it looks like I doubt they were stupid enough to mess with it after the fact) because those ones are posted on site on the door. With the electronic they are tabulated by the machine and spit out (someone said over an offsite main frame but im not sure) so no one really knows but the hunk of electronics. So they would be manipulated at the precinct.... but before any human being sees the numbers. So even double checking shows nothing. You would have to really try hard to mess with paper ballots (except when they are tabulated on a computer not publicly). 
> If you work over the numbers after the precinct has recieved there approved tabulation report.... any precinct head would scream foul.... trust me... i know a few. They were suprised by the results but said they matched.... (of course they matched! the numbers were created by the people you reported them too!)


The electronic machines are harder to catch WITHOUT one of the machines. There are what, hundreds of them. I wonder what it would take to get a court order to seize a few of those machines?

----------


## bbwarfield

the machines do it themselves..... If candidate a. is within in 5% of the position above it at 277 total votes, switch to there totals. Easy and simple.
So if Newt is at 45% and mit 43% the computer switches it. If Newt is 45% Ron Paul 35% and Romney 30% it would switch Romney and Paul.... If Romney is at 41% Santourm 40% and every one else lower.... nothing happens cause candidate A.... romney.... has the lead position already and no need to switch anything. I would be interested to also see what the flipping percentage is..... and what happens when he is in third with two people directly above him within the percentage... that may give away how the fraud is really set up and show a more obvious human interference rather than just a strange anamoly involving ron paul supporters....

At the moment it is like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams dying on the same July 4th..... weird....... but its quickly looking like 5 or 6 signers of the decleration dying on the same july 4th.... if it holds true.... then it would be like everyone who wasnt a signer dying on july 4th of the same year.

----------


## bcreps85

> Yup, and another interesting note is if we do give Newt a smoking gun and he doesn't use it...


Well, if that were the case we could always try to get Ben Swann or Maddow to do it.  Swann is a major ally at this point, and Maddow would do whatever she could to discredit the GOP.  In either case, I think we have a way to get it out.  Still...I believe Newt would turn into the Newtron bomb over the issue...he's a vindictive $#@! - which IMHO is the only reason he's still in this race.  He never had a shot.

----------


## Mark37snj

> the machines do it themselves..... If candidate a. is within in 5% of the position above it at 277 total votes, switch to there totals. Easy and simple.
> So if Newt is at 45% and mit 43% the computer switches it. If Newt is 45% Ron Paul 35% and Romney 30% it would switch Romney and Paul.... If Romney is at 41% Santourm 40% and every one else lower.... nothing happens cause candidate A.... romney.... has the lead position already and no need to switch anything. I would be interested to also see what the flipping percentage is..... and what happens when he is in third with two people directly above him within the percentage... that may give away how the fraud is really set up and show a more obvious human interference rather than just a strange anamoly involving ron paul supporters....
> 
> At the moment it is like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams dying on the same July 4th..... weird....... but its quickly looking like 5 or 6 signers of the decleration dying on the same july 4th.... if it holds true.... then it would be like everyone who wasnt a signer dying on july 4th of the same year.


Either its in the code, paper ballots, or in the statistics we are going over, one way or the other they are gona get caught.

----------


## Mark37snj

> Well, if that were the case we could always try to get Ben Swann or Maddow to do it.  Swann is a major ally at this point, and Maddow would do whatever she could to discredit the GOP.  In either case, I think we have a way to get it out.  Still...I believe Newt would turn into the Newtron bomb over the issue...he's a vindictive $#@! - which IMHO is the only reason he's still in this race.  He never had a shot.


Yeah it does appear Newt went rogue. Romneys attacks in Iowa really appeared to tick him off.

----------


## bbwarfield

im more worried about chain of evidence..... if its in the machines... Who programmed them? Wouldnt they get wiped by now? Are they owned or leased by the state party (in this case i believe the party has been duped not just Paul supporters) Were they offsite tabulated? Someone said Diebolds (they have a new name now but it escapes me.... same company just got merged) server farms are not even on US soil. If you were making such a thing wouldnt you tell it to delete code after official upload to the system? I would have

If you ran a test through them would the programmer had made sure the test wouldnt access the same line of code? 

Wouldnt they have watched "Man of the Year" and figured out this was a terrible idea?

----------


## bbwarfield

> Well, if that were the case we could always try to get Ben Swann or Maddow to do it.


I would love Swann to do it... but I think we gotta let him rest from the really iffy stuff for a bit. I dont want him becoming known as "Crazy Ron's Nephew" on the tv. Maddow could.... she has no dog in this fight... she is entertaining and intelligent.... while she is no fan of Paul.... she isnt a fan of anyof them. 


Our best bet is get Newt to drop the bomb... for all of us. He has clout. People will listen. No one dismisses him with "tin foil hat" comments..... just the moon base idea wich many American really want but now realize we cant pay for. Newt needs to press this but we need to make sure we have a chain of evidence leading back to us and showing we knew before he announced. This way we dont get the "me too.... me tooo.... blowback" but the "ya... we knew... but who was gonna listen?"

----------


## bcreps85

> Yeah it does appear Newt went rogue. Romneys attacks in Iowa really appeared to tick him off.


"Rogue" is a good way to describe it...I personally don't think he was supposed to stay in this long, but in his own mind I think he sees this as something that he is entitled to.  I think both he and Santorum were just supposed to hang around for the early states as "spoilers" to give the media an excuse to cover Ron Paul less in actual coverage and debates until Mitt gained traction.  Problem is, that just isn't happening...I think they've lost control.

That isn't necessarily good for us, because I suspect that we are going to see a sharp increase in these statistical anomalies.  We really need to work to find out if this is "something" or "nothing", because I expect it to get much much worse before this thing is over.

----------


## Mark37snj

> im more worried about chain of evidence..... if its in the machines... Who programmed them? Wouldnt they get wiped by now? Are they owned or leased by the state party (in this case i believe the party has been duped not just Paul supporters) Were they offsite tabulated? Someone said Diebolds (they have a new name now but it escapes me.... same company just got merged) server farms are not even on US soil. If you were making such a thing wouldnt you tell it to delete code after official upload to the system? I would have
> 
> If you ran a test through them would the programmer had made sure the test wouldnt access the same line of code? 
> 
> Wouldnt they have watched "Man of the Year" and figured out this was a terrible idea?


There are alot more qualified people on this forum to answer those questions then me. 
Perception is Reality. If we convince enough Americans of whats going on with the proff we have/will have it might just be enough to stop this disgrace.

----------


## Mark37snj

> "Rogue" is a good way to describe it...I personally don't think he was supposed to stay in this long,


Makes you wonder why Newts casino billionair friend stopped funding him but then decided to continue. Paul was supposed to not be a threat by now.

----------


## bcreps85

> There are alot more qualified people on this forum to answer those questions then me. 
> Perception is Reality. If we convince enough Americans of whats going on with the proff we have/will have it might just be enough to stop this disgrace.


These machines have to be programmed before each election, of course, to add the proper candidates.  I would imagine that like many infrastructure delivery jobs in the IT field (I am infrastructure delivery for a SAN company), Diebold(or whoever) would have your standard field techs going out and loading firmware onto the boxes and running diagnostics to be sure they are ready for the election.  They would be loading something that was essentially given to from the engineering department and would have no idea if there was anything "fishy" lurking in the code.  Even if their diagnostics simulated a 5,000 vote race, an algorithm like the one we are talking about can be set to kick in after 10,000 votes...or 15,000 votes, or not at all if the intended candidate is winning etc etc.  Basically, it would be VERY easy to be sure that no field diagnostics would catch anything strange.

Presumably that code would still reside on the boxes until some point in the future...so the question becomes what is the chain of custody for these.  Do they wipe them immediately, which would be very suspect?  Do they leave them in a closet until the next election and then wipe them?  Things worth trying to find out.  If they are treated any different than paper ballots, then it is criminal negligence IMHO.

----------


## Mark37snj

We have quite a few forum members who are very knowledgable on the voting machines but I suspect they are busy focusing on Maine. I think once Maine is over they will begin tearing into this.

----------


## cjm

> Presumably that code would still reside on the boxes until some point in the future


Unless voting machine updates are done by replacing the ROM, they are probably written to read-write storage.  If the software can write to that storage, it can edit or delete itself.

----------


## bbwarfield

http://americanresearchgroup.com/moe2.html for those who want to see just how improbable these numbers really are... it takes the percentages of a vote and calculates the probability of them switching positions. 

I know im bumping this topic alot.... probably cause I know the daughter of the guy who is putting out these numbers.... but I worked in an archives department and the head of the department taught statistics so we always were getting corrected on how we were crunching numbers. So I always enjoy looking at the indepth number analysis. And these are just plain strange. For it to be fraud i wanna see one of these machines taken apart. But right now..... This would be in every statistics textbook in the country of how strange it coud get.

----------


## affa

> Seriously, can anybody think of a logical explanation to explain all of this?


Well, that's easy.  Voter fraud through the established and well documented technique of vote flipping.

----------


## bbwarfield

another concern... i think they save the memory cards and that is all.... but the memory cards are worthless cause the machine writes to them anyway...... aaaaaarrrrgggggghhhhhhh .... i use to think that people were crazy when it came to electronic voting... now I know the truth

----------


## chris41336

Ok. I have an email all typed up to the head of the statistics department at my university with this PDF attached. I need to know whether you guys think it is worth it or prudent to ask what she thinks before I send it. I don't want to seem crazy here.

----------


## Paul Fan

The analysis for Greenville county has been uploaded to the Daily Paul thread. Same flipping seen. Also, somone has done two 2008 counties where it looks like Romney was switched with Huckabee.

----------


## phill4paul

> Ok. I have an email all typed up to the head of the statistics department at my university with this PDF attached. I need to know whether you guys think it is worth it or prudent to ask what she thinks before I send it. I don't want to seem crazy here.


  I would ask for the help first. Tell her you have what you believe to be a statistical anomaly and was wondering if she would care to look at it and explain it to you.

----------


## chris41336

> I would ask for the help first. Tell her you have what you believe to be a statistical anomaly and was wondering if she would care to look at it and explain it to you.


I figured I'd get more attention if I flat out said I think I may have evidence of fraud in the US elections using statistics. You think I should just ask a general help first?

----------


## affa

> i use to think that people were crazy when it came to electronic voting... now I know the truth


welcome to the revolution.

----------


## bbwarfield

We would need to find a "not-romney" flip to even begin to NOT an actual anamoly.... right now its bordeline fraud the more i try to think of ways to make sense of this...... aanyone found were this is true?

----------


## affa

> I figured I'd get more attention if I flat out said I think I may have evidence of fraud in the US elections using statistics. You think I should just ask a general help first?


I think your knowledge of her and your relationship of her would be key.   Personally, I'd go with 'fraud' with most people.  If they believe it can happen, they'll want to see it.   And if they're programmed to think it impossible, they'll want to prove you wrong.

I would include the followup information, at least textually, that it seems like in some cases this has affected other candidates as well, though always to benefit Romney.  Details in this thread and Daily Paul.

----------


## mosquitobite

http://news.yahoo.com/south-carolina...005600318.html



> All of South Carolina's 46 counties use a paperless voting system and touch screen methods to vote. That system will come under intense scrutiny as five mainstream candidates vie for the state's GOP primary victory. ABC News reports on one possible snafu. Stephen Colbert claimed to his supporters that he could be a write-in candidate. That is not the case. There are nine candidates listed on South Carolina's official ballot for the Republican presidential preference primary. But there is no slot for a write in, or in this case a possible "type in" candidate.
> Here's a look at South Carolina's voting machines as the state gears up for its presidential preference primary on Jan. 21.
> June 2010 Controversy
> As recently as June of 2010, the previous electronic voting system used by South Carolina came under scrutiny. The Atlantic Monthly reported that the Palmetto State utilized ES&S iVotronic systems starting in 2008. The article reported Ohio and Colorado banned the machines. A case in Kentucky indicted nine election officials on voter fraud as people tricked voters into thinking their votes had been cast when they really weren't. Those officials then cast votes according to who they want, not the voters.
> The case of Alvin Greene and state's Democratic Senate primary of 2010 was controversial for various reasons. Greene defeated rival Vic Rawl with just under 60 percent of the vote. Rawl claimed that was impossible since absentee ballots, which were cast by hand, showed overwhelming support for Rawl.

----------


## phill4paul

> I figured I'd get more attention if I flat out said I think I may have evidence of fraud in the US elections using statistics. You think I should just ask a general help first?


  I dunno. It is your call. Personally, I'd rather a person decide to help before presenting them with what it is I need help with. This confirms to me that they will take time to actually look at what I am presenting since they have already offered to help. As opposed to sending everything at once and them just replying "I'd really like to. But my schedule won't allow me."

----------


## bcreps85

> Ok. I have an email all typed up to the head of the statistics department at my university with this PDF attached. I need to know whether you guys think it is worth it or prudent to ask what she thinks before I send it. I don't want to seem crazy here.


I'll put it this way...there are smart people here, and many on this forum are very quick to tell people with "conspiracy theories" to shut up.  Nobody seems to be taking that attitude with this thread.  I almost didn't even download the document when I first saw it because there are definitely people who push those on here with little basis for the claims.  Nobody has really come up with a good explanation debunking what the statistics are showing just yet, which is why we are trying to get more people to read it.

Now...I was just in the shower and had a random thought about Nevada.  From what I've read, there was electronic voting there.  Remember how we've seen a huge improvement over '08 numbers everywhere but there?  If vote flipping were going on in the way described by the OP, where large counties were flipped and small counties were left alone, then any state where a couple large voting counties could basically mean that the small counties votes count for almost nothing could see this result.  Clark County, where Las Vegas resides, accounted for 51.7% of the vote for Nevada using the county by county results I pulled from HuffPost...

----------


## mosquitobite

This letter was sent to 16 Secretaries of State where iVotronic voting machines are in use. These states are: Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/why...hines-outlawed

Here's a good one for S Carolina people!!
Local Governments wants an audit of State's ES&S iVotronics | The Post and Courier



> The Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments approved a resolution Monday asking for the state to audit how its voting machines are working. The proper functioning of South Carolina’s machines has drawn increased skepticism following human errors made during last year’s elections.
> 
> The council’s resolution noted, “a concern frequently expressed about voting machines is they do not incorporate a ‘paper trail’ that could facilitate unequivocal confirmation of election results.”


Can we send this to THOSE people?!

----------


## affa

user mfermier posted this in the comments on Daily Paul.  I have not verified it.

http://db.tt/HoN4q8Tv

It is charts from 2 counties in 2008 which show the same straight lines for all candidates except Romney and a single opponent, but in this case, he does the 'flip' with Huckabee in exactly the same manner, giving him 2nd place rather than 3rd.   It's hard to tell w/o the source numbers, but it almost appears visually as if they gave him some of Ron Paul's votes as well, but take that with a grain of salt because i'm only looking at the charts visually.

This is huge.

----------


## chris41336

> user mfermier posted this in the comments on Daily Paul.  I have not verified it.
> 
> http://db.tt/HoN4q8Tv
> 
> It is charts from 2 counties in 2008 which show the same straight lines for all candidates except Romney.  In this G3case, he does the 'flip' with Huckabee in exactly the same manner, giving him 2nd place rather than 3rd.   It's hard to tell w/o the source numbers, but it almost appears visually as if they gave him some of Ron Paul's votes as well, but take that with a grain of salt because i'm only looking at the charts visually.
> 
> This is huge.


Wait...of this is the case, why didn't Romney use this to win?

----------


## Mark37snj

> Wait...of this is the case, why didn't Romney use this to win?


It would probably have been too obvious given the polls.

----------


## affa

> Wait...of this is the case, why didn't Romney use this to win?


You don't need to always win to win.   This pushes the Huckabee narrative out of the limelight, and retains viability for Romney in 2012.    Just like some of the examples in 2012 simply have Romney retaining a solid second.

----------


## affa

From comment section of Daily Paul, original poster put up 'Part 2: Greenville County'

I haven't read it yet:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&p...c4NTViMTk5MzAw

----------


## bbwarfield

I believe you will find many cases of him moving up one spot.... is there ANY were he moved up two? this could be a smoking gun as well... two people with in the flipping percentage range and the algorithm wouldnt be able to hide easily i would think (do i disenfranchise paul or santorum? error error) 


The more people we get with more ideas of what statistics to look at this is great. Now we need motive.... anyone know if Romneys company was involved in any of the funding of the many companies involved with the voting machines? Im not saying Romney did this.... just saying who ever did had to have access.... obviously they wanted Romney to win big enough (this is fringe stuff here but I would like to know so when we move to that part of this we have the info ready to work with)

----------


## bcreps85

> Wait...of this is the case, why didn't Romney use this to win?


Long game.  Republicans didn't want to inherit Bush's mess...McCain/Palin was never supposed to win.  Obama was supposed to inherit the mess and ruin the economy even more so Mitt could step in.  It helped him seem like a strong contender last go-round.  If he didn't have a strong image for this run, people probably wouldn't have taken him as seriously...if say he was down around 3rd/4th place...

----------


## bbwarfield

am i reading the greenville numbers wrong? Im assuming the vote numbers flipped but he didnt change the colors for Paul in the final analysis graft.... or did the vote flip actually hurt Romney for once?

----------


## affa

> From comment section of Daily Paul, original poster put up 'Part 2: Greenville County'
> 
> I haven't read it yet:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&p...c4NTViMTk5MzAw



hmmm.  that last graph in this document may be incorrectly labelled, since 'unflipped' ron paul is losing, which does not fit with the other graphs in the document.  does anyone know the person doing these docs?

----------


## Mark37snj

> From comment section of Daily Paul, original poster put up 'Part 2: Greenville County'
> 
> I haven't read it yet:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&p...c4NTViMTk5MzAw


These new analysis look more damning then the first one released.

----------


## bcreps85

> am i reading the greenville numbers wrong? Im assuming the vote numbers flipped but he didnt change the colors for Paul in the final analysis graft.... or did the vote flip actually hurt Romney for once?


I'm assuming for now he just forgot to fix the labels.  From working with spreadsheets a lot, I can tell you that when you are working with 20 graphs with similar information, that is easy to do.

----------


## mosquitobite

> Now we need motive.... anyone know if Romneys company was involved in any of the funding of the many companies involved with the voting machines? Im not saying Romney did this.... just saying who ever did had to have access.... obviously they wanted Romney to win big enough (this is fringe stuff here but I would like to know so when we move to that part of this we have the info ready to work with)


GMTA - that's what I am trying to find as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Election_Solutions

http://www.wired.com/politics/securi.../2003/12/61640

----------


## affa

> am i reading the greenville numbers wrong? Im assuming the vote numbers flipped but he didnt change the colors for Paul in the final analysis graft.... or did the vote flip actually hurt Romney for once?


i believe he mislabeled the last graph, looking at the rest of the charts.

----------


## bbwarfield

agreed.... although you would expect to find graphs that did the opposite if it wasnt fraud. 

Possible explanation:  Romneys campaign actually has the money to focus on higher precincts. Robo Calls to those precincts.... direct mail flyers.... meet and greets in these precincts. Romney is the only campaign that can actually move the vote with plaine old money. No robo calls to precincts under 300? no direct mails.... no special expendatures..... campaign doesnt place signs near there major intersections. No reason to send supporters to sign wave infront of a polling box with 50 people... only 300 plus.

I do not think this is what happend..... BUT.... it would be a semi plausable reason when you can LITTERALLY flood cash into a precinct.

----------


## affa

> agreed.... although you would expect to find graphs that did the opposite if it wasnt fraud. 
> 
> Possible explanation:  Romneys campaign actually has the money to focus on higher precincts. Robo Calls to those precincts.... direct mail flyers.... meet and greets in these precincts. Romney is the only campaign that can actually move the vote with plaine old money. No robo calls to precincts under 300? no direct mails.... no special expendatures..... campaign doesnt place signs near there major intersections. No reason to send supporters to sign wave infront of a polling box with 50 people... only 300 plus.
> 
> I do not think this is what happend..... BUT.... it would be a semi plausable reason when you can LITTERALLY flood cash into a precinct.


This is not plausible.   Every vote that these robocalls, etc. would have to convert a Ron Paul voter, and ONLY a Ron Paul supporter, to a Romney, and ONLY a Romney supporter.

That's an absurd proposition.  If these activities were so effective in large precincts, you'd see Romney sapping votes across the board.

----------


## Mark37snj

bbwarfield, if this holds true your associate may go down in history as one of the greatest whisleblowers of all time, equivalent to ClimateGate.

EDIT: This guy has done a crap load of work, and we probably havn't seen the most damning evidence yet.

EDIT 2.0: (46 counties) X (7 pages per county) = 322 pages of analysis for South Carolina alone

----------


## bcreps85

> agreed.... although you would expect to find graphs that did the opposite if it wasnt fraud. 
> 
> Possible explanation:  Romneys campaign actually has the money to focus on higher precincts. Robo Calls to those precincts.... direct mail flyers.... meet and greets in these precincts. Romney is the only campaign that can actually move the vote with plaine old money. No robo calls to precincts under 300? no direct mails.... no special expendatures..... campaign doesnt place signs near there major intersections. No reason to send supporters to sign wave infront of a polling box with 50 people... only 300 plus.
> 
> I do not think this is what happend..... BUT.... it would be a semi plausable reason when you can LITTERALLY flood cash into a precinct.


That would only be plausible if all candidates were losing votes to Romney, because we are assuming that Romney is spending money to contact voters and others are not.  There is a similar pattern in Maine in one of these recent documents, but we know only two people campaigned there.  So why didn't Romney "steal" votes from Paul only?  Since Paul supporters are generally less likely to change their mind about who they are voting for, it would only be plausible if Mitt and Paul's lines were straight and the other two had votes "stolen" from them and attributed to the Paul/Romney votes...

----------


## Paul Fan

> agreed.... although you would expect to find graphs that did the opposite if it wasnt fraud. 
> 
> Possible explanation:  Romneys campaign actually has the money to focus on higher precincts. Robo Calls to those precincts.... direct mail flyers.... meet and greets in these precincts. Romney is the only campaign that can actually move the vote with plaine old money. No robo calls to precincts under 300? no direct mails.... no special expendatures..... campaign doesnt place signs near there major intersections. No reason to send supporters to sign wave infront of a polling box with 50 people... only 300 plus.
> 
> I do not think this is what happend..... BUT.... it would be a semi plausable reason when you can LITTERALLY flood cash into a precinct.


Yes... but why would those tactics only affect the votes of the candidate immediately ahead of him in that particular county, without taking votes from the candidates below him?

----------


## abruzz0

Let's all act like we're not shocked.  Ready, set, go.

----------


## Mark37snj

> Let's all act like we're not shocked.  Ready, set, go.


.........

----------


## bbwarfield

> Yes... but why would those tactics only affect the votes of the candidate immediately ahead of him in that particular county, without taking votes from the candidates below him?


just wanted to get the debunking started..... Same machines used for the famous Alvin Greene and his surprise win in the democrat primary if im not mistaken. As a Republican I just said "even the dems must have hated there party annointed guy" . Does Alex Jones know about this? Hell have every number crunched within an hour...lol

----------


## mosquitobite

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9006



> EAC Failure
> 
> As to the EAC, they are, as we've written in great detail over many years, a totally compromised and utterly failed federal agency. The largely toothless panel was created by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, in the wake of the Florida Presidential Debacle of 2000. It was charged with, among other things, certifying e-voting systems at the federal level, and serving as a national clearinghouse for e-vote system failures.
> 
> The result has been little more than indescribably poor certification testing (as highlighted once again today by the fact that the ES&S system found to have failed in Ohio had already supposedly been tested and then certified at the federal level) and a complete failure to decertify a single system even after mountains of failures have been documented in them over the years --- many of them on the pages of this very news site.
> 
> Beyond failing to decertify, in most cases the EAC doesn't even bother to inform, much less warn, jurisdictions who use the systems found to be flawed, about those flaws and how the failures could jeopardize the integrity of their elections.
> 
> So toothless and compromised is the EAC --- manned largely by e-voting industry friends and apologists --- that the very first chair of the commission, DeForest Soaries, appointed by George W. Bush, actually quit in 2005, declaring --- as we reported exclusively at the time --- both Congress and Bush Administration interests for reforming elections through the agency to be "a charade" and "a travesty". He went on to charge that the electoral system we have in place in this nation is "*ripe for stealing elections and for fraud."*

----------


## bbwarfield

Get this to Doug Weade.... Alex Jones.... anyone in media you have that special email address for. Doug not so much to talk about it but to give him a heads up. Maybe Above Top Secret? those guys can make a conspiracy theory out of nothing i know... but they can debunk like crazy too.... and they can make something into just plaine mind blowing

I mean annyone that does research for themselves...... Maddow does some but needs a more complete packet. and lets leave our favorite reality check guy out for right now. He will get it soon but I dont want him having egg on his face if a "plausible" explanation trumps us and this gets burried hard for no good reason

----------


## affa

> Let's all act like we're not shocked.  Ready, set, go.


The only thing I'm shocked about is how amateurish the algorithm was.   This is quite blatant.   A more complex algorithm, while ultimately detectable, would not have such damning results. 

We need to get this completely verified, and in the hands of the press (including local SC press).   This will completely change the narrative of this primary.   I mean, we just heard Maddow say that Maine 'might have been rigged' on national tv.   Can you imagine the storm if someone breaks the story that 2008 and 2012 primaries statistically show massive voter fraud, always benefiting Romney, at the expense of Ron Paul, Huckabee, and in some cases Gingrich and Santorum?

If this goes national, Romney is done, whether he had anything to do with it or not.   Heck, if I was high up in the SC food chain, I'd be hiring statisticians right now and be contemplating whether SC results were null and void.   

Algorithms WILL be changed now that this is out.   We need expose this, and now, because any future statistics will make it harder to spot.   That potentially includes Super Tuesday.

----------


## bcreps85

> Algorithms WILL be changed now that this is out.   We need expose this, and now, because any future statistics will make it harder to spot.   That potentially includes Super Tuesday.


This.  Anyone who knows someone that is good with numbers/statistics/scientific methodology, get them to take a look.  We need to try to debunk this on our own so we can get it out there if there are no plausible explanations.  Even if we pass it on to someone like Swann, suggest that they have it independently verified to try and catch anything we might have missed.

----------


## Mark37snj

> If this goes national, Romney is done, whether he had anything to do with it or not.   Heck, if I was high up in the SC food chain, I'd be hiring statisticians right now and be contemplating whether SC results were null and void.





> And don't we have this South Carolina Senator...oh whats his name...oh yeah...*Tom Davis* who endorsed Ron Paul on our side? 
> I would say for everyone to email this to him but that would crash his server. But he will get wind of it Im sure.


The Ron Paul Revolution could never get that lucky. 

EDIT: Do you all realize _The Statistician_ already knows all the true election results

----------


## puppetmaster

interesting stuff.....

----------


## bcreps85

Sorry for the wall of text, but it is worth reading...

Ok, after seeing some numbers in the comments on DP, I decided to verify some of the numbers because they sounded unreal.  Originally I was looking for the formulas to calculate it all out myself, but it turns out there are already calculators out there to be used for these purposes.  I didn't come up with the calculations, I only verified what someone else was saying...this isn't "my work" blah blah blah.  Anyway...

First I calculated the margin of error for an election with 26,175 votes based on a sampling of 5142 votes.  These are the numbers reflected in the document, which is an average of 35 smaller counties.  This shows an error margin of 1.23%.  This is how we have predictions with 5-10% of the vote in of who won, and why it is rarely, if ever, wrong.  You can verify this number here: http://americanresearchgroup.com/moe.html

Second, there was a link off of that page to a ballot lead calculator.  I clicked over to that, and input the numbers from the original document from the OP.  20.1% of the vote for Candidate A (Paul), 17.2% of the vote for Candidate B (Romney), a sample size of 5,142 people from the 35 smaller counties.  According to the numbers, Ron Paul had a 98% chance to maintain his lead in SC, and Romney only had a 2% chance of overtaking Paul before all the votes were counted.  Even if that 2% chance came to fruition, the chances of his numbers being an almost exact swap of Paul's projected numbers, rather than distributed between the other three contendors, is absolutely astronomical.  If my calculation is correct, I'm talking 0.066%.  Three people, so 33% chance of them picking up Paul's "losses", multiplied by the 2% chance of him even pulling off the win in the first place.  My math here is generous because there are a lot of factors in what percentages could go to each candidate, so I went with the even split number.  Put short, and to keep up the analogy this guy used; Based on the sample we have, you are more likely to be struck by lightning 15 times than Mitt was to take second place in SC - and this guy is seeing this same pattern repeat all over the place.

One plausible explanation I can come up with that because these are small counties, perhaps Paul is favored in those and Romney is favored in large counties.  That explanation cannot explain why three candidates have "universal appeal", and only Paul is affected by the size of the county or why only Romney gains Paul's votes, however.  One take on that might be that Romney is paying more attention to highly populated areas while Paul's support is mostly grassroots.  Since other candidates would likely be taking the same approach as Romney, this again doesn't explain why all of Paul's votes go to Romney.  Were the highly populated area theory to be true, for example, I would expect the swap to have been with Newt in SC, rather than Romney because of his focus on that state and how he was beating the war drums against the media, etc etc.  I'm still trying to debunk and think of other factors, but I truly believe at this point that the OP is on to something huge...

*EDIT*  If this were a two man race, the "vote flip" we are seeing in these charts could be 100% normal.  It is easy to figure that when presented with two candidates, people in geographically different areas might have different preferences.  With a four man race, the likeliness of the two candidates seeing a near exact "vote flip" in many different areas just isn't good...

*EDIT 2*  Just realized, my "astronomical" number should actually be smaller.  There were more people in the race back then that I didn't account for...so small number = smaller.

*EDIT 3*  After thinking more on trying to debunk this, it occurred to me that even when predicting the results of an election like this, numbers would likely be coming in from small and large precincts in a fairly random pattern, which would have made it easy to place the exact order that these guys would finish with 5-10% of the vote regardless of whether the result was rigged, explaining why their predictions never seem to be wrong, even though based on our sampling it looks like their predictions should have been wrong and then corrected to the "actual result".  This still doesn't explain the 1:1 vote flip...not coming up with anything on that.

----------


## Paul Fan

Interesting. One big question is whether the small precincts are representative enough to be a random sample. I would like to see them graphed on a map, and also broken out by urban and rural. If 5% is enough to predict the outcome when the sample is random, what about taking random sets of small precincts adding up to 1,250 votes and seeing if the pattern still looks fishy. Or something. I agree it looks very suspicious, but I'm trying to think of counterarguments.

----------


## Mark37snj

> *EDIT 3*  After thinking more on trying to debunk this, it occurred to me that even when predicting the results of an election like this, numbers would likely be coming in from small and large precincts in a fairly random pattern, which would have made it easy to place the exact order that these guys would finish with 5-10% of the vote regardless of whether the result was rigged, *explaining why their predictions never seem to be wrong*, even though based on our sampling it looks like their predictions should have been wrong and then corrected to the "actual result".  This still doesn't explain the 1:1 vote flip...not coming up with anything on that.


One thing I would note here is that all the polling has been biased against Paul. They don't poll young people/college students etc. They poll establishiement GOP or random people who are mostly made up on non young people/college students. This means that they are polling Paul at a lower value then he is actually getting and the "Actual Voting Results" is where the correction is being made. Pauls actual votes are being lowered which also has the effect of matching the polls.

EDIT: Who knows, maybe the value of the vote flipping is based on them knowing how much they under poll Paul.

----------


## roversaurus

> Interesting. One big question is whether the small precincts are representative enough to be a random sample. I would like to see them graphed on a map, and also broken out by urban and rural. If 5% is enough to predict the outcome when the sample is random, what about taking random sets of small precincts adding up to 1,250 votes and seeing if the pattern still looks fishy. Or something. I agree it looks very suspicious, but I'm trying to think of counterarguments.


I try to come up with counter arguments too.
We can be agreed that people in one precinct can be fundamentally different in nature as to be for Paul or against Paul. But this means they have to be different in a way that makes them pro Romney. All of them.

Could advertising do it? Romney had more canvasers or direct mail or newspaper ads or signs in the bigger precinct areas which could be the more populous or the more heavily Republican areas. But then you would think he'd pull from everyone else not just Paul. Perhaps there is something about Paul voters that make them more susceptible to the Romney advertising? Romney had hot women canvasing to make the younger male Paul voter flip? (or something less absurd, that was the first thing I could think of)

Again. I want more data. If the nature of the voters in these districts is different then we should see a similar pattern in other elections for these counties. If the character/nature of the voters in these precincts are that different then we should see SOME kind of pattern like that in other elections???

Maybe the smaller precincts have more crossover democrats? That in reality there was NO change in Romney's vote percentages... The real change came from all the cross over democrats in the small precincts who just DON'T exist in the larger precincts because of location or what not. The dems show up for Paul in the small precincts, bumping his percentage, and disappear in the larger precincts causing the Paul percentage to drop....

Actually that seems plausible. How do we test for that?

----------


## cjm

> Actually that seems plausible. How do we test for that?


Compare with 2008 when there was a competing Democrat primary?

----------


## bcreps85

> One thing I would note here is that all the polling has been biased against Paul. They don't poll young people/college students etc. They poll establishiement GOP or random people who are mostly made up on non young people/college students. This means that they are polling Paul at a lower value then he is actually getting and the "Actual Voting Results" is where the correction is being made. Pauls actual votes are being lowered which also has the effect of matching the polls.


Exactly.  This also easily explains why the "he finished around his poll numbers" argument is not valid.  If you read the statistics on the polling numbers, you usually see things that should make your ears itch during this election cycle...some examples:

"according to a random sampling of likely gop voters" - Ok...that's about 1/3 of the GE...another 1/3 goes to Dems...and another 1/3 is Indies.  Who do Indies prefer?  Oh yeah...Paul.  So unless it is a closed primary, this number means nothing.

"according to a random sampling of our viewers" - Ok...Ron Paul people generally despise the MSM, so again you are excluding them from your poll.

Finally, this and this one isn't normally noted, but WHERE do these samples come from?  Downtown Chicago?  Random phone calls?  Even with random phone calls, they would statistically be polling people from the larger areas at a disproportionate rate, so again, the polling data is not going to be accurate...

The real question is whether this is intentional to make the "vote flipping" seem valid, or an anomaly with Ron Paul that makes him harder to poll accurately than the other candidates.  Neither discounts the main purpose of this thread...

----------


## Mark37snj

> The real question is whether this is intentional to make the "vote flipping" seem valid, or an anomaly with Ron Paul that makes him harder to poll accurately than the other candidates.  Neither discounts the main purpose of this thread...





> EDIT: Who knows, maybe the value of the vote flipping is based on them knowing how much they under poll Paul.


 You beat me by 30 sec in my editing

----------


## bcreps85

> I try to come up with counter arguments too.
> We can be agreed that people in one precinct can be fundamentally different in nature as to be for Paul or against Paul. But this means they have to be different in a way that makes them pro Romney. All of them.
> 
> Could advertising do it? Romney had more canvasers or direct mail or newspaper ads or signs in the bigger precinct areas which could be the more populous or the more heavily Republican areas. But then you would think he'd pull from everyone else not just Paul. Perhaps there is something about Paul voters that make them more susceptible to the Romney advertising? Romney had hot women canvasing to make the younger male Paul voter flip? (or something less absurd, that was the first thing I could think of)
> 
> Again. I want more data. If the nature of the voters in these districts is different then we should see a similar pattern in other elections for these counties. If the character/nature of the voters in these precincts are that different then we should see SOME kind of pattern like that in other elections???
> 
> Maybe the smaller precincts have more crossover democrats? That in reality there was NO change in Romney's vote percentages... The real change came from all the cross over democrats in the small precincts who just DON'T exist in the larger precincts because of location or what not. The dems show up for Paul in the small precincts, bumping his percentage, and disappear in the larger precincts causing the Paul percentage to drop....
> 
> Actually that seems plausible. How do we test for that?


Run this same test on a closed primary state, see if the pattern is still there.  That should accurately prove or disprove your theory.  Keep in mind that most of the news was reporting SC to be a closed primary...and this pattern did emerge there.  So even though it wasn't closed, most people probably thought it was...

On second thought, this would be motive for trying to push the "closed primary" idea.  If too many Dems/Indies voted, they tend to lean towards Paul...if he picked up too many votes when they were flipping his votes with Romney, it could have resulted in a Mitt win instead of Newt, which would have blown their polling legitimacy (both pre-polls and exit polls) out of the water.  Slight fluctuations in this polling data generally goes unnoticed, but that would have raised eyebrows...

----------


## bbwarfield

> Maybe the smaller precincts have more crossover democrats? That in reality there was NO change in Romney's vote percentages... The real change came from all the cross over democrats in the small precincts who just DON'T exist in the larger precincts because of location or what not. The dems show up for Paul in the small precincts, bumping his percentage, and disappear in the larger precincts causing the Paul percentage to drop....
> 
> Actually that seems plausible. How do we test for that?


point taken.... if the average district has about 10 or 15 democrats who switch to bump paul... then as you get past the magic 300 you see there number go away.
I considered this and think it would satisfy most people..... till they think about it. You dont just HAVE 10 or 15 people in a subgroup per precinct. You have a percentage of the subgroup. and we are talking about democrats republicans who are about 30% each (SC well say dems were 15%) so? They would still rise proprotianately....if 10% of dems jump.... that would be proportionate from smaller to larger.. not just added on the small towns (i dont think i explained this right at all)

----------


## bbwarfield

we over perform were there is no good polling data (caucuses) and under perform where these dam machines are (primaries). So we can see the flipping would make us the easy target.  I highly highly doubt i(f fraud this be) that polling and the culprit are in cahoots.... i also doubt it was active fraud (someone sitting there actively manipulating numbers as they came in) but more like a landmine..... set it and wait. This could be in the system from a failed attempt in 2008 by some lone romney supporter (or huck hater) that got a correlative update not expecting this to go on multiple years.... or its new... but still set up months ago and left to spring once it saw live voting go over 300 threshold

----------


## bcreps85

> we over perform were there is no good polling data (caucuses) and under perform where these dam machines are (primaries). So we can see the flipping would make us the easy target.  I highly highly doubt i(f fraud this be) that polling and the culprit are in cahoots.... i also doubt it was active fraud (someone sitting there actively manipulating numbers as they came in) but more like a landmine..... set it and wait. This could be in the system from a failed attempt in 2008 by some lone romney supporter (or huck hater) that got a correlative update not expecting this to go on multiple years.... or its new... but still set up months ago and left to spring once it saw live voting go over 300 threshold


This is true.  I did just have a thought though, that *may* cast some doubt on the OP's claims, but still could go either way.

This same pattern emerged in Maine.  Were electronic voting machines used in higher population areas there, or just paper ballots like the smaller areas?  As I recall from looking at the "official" spreadsheet with all of the 0's, Romney won less areas, but did perform better in higher population areas in actuality.  If these were actually counted in the open and we can confirm these numbers, then perhaps there actually is something we are missing.  If they were counted in secret or on machines, then it has no affect on the OP's study.  I do recall something that the Maine GOP sent out saying they should not make their results publicly known, so I suspect that these are going to be numbers we can't verify...

----------


## roversaurus

> point taken.... if the average district has about 10 or 15 democrats who switch to bump paul... then as you get past the magic 300 you see there number go away.
> I considered this and think it would satisfy most people..... till they think about it. You dont just HAVE 10 or 15 people in a subgroup per precinct. You have a percentage of the subgroup. and we are talking about democrats republicans who are about 30% each (SC well say dems were 15%) so? They would still rise proprotianately....if 10% of dems jump.... that would be proportionate from smaller to larger.. not just added on the small towns (i dont think i explained this right at all)


I'm not certain if I can explain it all either. I'm just trying to find some non criminal explanation. Because I don't want to look like a fool.

My explanation isn't that there is a constant number or percentage of democrats in each precinct. My explanation is that the small precincts ARE heavily democrat precincts. Remember these aren't really "small" precincts. They are precincts where there were a low number of republican votes. A heavily democrat precinct would qualify for that.

Say among republicans Paul get's 15% of the vote and Romney gets 20% In a large district republican district Romney would tend to get close to 20% and Paul close to 15% but in a small republican precinct Romney would get 20% of the republicans but the added cross over votes for Paul would boost his numbers .... ... But dang, it would LOWER everyone else's percentages, right? Not just Romney's.

I don't think I like the way these graphs were put together. I think I'd like to show percentages. It would be more direct, right? We'd see a flat line for everyone except Paul would curve down and Romney curve up.

----------


## Mark37snj

Thought I was onto something but it derailed.

----------


## chris41336

Just sent the email to the head of the Statistics department at my University. Will let everyone know what she says if she replies.

----------


## bbwarfield

Maine is the funky outlier state right now. Lets face it..... no one knows whats going on. Some precincts never saw there numbers cause they did as oredered (seal them up and send them in: wich is ridiculous as well cause now there saying that some votes were lost in a spam filter........ how many sealed envelopes full of uncounted hand written ballots do you get in your email box daily? I know my spam filter doesnt seem to affect my physical mailbox.) I might be confused about how they got to the GOP.... but I know you shouldnt be doing them through e-mail anyway.

Maine is also a caucus.... so in theory... anyone can switch in any meeting for no reason better than they like the tie of the moderator who liked so and so

----------


## affa

> I'm not certain if I can explain it all either. I'm just trying to find some non criminal explanation. Because I don't want to look like a fool.


Why would you look like a fool for suspecting something based on suspicious looking data?  Does that mean if it's proven to be fraud you're foolish for not having suspected it from the start? 

I'm not a statistician.  The data, however, looks like clear cut fraud to me, especially when you take into consideration that it seems like similar shenanigans occurred against Huckabee, Gingrich and Santorum, where necessary, to massage the official story (that is, give Romney either 1st or 2nd where appropriate).  That it is perfectly in line with vote flipping, which is a known technique to enact vote fraud, makes it all the more convincing.

If someone comes up with a reasonable explanation, I'll not feel the fool for thinking this is fraud.  In fact, I'd feel foolish for denying it.   People keep asking for 'evidence'... and then evidence surfaces, as in Maine, and now in SC.   

At some point, we've got to accept that it's not only possible, but likely something fishy is going on.  This is fishy enough to blow the entire electoral process in the United States wide open if it goes national.

----------


## kathy88

I started reading this thread a few days ago, and I felt so dumb because I couldn't grasp it. I just read every word of every post this evening and I am absolutely convinced that this is going to rock the political system. I can't wait until my son gets home, (he's a statistical freak), and show him this. This is all so crazy big brother I can hardly breathe. To the OP and everyone else who is smart enough to work this out and determine what needs to be done, kudos and a huge thank you.

----------


## Liberty1789

To get an indirect sense of the impact of precinct size on Ron Paul's voters, I have calculated his average CNN entrance/exit polling by urban type (includes IA, NH, SC, FL)

Overall
16%

Urban
17%

Suburban
15%

Rural
17%



If Urban/Suburban/Rural is a fair indication of precinct size, then Paul's vote should be unaffected by it. Not exactly consistent with the data presented above...

----------


## bcreps85

> To get an indirect sense of the impact of precinct size on Ron Paul's voters, I have calculated his average CNN entrance/exit polling by urban type (includes IA, NH, SC, FL)
> 
> Overall
> 16%
> 
> Urban
> 17%
> 
> Suburban
> ...


Good thinking man!  Nice to see that you did it based on multiple states too, so you can't be accused of cherry-picking the results you wanted.  On the bad end of this, it sort of points to almost definitive election fraud occurring on a massive scale...

It's been mentioned that Paul has a hard time getting women to vote for him.  Is there by chance a massive difference between the amount of women who live in urban/rural/suburban areas perhaps?  Hard to believe it would be enough to cause what we are seeing...just asking though for diligence.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Why would you look like a fool for suspecting something based on suspicious looking data?  Does that mean if it's proven to be fraud you're foolish for not having suspected it from the start? 
> 
> I'm not a statistician.  The data, however, looks like clear cut fraud to me, especially when you take into consideration that it seems like similar shenanigans occurred against Huckabee, Gingrich and Santorum, where necessary, to massage the official story (that is, give Romney either 1st or 2nd where appropriate).  That it is perfectly in line with vote flipping, which is a known technique to enact vote fraud, makes it all the more convincing.
> 
> If someone comes up with a reasonable explanation, I'll not feel the fool for thinking this is fraud.  In fact, I'd feel foolish for denying it.   People keep asking for 'evidence'... and then evidence surfaces, as in Maine, and now in SC.   
> 
> At some point, we've got to accept that it's not only possible, but likely something fishy is going on.  This is fishy enough to blow the entire electoral process in the United States wide open if it goes national.



The entire media has been fishy for over 5 years now, so this is really no surprise.  The only thing I wonder is how long this has been going on.  Maybe we need afghanistan to come in and make sure we are having fair elections.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

And I'd say the deal is that people need to start going to prison for election fraud.  Then people will start talking, and that is how we will find out what is really going on.  But with the crooks running the investigations, I find it unlikely.

----------


## Mark37snj

So now where does this leave us:

Figure 5 in Part 2 Greenville County needs to be renamed

Liberty1789 convincingly ruled out precinct size being a factor

The value of vote flipping may be correlated with the amount Ron Paul is under polled, also possible adding may be going on for Romney

We over perform in Caucuses - organization/grassroots

We under perform in Precincts - machines

We need professionals looking at this - Super-PAC funded?

We need to come up with a formula that would "predict" exactly what we see on these numbers. Find the formula then anyone at home can put in the starting numbers and have the final tally

----------


## affa

> So now where does this leave us:
> 
> Figure 5 in Part 2 Greenville County needs to be renamed
> 
> Liberty1789 convincingly ruled out precinct size being a factor
> 
> The value of vote flipping may be correlated with the amount Ron Paul is under polled


In my opinion, we're still at the same place we were before:  we need professionals looking at this, preferably respected ones that either work with statistics for a living, or PHDs at universities, etc.   

This needs to get publicized.   It doesn't matter if people like Paul, Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum, nobody is going to be okay with election rigging of this magnitude.   If a Super-PAC is looking to spend money, hiring a team to investigate this may be the best use of a hundred grand ever for the cause of liberty.

----------


## Mark37snj

> *If a Super-PAC is looking to spend money, hiring a team to investigate this may be the best use of a hundred grand ever for the cause of liberty*.


5 star idea you got there!

----------


## The Free Hornet

This graph uses the Greenville County data but plots X as the precinct total (notice the RP/MR switchover at 300) against the % of votes each got in that respective precinct.  Note how Romney's results show the least cohesion, the least consistency.



Attachment 1276


Also, I started to explore a slightly different theory here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...12#post4191812

I think votes may have been added for Romney (and maybe Newt/Frothy).

----------


## Mark37snj

Yeah, Romneys data points are all over the friggin place.

EDIT: It would really be telling if you plot them separetly, 4 small graphs

----------


## bbwarfield

Could we get this to the Four Senators fo the Ronpacolypse? the guys who endorsed Ron in SC? sounds like the state party may need a little pressure

----------


## Mark37snj

> Could we get this to the Four Senators fo the Ronpacolypse? the guys who endorsed Ron in SC? sounds like the state party may need a little pressure


Tom Davis and the rest of them. I also keep wondering if the reason we were given a prelude of this data is that he needed us to do something for him. He said for us to kick the tires and all, but how hard? Does he need us to go after a Super-PAC to really dig into this or just start spreading the word around?

----------


## bbwarfield

From what i hear... start spreading the word.... but we do need to litterally kick the tires as well. Im at work and cant really do alot of spreadsheeting and digging. But we need to go through and basically come up with a formula that would "predict" exactly what we see on these numbers if you ask me. Find the formul then anyone at home can put in the starting numbers and have the final tally

----------


## hillertexas

> Note how Romney's results show the least cohesion, the least consistency.


It's like Mitt's points are reactionary and corrective.  It seems to be *adding* votes to Mitt in some counties (not just flipping) because there is no mirrored RP data point in the bottom half of the graph.  Maybe they flipped it, then took votes away from RP and added them to Mitt.

----------


## bbwarfield

i think the flipping is enough to focus on till we have more information (but i do believe the adding is going on as well)

----------


## Mark37snj

> It's like Mitt's points are reactionary and corrective.  It seems to be *adding* votes to Mitt in some counties (not just flipping) because there is no mirrored RP data point in the bottom half of the graph.


Romney gets the most votes from Ron Paul at the highest votes totals. Those extra vote totals are added to Romneys highest vote totals, basically takes a chunk from Ron's highest values and adding them to Romenys highest values. The appearence would have Romneys points at the very top but Ron's would be dropped down from his highest to average. I don't think it would be enough to drop them down to low values for Paul so therefore it would not appear to be a mirrored effect.

EDIT: The higher Ron's votes are the more Romney takes at these higher levels. If Ron's votes from a particular precinct show that he does not have very high totals (% wise compared to the total votes at that precinct), then the machines don't take as much, but when he does get very high totals (% wise compared to total votes at that precinct) the machine takes more. Ron's data point drops to average and Romneys hits the stratesphere.

----------


## Mark37snj

> i think the flipping is enough to focus on till we have more information (*but i do believe the adding is going on as well*)


But wouldn't we see it on the original charts? Im not finding it unless its so small you can't see it graphically.

----------


## Warmon

> In my opinion, we're still at the same place we were before:  we need professionals looking at this, preferably respected ones that either work with statistics for a living, or PHDs at universities, etc.


How about contacting Iris Mack - http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...-ron-paul.html

----------


## bcreps85

> But wouldn't we see it on the original charts? Im not finding it unless its so small you can't see it graphically.


Look at page 5 of the original document posted.  The "flip" is very clear.  It shows that from early projections that could be made based on roughly 20% of the vote (way more than you actually need to project a winner), Romney always finishes where Paul's projection would land and Paul always finishes where Romney's projection lands.  That is the "flip".  The other two candidates, however, always land VERY close to their projection based on the same amount of votes...

This pattern shows up in lots of places during this election.  It also shows up in some '08 numbers that were run, except Huckabee was the one who seemed to be getting votes "stolen".  Romney has been the beneficiary in every one I've seen.  Only two candidates are ever affected, which is the key component that writes off so many of the would-be explanations...

----------


## wgadget

International Business News has been very fair to Ron Paul. Do they have an investigative reporter?

----------


## Mark37snj

> Look at page 5 of the original document posted.  The "flip" is very clear.  It shows that from early projections that could be made based on roughly 20% of the vote (way more than you actually need to project a winner), Romney always finishes where Paul's projection would land and Paul always finishes where Romney's projection lands.  That is the "flip".  The other two candidates, however, always land VERY close to their projection based on the same amount of votes...
> 
> This pattern shows up in lots of places during this election.  It also shows up in some '08 numbers that were run, except Huckabee was the one who seemed to be getting votes "stolen".  Romney has been the beneficiary in every one I've seen.  Only two candidates are ever affected, which is the key component that writes off so many of the would-be explanations...


I saw the flip, Im looking for the addition on top of the flip. (Flip + Adding)

Sorry, forgot to highlight what I was asking about

EDIT: On figure 3 on Part 2 Greenville I think I do see the possibility of adding going on. It really gets pronounced at the very end. It does not look like the numbers he pulls from Paul is enough to explain it.

EDIT 2.0: Shouldn't each of these lines be generating an equation to describe them? It we get equations for all of Romney's lines we should be able to tell what the equation is being used. We will probably need Paul's too.

----------


## bbwarfield

ABC and CBS have been dumped on by republican candidates lately on there shows when they interview them or get snubbed by them. Lets let them investigate shall we?

----------


## BUSHLIED

the polls clearly show romney beating paul and the actual total came close to the RCP polling average...where is the evidence of fraud? the totals reflected the polling. Why risk getting caught when romney was expected to beat Paul anyway? ??????????

----------


## bcreps85

> the polls clearly show romney beating paul and the actual total came close to the RCP polling average...where is the evidence of fraud? the totals reflected the polling. Why risk getting caught when romney was expected to beat Paul anyway? ??????????


Have you actually read anything in the thread, and if so, do you have any grasp of statistical probabilities?

One of my posts, post #153, explains the kind of numbers we are talking about with these projections.  In some cases Paul has been under polled, but beyond that the polling data you are referring to finds no difference in preference of Paul between rural, urban, and suburban areas.  The actual numbers show massive differences, so even if we are going with your conclusion it still points to a problem with the polling data.

----------


## bbwarfield

If the democrats figured out that this would flip every town that Obama wins in the general against Mitt Romney (cause im seeing this as a residual bug from 2008) then they would have the ACLU suing the pants of this company

----------


## affa

> If the democrats figured out that this would flip every town that Obama wins in the general against Mitt Romney (cause im seeing this as a residual bug from 2008) then they would have the ACLU suing the pants of this company


why are you viewing this as a 'residual bug'?   there's nothing to lead to that conclusion - it's possible, certainly, but if anything less likely than something tailored for each election.   

------

regarding the algorithm - don't we already know it? it looks to be simple vote flipping in large precincts:

if ((total+precinct+tally)) > X then 
   temp = RPvote;
   RPvote = MRvote;
   MRvote = temp;
end if; 

For straight flipping, all you'd need is for Ron Paul for Huckabee, Santorum, or Gingrich, based on expected totals in order to ensure Mitt is in first or second, dependent on state. There will be some limited natural deviation in vote count that won't make any algorithm exact.  But from the sounds of it, since RP is pretty much hitting MR's projected total and vice verses, that may be very well all that's happening.

For the record, it's easy to make it more complex.  For example, you can massage the flip if any condition of your choosing is met.   Let's say we decided to give Mitt an extra boost if turnout is huge: 

if ((total+precinct+tally)) > X {
   fuzz_factor = 0;
   if (RPvote>999) {  /alters math slightly when RP gets over 1000 votes
          fuzz_factor = RPvote*.1;   /this calculates 10% of RP's vote
   }
   temp = RPvote + fuzz_factor;  
   RPvote = MRvote - fuzz_factor;
   MRvote = temp;
}

Something like that would be multi-tiered:   Nothing in low vote precincts, straight vote flipping in medium sized, and modified vote flipping in precincts where RP gets more than 1000 votes.   

Again, this is just a made up example.  But I'm putting it up there for those of you not used to looking at code just to show how simply something like this can be done.   

This is why we absolutely need to sort this out.   Assuming this was fraud, which I do, there is no way such a simplistic algorithm will be used again; hell, whoever used it is an idiot for not doing something more to cover their statistical tracks.

----------


## bbwarfield

I'm assuming a high possibility of it being residual cause of 2008 doing the same... From the original report it looks like it flips whoever is above Romney ... So in direct one to one "if" it's residual.... All Obama votes would be flipped to Romney were Romney lost... It may or may not be residual.... But 4 years later it remains..... Since it has been reported it is ONLy a Romney glitch.... We may be able to look back to his gubernatorial race to see if any of the predecessors to these machines were used.... But I don't think this will prove accurate..... I'm pointing out there is a real reason for democrats to want this resolved but not so much republicans

----------


## goldpants

> the polls clearly show romney beating paul and the actual total came close to the RCP polling average...where is the evidence of fraud? the totals reflected the polling. Why risk getting caught when romney was expected to beat Paul anyway? ??????????


If the numbers used by the OP are accurate then the flipping suggested seems to be of extremely high probability. So then we go further down the rabbit hole into the legitimacy of the polling. One could argue that the tail wagged the dog in IA with the Santorum surge hyped by CNN despite the other polls conducted in the same period not reflecting much of anything. Then in NH Huntsman was doing nothing but out of nowhere the polls and media stories told us Huntsman was in second or on the verge of being a force there. SC polls were all over the place, especially for Ron Paul where he was seeing a nice surge shortly after NH but things turned wonky in the final week there. Romney was looking weak heading into the final days and Newt was the big beneficiary however Santorum saw some uptick all the while RP slipped slowly downward. Why would RP slip downward while Mitt slipped, despite RP finishing a close third in IA and solid second in NH? Add on to it Demint all but endorsing him, wildly popular state senator Davis actually endorsing him and former gov. Sanford singing much praise his way, sprinkle in a rabid grassroots boots on the ground, campaign spending chunk of change on ads and super PAC spending a load on tv spots. It would stand to reason that Newt would gather much support from the old guard but so much so that RP with the wind at his back would lose support? If the polls say something is going to happen does that mean they were accurate or could it mean they had to support the final result with numbers that said it would go that way? 

To some this stuff comes off as conspiratorial or sour grapes but when science and reason suggest there may be much more to it, then it would seem only appropriate to dig deep for some truth.

----------


## Paul Fan

So there are three demographics-based hypotheses as to why the small (low-vote) precincts may not be representative:

1. The precinct voters are mostly young, so they don't vote (total votes are low) except for Ron Paul (who does well, out of proportion); and/or
2. The precinct voters are mostly Democrats and Independents, so they don't vote in the Republican primary (total votes are low), except for Ron Paul; and/or
3. The precinct voters are mostly men (military base or prison?)....

There was a fourth hypothesis that urban and rural precincts might perform differently, but this has been disproved by Liberty1789. 

So we need to look closely at the small-vote precincts and assess whether one or more of these remaining hypotheses are plausible.

So, what are the names of the small-vote precincts? 

Can anyone create a map of SC marked with the locations of the small-vote precincts?

----------


## affa

> I'm assuming a high possibility of it being residual cause of 2008 doing the same... From the original report it looks like it flips whoever is above Romney


i think perhaps my issue is with the word 'residual', since that sort of implies they didn't plan to have it happen again.   if they decided to use the same algorithm, calling it 'residual' is misleading.

----------


## affa

from 2008:

----------


## affa

> So there are three demographics-based hypotheses as to why the small (low-vote) precincts may not be representative:
> 
> 1. The precinct voters are mostly young, so they don't vote (total votes are low) except for Ron Paul (who does well, out of proportion); and/or
> 2. The precinct voters are mostly Democrats and Independents, so they don't vote in the Republican primary (total votes are low), except for Ron Paul; and/or
> 3. The precinct voters are mostly men (military base or prison?)....
> 
> There was a fourth hypothesis that urban and rural precincts might perform differently, but this has been disproved by Liberty1789. 
> 
> So we need to look closely at the small-vote precincts and assess whether one or more of these remaining hypotheses are plausible.
> ...


Which of these explains why all votes not cast for Paul go to Romney and only Romney?

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> So there are three demographics-based hypotheses as to why the small (low-vote) precincts may not be representative:
> 
> 1. The precinct voters are mostly young, so they don't vote (total votes are low) except for Ron Paul (who does well, out of proportion); and/or
> 2. The precinct voters are mostly Democrats and Independents, so they don't vote in the Republican primary (total votes are low), except for Ron Paul; and/or
> 3. The precinct voters are mostly men (military base or prison?)....
> 
> There was a fourth hypothesis that urban and rural precincts might perform differently, but this has been disproved by Liberty1789. 
> 
> So we need to look closely at the small-vote precincts and assess whether one or more of these remaining hypotheses are plausible.
> ...



It is easier to detect this type of manipulation in smaller groups, so they only did it in large precincts.  That's what the data seems to say, anyway.  The flip is weird, and it is there.  I'm wondering if some of you have really understood the graphs and read the original paper.

----------


## Paul Fan

> It is easier to detect this type of manipulation in smaller groups, so they only did it in large precincts.  That's what the data seems to say, anyway.  The flip is weird, and it is there.  I'm wondering if some of you have really understood the graphs and read the original paper.


Just for clarification: I understand the analysis and think that it is suspicious. The fact that only 2 out of the 4 candidates are affected is particularly suspicious.

What I am trying to do is anticipate objections from people who do NOT understand the paper, and show that none of these factors explain a discrepancy between low-vote and high-vote precincts.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Just for clarification: I understand the analysis and think that it is suspicious. The fact that only 2 out of the 4 candidates are affected is particularly suspicious.
> 
> What I am trying to do is anticipate objections from people who do NOT understand the paper, and show that none of these factors explain a discrepancy between low-vote and high-vote precincts.



Thanks for the clarification and nothing wrong with that (writer of paper made quite a few objections too), but I think some other people are confused.  I don't think the last graph helped with that for anyone who didn't look at the first.

----------


## Mark37snj

> I'm assuming a high possibility of it being residual cause of 2008 doing the same





> i think perhaps my issue is with the word 'residual', since that sort of implies they didn't plan to have it happen again.   if they decided to use the same algorithm, calling it 'residual' is misleading.


We need to make sure this is just not some simple oversight on our parts so we need to play devils advocate to explore all possibilites. I'm with affa on this, there is NO way this is just some forgotten code or it was just overlooked or some other convenient explanation. These machines are the most powerfull tools in the history of elections, King makers. Every line of their codes have been gone over with an electon microscope and tested till the cows came home to ensure they worked they way they are programmed to work by those who program them. They are not supercomputers attempting to create AI, they are little more then adding machines, my calculator has more sophisticated programming then these machines need. Programming error at this simplistic and primitive level of programming? I don't buy that for one second. The fact that last time Huckabee seemed to also be a victim like Gingrich this time gives that impression that it might just be an anomoly, until one considers all other factors, many of which have not even been addresed in this thread. It looks similar to 2008 and no one detected it, why not use it again. 

The first thing I see is a case of very simple strategy, spread out the vote theft where convenient so it does not look obvious. The fact that these machines sometimes target only Paul in one instance and other times they target Paul +1, AND it all seems to follow the polls, that is WAY too convenient and too much of a coincidence to be just a forgotten block of code or a simple mistake. The vote errors are too situaitional to be just a simple mistake. It may very well be the same code from the last primary but its there on purpose. The fact that these machines have a storied history of "mistakes" yet all the powers that be seem hell bent on supressing and ignoring those concerns. Why? The goverment loves to spend money anytime anywhere for anything they can get away with. But this just happens to be an exception? How convenient for them. Uproar from citizens to investigate yet our goverment now decides to say their is nothing to see here, were not gona investigate or they create sham committies who are blatently obvious. They investigate children and grandparents, but they are just gona pass on voting machine rigging that favors them maintaining power and were just supposed to assume a simple forgotten error is responsible with all the criticism these machines have taken. I think we can cross this off our list of possible explanations.

----------


## Mark37snj

> What I am trying to do is anticipate objections from people who do NOT understand the paper, and show that none of these factors explain a discrepancy between low-vote and high-vote precincts.


YES we need as many Devils Advocate's as possible.




> If the democrats figured out that this would flip every town that Obama wins in the general against Mitt Romney (cause im seeing this as a residual bug from 2008) then they would have the ACLU suing the pants of this company





> ABC and CBS have been dumped on by republican candidates lately on there shows when they interview them or get snubbed by them. Lets let them investigate shall we?


Thats assuming their main goal is not keeping Paul out of the Whitehouse at all costs because he would dismantle what took them decades to build. When this story hits it will determine what their main goal is, Obama or No Paul. Racheal Madow covering so much of Maine for our benefit doesn't quite fit the No Paul At All Costs here, but there could be another explanation.

----------


## Mark37snj

> So there are three demographics-based hypotheses as to why the small (low-vote) precincts may not be representative:
> 
> 1. The precinct voters are mostly young, so they don't vote (total votes are low) except for Ron Paul (who does well, out of proportion); and/or
> 2. The precinct voters are mostly Democrats and Independents, so they don't vote in the Republican primary (total votes are low), except for Ron Paul; and/or
> 3. The precinct voters are mostly men (military base or prison?)....
> 
> There was a fourth hypothesis that urban and rural precincts might perform differently, but this has been disproved by Liberty1789. 
> So we need to look closely at the small-vote precincts and assess whether one or more of these remaining hypotheses are plausible.
> So, what are the names of the small-vote precincts? 
> Can anyone create a map of SC marked with the locations of the small-vote precincts?


1) The only area where you would find this to be true is around colleges but they are way outnumbered. There are far more small precincts then there are college precincts.
2) It's too selective a criteria to be applicable across all the states we are seeing.
3) The same as 1, there are not enough small military precincts. Some states like SC may have alot, but not Florida, NH, and Iowa

It is gona be really hard if not impossible to find a smoking gun demographic to explain the disparagies between small precincts and large precincts across all the states. Each states small precinct demographics changes complared to the other states and the more states we analyse and see this disparagy the harder it will get.

Using programming code you can create any kind of voter crossover you want. You can create one that occurs over a short range of pricinct size, or one that occurs over a very large range of precinct sizes. The key will be the consistency of the crossovers across all precincts. The only way to combat that through programming is to program the demographics into each and every voting machine.

----------


## FrancisMarion

I have gone back and looked at Anderson County, SC from 2008.  

Parameters for the graph:  Took the average of precinct vote totals, then used all the precincts that fell below this average of 262.98 votes.  The sum of all the votes from these precincts equaled 5589 or 26.57% of the total vote.  There a few other votes that I have left out due in part to their insignificance (Tancredo, Guiliani, Hunter, etc.)  However, every last damn one is on the spreadsheet.

I have all the excel work that produced this graph.  Don't know how to attach a pdf.



Hmmm.

----------


## bbwarfield

> Thats assuming their main goal is not keeping Paul out of the Whitehouse at all costs...


From what I gathered this is not a Paul only situation. My understanding is that numbers crunched (but not released at this time by the guy who released greenville and anderson) show it is always to Romneys benefit but not always Paul he flips... and from what may be words we are putting in his mouth it seems to be anyone who is above him within a certain margin is the loser of the flip. This has not been confirmed but I believe alluded too. Someone said gingrich lost this in charleston and beaufort counties.

----------


## Paul Fan

> 1) The only area where you would find this to be true is around colleges but they are way outnumbered. There are far more small precincts then there are college precincts.
> 2) It's too selective a criteria to be applicable across all the states we are seeing.
> 3) The same as 1, there are not enough small military precincts. Some states like SC may have alot, but not Florida, NH, and Iowa.


I agree. But I would like to undertake the exercise so that we could respond with facts, rather than suppositions, to someone who suggests one of these hypotheses as an objection. So instead of saying, that is probably not the explanation, we could say, we've checked the demographic composition of the small-vote precincts and they aren't different from other precincts, eg they aren't located on college campuses. To me, hard data is way more convincing than suppositions. I don't have the skills to do these investigations on my own, unfortunately.

----------


## bbwarfield

interesting the graph does vary in two ways from previous assumptions. Huckabee was not next in line above Mitt.... and thompson also shared the boost. (this does not disprove any of the current thoughts on this only some assumptions about what is going on) 

We may need a county where the person above Mitt is not such a commanding lead.... also.... Mcain was the beneficiary of a removal of Paul votes regardless of who they went to. Thompson and Romney may have been the original ones to benefit and THEORY: if this is an uncorrected attempt to get Mcain the win in 2008.... the only two still in the system from then are Paul and Romney.... beneficiary thompson is out. END THEORY

still hoping for places the flip occured with other candidates

----------


## Mark37snj

> From what I gathered this is not a Paul only situation. My understanding is that numbers crunched (but not released at this time by the guy who released greenville and anderson) show it is always to Romneys benefit but not always Paul he flips... and from what may be words we are putting in his mouth it seems to be anyone who is above him within a certain margin is the loser of the flip. This has not been confirmed but I believe alluded too. Someone said gingrich lost this in charleston and beaufort counties.


I wasn't clear, sorry. I was talking about the political atomosphere. Will the Dems actually help exspose this fraud, the ACLU and all, and risk Paul winning the Presidency or will they just sit there and not say/do anything.

----------


## speciallyblend

> It is easier to detect this type of manipulation in smaller groups, so they only did it in large precincts.  That's what the data seems to say, anyway.  The flip is weird, and it is there.  I'm wondering if some of you have really understood the graphs and read the original paper.


totally understand this and i am not the brightest bulb out there. My solution, drones!  I just do not see what can be done to fix it call it out and change it anytime soon.

----------


## Mark37snj

> I agree. But I would like to undertake the exercise so that we could respond with facts, rather than suppositions, to someone who suggests one of these hypotheses as an objection. So instead of saying, that is probably not the explanation, we could say, we've checked the demographic composition of the small-vote precincts and they aren't different from other precincts, eg they aren't located on college campuses. To me, hard data is way more convincing than suppositions. I don't have the skills to do these investigations on my own, unfortunately.


Yeah, that is a HUGE undertaking, probably more work than the guy who started this all put into his analysis.

----------


## Mark37snj

@FrancisMarion - Im gona go and see if I can find the polls of that election on RCP. I would like the see the polling volatility just before the election to maybe find some explanation for Thompsons data.

EDIT: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...imary-233.html

It looks like Thompson was surging. He went from 10.4% to 14.6% in one day, 4.2% jump in one day (1/16-1/17). That could explain how he outperformed his predicted poll. The vote was on 1/19.

----------


## Paul Fan

> Yeah, that is a HUGE undertaking, probably more work than the guy who started this all put into his analysis.


It is not that hard. 
Step one: identify the low-vote precincts by name/designation. 
Step 2: map them, and correlate the map data with the locations of residential colleges, military bases, and prisons (to address hypotheses 1 and 3)
Step 3: look at voter registration data for those precincts to see if some are skewed democratic/independent (to address hypothesis 2)

All of these steps are doable.

----------


## bbwarfield

Greenville County will have one thing that explains this. UNLIKE most college areas... Greenville has one college ballot box that is more or less controlled by the college. Bob Jones University controls 2 whole ballot boxes because of the students, the faculty, the retirede alumni pastors that all seem to move into the area between overbrook and pleasentburg. Unlike other schools where anyone could care less who there school president liked... they are not forced to listen to 45 minutes of Chapel daily where politics are discussed regularly... presidential candidates are not only endorsed but in some cases referred to as the "only moral answer" ... its gotten better over the years, but the school traditionaly has chosen who won the states largest ballot box. So we should probably point that out in analysis of Greenville County that this ballot box is an outlier. It actually would show a random swing in the county in my opinion. Anderson on the other hand has one christian college of a much smaller size that has very little sway over its students political choices

----------


## Mark37snj

> It is not that hard. 
> Step one: identify the low-vote precincts by name/designation. 
> Step 2: map them, and correlate the map data with the locations of residential colleges, military bases, and prisons (to address hypotheses 1 and 3)
> Step 3: look at voter registration data for those precincts to see if some are skewed democratic/independent (to address hypothesis 2)
> 
> All of these steps are doable.


Step 2.5: Check into psychiatric hospital and deplete Thorzine reserves. 

Honestly looks good, but my eyes can't handle that kind of computer research workload.

----------


## Mark37snj

> Greenville County will have one thing that explains this. UNLIKE most college areas... Greenville has one college ballot box that is more or less controlled by the college. Bob Jones University controls 2 whole ballot boxes because of the students, the faculty, the retirede alumni pastors that all seem to move into the area between overbrook and pleasentburg. Unlike other schools where anyone could care less who there school president liked... they are not forced to listen to 45 minutes of Chapel daily where politics are discussed regularly... presidential candidates are not only endorsed but in some cases referred to as the "only moral answer" ... its gotten better over the years, but the school traditionaly has chosen who won the states largest ballot box. So we should probably point that out in analysis of Greenville County that this ballot box is an outlier. It actually would show a random swing in the county in my opinion. Anderson on the other hand has one christian college of a much smaller size that has very little sway over its students political choices


For arguments sake, why not just do a quick graph of all college precincts. The ones that outperform the rest of the county just leave them out. This will lower Paul's projected total but remove any possible bias from colleges.

----------


## Liberty1789

Iowa 2012 magic... (based on original vote count)

----------


## Paul Fan

> I have gone back and looked at Anderson County, SC from 2008.


Very interesting. Looks like Romney got Thompson's predicted total (the flip with the next person up) and Thompson got Romney's predicted total plus an amount taken from the leader, in this case Huckabee. Maybe the algorithm has something that prevents anyone who isn't Romney from getting more than 41% of the vote? (Huckabee ended up with exactly 40.9% of the actual total votes declared.)

----------


## Paul Fan

> Stap 2.5: Check into psychiatric hospital and deplete Thorzine reserves. 
> 
> Honestly looks good, but my eyes can't handle that kind of computer research workload.


If we share the work it won't be so bad. Can someone just do step 1 and identify the low-vote precincts?

----------


## Mark37snj

> Iowa 2012 magic... (based on original vote count)


Nice work again!!! Romney has 2 hinge points, one at ~1700 votes and one at ~4700 votes. This is now just getting ridiculous.

----------


## Paul Fan

> Iowa 2012 magic... (based on original vote count)


Very interesting - but I can't see the axis labels. Can you add them please?

----------


## Mark37snj

> If we share the work it won't be so bad. Can someone just do step 1 and identify the low-vote precincts?


So which states/counties are you thinking about doing? The amount of credibility will depend on how large a net we throw.

----------


## Liberty1789

Hi Paul Fan
X-axis is cumulative votes cast sorted by ascending order of precinct size
Y-axis is is cumulative votes obtained by candidate

as per original SC study, apologies, I thought it would be evident.

----------


## Paul Fan

> So which states/counties are you thinking about doing? The amount of credibility will depend on how large a net we throw.


I was just going to start with the Anderson and Greenville counties that the analyst has focused on so far, to look at his data another way. I just literally don't know how to find out the names of the low-vote precincts that he used.

----------


## Paul Fan

> Hi Paul Fan
> X-axis is cumulative votes cast sorted by ascending order of precinct size
> Y-axis is is cumulative votes obtained by candidate
> 
> as per original SC study, apologies, I thought it would be evident.


That is what I thought but I didn't want to make an assumption just in case it was something else. Thanks. Great work.

Edit: actually I'm still confused. Sorry to be stupid. Romney & Santorum each got 29k+ votes but the Y axis only goes up to 16,000.

----------


## bbwarfield

One problem with Iowa... well several.... these SC numbers are about a possible algorith inside voting machines.... iowa is a caucus were it makes sense that you would see semi wild swings cause smaller caucuses will have people who know each other more... and some candidates sweep a 15 person caucus cause its all family. Romney also could litterally bus people in large precincts. Also notice the "bachman bow" as im calling it.... hers is the most pronounced but everyone has one save Romney whose goes the opposite direction. 

BUT this shows what it should....... ACROSS THE BOARD CHANGE.... . not one candidate flipping. Iowa while bungled in the end will probably be the least rigged of all the contests well get data on for a while....

NH Primary broken down to "voting machine"  "hand ballot" would be our best place to look. I think if romney does win in handcounting youd see another of those bachman bows..... in electronic youd see the paul flip is what i believe we would see in NH

----------


## Mark37snj

> I was just going to start with the Anderson and Greenville counties that the analyst has focused on so far, to look at his data another way. I just literally don't know how to find out the names of the low-vote precincts that he used.


Upon reviewing the Greenville County Precinct election vote data from the 2012, a disturbing
pattern arose: Ron Paul averaged 24% in precincts where less than 250 people voted; he averaged less
than 12 percent in precincts with more than 800. A spreadsheet was created to help me understand
how this could be. Why was Ron Paul’s percentage in large precincts half of that in small precincts?

You should download the Google docs. Links are posted back in the thread.

Can anyone who is researching and has LINKS to election data post them PLZ.

EDIT: CAN I HAZ SOME LINKS PLZ you can attach them to previous posts, I will scroll back and look for them

----------


## bbwarfield

Iowa also needs to be broken down a bit... sc state wide probably would not show the paul flip cause of legitimate demographic differences...... while county by county you should see it

----------


## Mark37snj

> One problem with Iowa... well several.... these SC numbers are about a possible algorith inside voting machines.... iowa is a caucus were it makes sense that you would see semi wild swings cause smaller caucuses will have people who know each other more... and some candidates sweep a 15 person caucus cause its all family. Romney also could litterally bus people in large precincts. Also notice the "bachman bow" as im calling it.... hers is the most pronounced but everyone has one save Romney whose goes the opposite direction.


I believe if what you wrote was true then Romney's bar would not have what I referred to as hinges. Those deviations in his line look mathmatical (Hinge), not like what you would see with a random upswing (Curve). They could have just entered the numbers and used the same algorithym to get those results.

----------


## Liberty1789

Mark37snj

You make a very good remark on a visible break point at 1,700 votes in Iowa. I have calculated the difference between the final share of votes and the share of votes at 1,700. The result left me speechless.

Paul -3%
Bachmann -2%
Gingrich 0%
Santorum 0%
Huntsmann 0%
Romney +9%
Perry -4%

The Romney's precinct size magic is at work solely against some candidates at the entire exclusion of others, and that, my friends is simply impossible.

----------


## Mark37snj

Alright it's Super-PAC time. We keep digging and digging and all we find is more skeletons. Thanks Liberty1789, without your graphs we would not have discovered this and the others. Lets keep kicking these tires, but if someone knows anyone in the campaign or super-pac, hit them up, AFTER MAINE.

----------


## Paul Fan

> Mark37snj
> 
> You make a very good remark on a visible break point at 1,700 votes in Iowa. I have calculated the difference between the final share of votes and the share of votes at 1,700. The result left me speechless.
> 
> Paul -3%
> Bachmann -2%
> Gingrich 0%
> Santorum 0%
> Huntsmann 0%
> ...


Wow.

----------


## Mark37snj

The website Whatreallyhappend.com has the SC google docs listed. I found them using a google search for "Greenville County Precinct election vote".

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...%20Primary.pdf

----------


## kathy88

> Mark37snj
> 
> You make a very good remark on a visible break point at 1,700 votes in Iowa. I have calculated the difference between the final share of votes and the share of votes at 1,700. The result left me speechless.
> 
> Paul -3%
> Bachmann -2%
> Gingrich 0%
> Santorum 0%
> Huntsmann 0%
> ...


Anyone else getting a little excited about all this?

----------


## Mark37snj

> Anyone else getting a little excited about all this?


I'm trying not to, I've been hurt before.

----------


## kathy88

> I'm trying not to, I've been hurt before.


Me too. Here's to hoping this might be the big one.

----------


## Mark37snj

There are 150 precincts in Greenville County.

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_...bills/3804.htm

----------


## bbwarfield

here are the election tallies... supplied from the people who make the dang machines http://www.enr-scvotes.org/SC/36831/...n/summary.html

----------


## bbwarfield

http://www.enr-scvotes.org/SC/Greenv.../detailxls.zip excel spread sheets of all voter information for greenville... from the previous site.... multiple tabs so dont be freaked when the first page has no info

----------


## Paul Fan

> There are 150 precincts in Greenville County.
> 
> http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_...bills/3804.htm


Thanks. I'm working on Anderson now and will look at Greenville next.

----------


## Mark37snj

> http://www.enr-scvotes.org/SC/Greenv.../detailxls.zip excel spread sheets of all voter information for greenville... from the previous site.... multiple tabs so dont be freaked when the first page has no info


Thanks. When I opened it up its not lined up right with </s all over the place. Im gona see if my Excel needs updating.

EXCEL HELP NEEDED - http://www.enr-scvotes.org/SC/Greenv.../detailxls.zip  Is there some kind of compatibility function I can use, this file is not loading properly for me? Im using Microsoft Office 2000

----------


## FrancisMarion

> Thanks. When I opened it up its not lined up right with </s all over the place. Im gona see if my Excel needs updating.
> 
> EXCEL HELP NEEDED - http://www.enr-scvotes.org/SC/Greenv.../detailxls.zip  Is there some kind of compatibility function I can use, this file is not loading properly for me? Im using Microsoft Office 2000


same thing happened for me.  2008 was much easier for me to access.  I can access the .xml files with success.

Liberty1789, when you produce those line graphs are you basically doing the vote count from smallest population to largest in order?

----------


## Liberty1789

Hi FrancisMarion

Yes, vote counts are ordered by increasing size of number of votes cast per precinct. I start with precincts with 1 vote, then 2, etc...

----------


## bbwarfield

im using 2007 and its working alright..... you go to there website and they have different formats..... sorry... seemed that would be the easiest for everyone so I picked that link

----------


## Mark37snj

> im using 2007 and its working alright..... you go to there website and they have different formats..... sorry... seemed that would be the easiest for everyone so I picked that link


Thanks, I will half to transfer from Notepad to Excel but at least it gets me back on track. Now if I can just get these 5" Floppy Disks to read properly I will be in business. 

EDIT: Sorry, I'm gona half to bail on this. I don't have the software for this. It would take forever to transfer the data from Notepad to Excel.

----------


## hillertexas

> Iowa 2012 magic... (based on original vote count)


Theory:
This one looks like votes could be being siphoned in equal amounts from MB, NG, and RPerry.  Maybe the 3 together correlate to the spike in MR's votes.  
Maybe RP and RS curves are actually natural in this case?  Maybe there is no flip in this case...maybe just siphoning/adding

----------


## TNforPaul45

"Why was Paul's percentages larger in smaller voting districts than in larger turnout districts?"

Easy: Because like in 2008, Paul has very broad support nation wide, but not very deep support in any one place. So the same _ quantity_  of voters turn out in comparable districts but the _ percentages_ are different.

We can't go around seeing vote fraud everywhere. It will drive us looney, as looney as they _think_ we are.

----------


## Mark37snj

> "Why was Paul's percentages larger in smaller voting districts than in larger turnout districts?"
> 
> Easy: Because like in 2008, Paul has very broad support nation wide, but not very deep support in any one place. So the same _ quantity_  of voters turn out in comparable districts but the _ percentages_ are different.
> 
> We can't go around seeing vote fraud everywhere. It will drive us looney, as looney as they _think_ we are.


Have you read this entire thread and related links? If you didn't you should because the evidence is profound and undeniable.

----------


## bbwarfield

> "Why was Paul's percentages larger in smaller voting districts than in larger turnout districts?"
> 
> Easy: Because like in 2008, Paul has very broad support nation wide, but not very deep support in any one place. So the same _ quantity_  of voters turn out in comparable districts but the _ percentages_ are different.
> 
> We can't go around seeing vote fraud everywhere. It will drive us looney, as looney as they _think_ we are.


We already fooled around with this idea... there is a problem with it. Instead of saying Ron Paul supporters make up 5% of the vote (this is all hypothetical to prove a point so dont quote any of these as numbers... they are made up) lets say that 100% of feret owners are Ron Paul supporters and make up 5% of voters. It is very hard to believe that there are 10 feret owners in every town.... and NO MORE a population of 100 people should have 5 ferret owners on average.... a population of 1000 should have 50 on average and so on. Yes some will just be crazy and have 200 in a town of 500.... you would see variance. But people are asking us to believe that Ron Paul doesnt have a % ceiling but a "38 people per precinct" ceiling. We are seeing a "every town has 10 ferret owners and once the town has 300 people it adds 5 ferret owners per thousand" type numbering for that to be right. 


and im tired and i think that only made sense to me..... but i typed it anyway

----------


## TIMB0B

> We already fooled around with this idea... there is a problem with it. Instead of saying Ron Paul supporters make up 5% of the vote (this is all hypothetical to prove a point so dont quote any of these as numbers... they are made up) lets say that 100% of feret owners are Ron Paul supporters and make up 5% of voters. It is very hard to believe that there are 10 feret owners in every town.... and NO MORE a population of 100 people should have 5 ferret owners on average.... a population of 1000 should have 50 on average and so on. Yes some will just be crazy and have 200 in a town of 500.... you would see variance. But people are asking us to believe that Ron Paul doesnt have a % ceiling but a "38 people per precinct" ceiling. We are seeing a "every town has 10 ferret owners and once the town has 300 people it adds 5 ferret owners per thousand" type numbering for that to be right. 
> 
> 
> and im tired and i think that only made sense to me..... but i typed it anyway


 Good analogy.

----------


## Mark37snj

> Theory:
> This one looks like votes could be being siphoned in equal amounts from MB, NG, and RPerry.  Maybe the 3 together correlate to the spike in MR's votes.  
> Maybe RP and RS curves are actually natural in this case?  Maybe there is no flip in this case...maybe just siphoning/adding





> You make a very good remark on a visible break point at 1,700 votes in Iowa. I have calculated the difference between the final share of votes and the share of votes at 1,700. The result left me speechless.
> 
> Paul -3%
> Bachmann -2%
> Gingrich 0%
> Santorum 0%
> Huntsmann 0%
> Romney +9%
> Perry -4%
> ...


I think this shows who the votes were being siphoned off of. I think you just typed the wrong person, NG insted of RP.

----------


## WD-NY

Any suggestions on journalists to forward this info to? I imagine the ideal type would be younger, less entrenched within the system, but nonetheless considered an up and comer. 

Their forensic and analytical abilities would also have to be top notch... maybe a few wall st corruption stories in their past. The guys at ZeroHedge might be a good place to start.

----------


## bbwarfield

The judge.... he may not have a show.... be he has a voice!

----------


## WD-NY

> The judge.... he may not have a show.... be he has a voice!


No, you need a real reporter man. Having some completely biased spin doctor break this story would undermine all the work put into it bc it would instantly be stamped as 'unobjective'. So definitely don't pitch this to the TV talking heads. 

A real jounalist will deliver the story in straight, color-free, language - and let the spin masters make of it what they will. But the break HAS to come from an objective source.

----------


## bbwarfield

True... I still like the judge ; ) but i dont want swan cause he has his neck to far out right now after the maine report. Especially with it getting squiffier even today. ABC and CBS have investigative teams that definitely spin... but definitely report as well. 

I think getting it to the 4 senators in SC that supported Ron would be great.... but to really make an impact we need the Florida numbers that supposedly show a newt and romney flip..... get them to Newt and he would mention it in the debate... why? cause he cant help himself.... he is the town crier of percieved slights against his person. the funny part? THIS ONES LEGIT! ..... and to be honest the public believe him... but once the numbers are all crunched and its done three or four news cycles they forget newt breaking the news and just remember Ron Paul was doing quite well everywehere

----------


## Mark37snj

We all know the other canidates may all be in it together and not protest except maybe Newt. But what about the other canidates forums. I'm sure there are Santorum supporters that would froth at the mouth over this.

----------


## affa

> The fact that last time Huckabee seemed to also be a victim like Gingrich this time gives that impression that it might just be an anomoly, until one considers all other factors, many of which have not even been addresed in this thread. It looks similar to 2008 and no one detected it, why not use it again.


While I agree with everything else in your post [that i snipped]  I  don't think that it having occurred to Gingrich and Huckabee at certain times (all beneficial to Romney) would make anyone think it's an 'just an anomaly'.  If anything, these are the ones that seal the deal.

All the tortured explanations in the world as to why every Ron Paul voter would suddenly vote for Romney in high population precincts falls apart when we can point to this happening with Huckabee or Gingrich where that would be a bigger help to Romney than vote flipping with Ron Paul.

----------


## affa

> Thats assuming their main goal is not keeping Paul out of the Whitehouse at all costs because he would dismantle what took them decades to build. When this story hits it will determine what their main goal is, Obama or No Paul. Racheal Madow covering so much of Maine for our benefit doesn't quite fit the No Paul At All Costs here, but there could be another explanation.


Vote fraud is beyond the pale.   Nobody has their boot pressed firmly on the throat of every journalist; rather, you simply put people with known beliefs that can be 'trusted' into positions of power, and media 'control' happens organically.

But systemic vote fraud of this caliber?  Journalists are going to want to cover that.  It'll be fireworks.

----------


## Mark37snj

> Vote fraud is beyond the pale.   Nobody has their boot pressed firmly on the throat of every journalist; rather, you simply put people with know beliefs that can be 'trusted' into positions of power, and media 'control' happens organically.
> 
> But systemic vote fraud of this caliber?  Journalists are going to want to cover that.  It'll be fireworks.


I'm gona hold you to that.    Can I Haz Fireworks?!?!

----------


## affa

> You make a very good remark on a visible break point at 1,700 votes in Iowa. I have calculated the difference between the final share of votes and the share of votes at 1,700. The result left me speechless.
> 
> Paul -3%
> Bachmann -2%
> Gingrich 0%
> Santorum 0%
> Huntsmann 0%
> Romney +9%
> Perry -4%
> ...


Whoa.    I'm just as speechless as you are at that.  I showed my wife, who generally doesn't pay attention to these things, and she immediately came to the same conclusion - votes being taken from multiple candidates they want to take out, and all given to one candidate.

I don't even know what to say, other than I think we're on to something huge.

----------


## affa

> We all know the other canidates may all be in it together and not protest except maybe Newt. But what about the other canidates forums. I'm sure there are Santorum supporters that would froth at the mouth over this.


i see what you did there.

----------


## Mark37snj

> i see what you did there.


Who me, um, I...would never, um, it was ah, the --> Chair

----------


## Paul Fan

Just looking at Anderson County, it looks like the "kick" at the end may be due to the absentee ballots. These counted as the second-largest precinct; they weren't distributed among all the precincts as I had expected. It is slightly odd the the two totals given aren't the same (1170 at the top and 1165 on the bottom.)

 Romney had an aggressive absentee ballot program; I don't know whether we did. And Romney got 32.62% of the absentee votes, while Ron got only 13.99%. (Gingrich 50.99% and Santorum 12.10%, Perry 4.29%, Bachmann 0.94% and Cain 0.56%.) 

Were these recorded on paper? Or is it all electronic now?

----------


## Mark37snj

> Just looking at Anderson County, it looks like the "kick" at the end may be due to the absentee ballots. These counted as the second-largest precinct; they weren't distributed among all the precincts as I had expected. It is slightly odd the the two totals given aren't the same (1170 at the top and 1165 on the bottom.)
> 
>  Romney had an aggressive absentee ballot program; I don't know whether we did. And Romney got 32.62% of the absentee votes, while Ron got only 13.99%. (Gingrich 50.99% and Santorum 12.10%, Perry 4.29%, Bachmann 0.94% and Cain 0.56%.) 
> 
> Were these recorded on paper? Or is it all electronic now?


Well the absentee ballots would still have to be tallied and just like the caucus state of Iowa put through the machine. So they would still give Romney an increase especially since they are added to the second highest vote precinct which means the algorithym is flipping the max number of votes from Paul to Romney. I also find it hard to believe that in SC with all those absentee military ballots that they would favor Romney over Paul. That is total BS. Those absentee ballots are now very important.

----------


## Lord Xar

Is there a way to collate the poignant posts of this thread, and perhaps the findings of the statiticians that were forwarded info and then perhaps direct it to some media. Perhaps Swann first (so he gets the scoop), or just wholesale forward it to various news/media outlets?

----------


## CJLauderdale4

Mods...please make this a part of some election fraud sticky...
This is a good analysis to have readily available to show those curious over election fraud claims, like the one we're seeing in Maine now.

----------


## bcreps85

Just FYI, brought a printout of the original document to a friend at work when I went in last night.  He's not a prodigy by any means, but he's very good with statistics/probabilities, etc etc.  He hates politics, so he wasn't interested at first and seemed pretty bored as I was explaining how we can predict things based on a sample within a margin of error and used the Santorum/Gingrich charts to show that, probably because it wasn't new information to him.  When I got to the chart showing the "flip", his eyes lit up.  He spent the rest of the night trying to poke holes in the theory, coming up with a lot of what we did here, but would stop and explain why what he was about to say wouldn't work every time.  At this point he's just in that "wtf" mode.

I keep waiting for someone to say something so simple to debunk this that we all feel stupid...

----------


## affa

> Is there a way to collate the poignant posts of this thread, and perhaps the findings of the statiticians that were forwarded info and then perhaps direct it to some media. Perhaps Swann first (so he gets the scoop), or just wholesale forward it to various news/media outlets?


i'm not totally sure we're ready for that (going fully public).  maybe?  

I do agree we should perhaps collate several (triple checked) charts:

1) a couple graphs showing the vote flipping with Ron Paul
2) an example from 2008 with Huckabee, and an example with Gingrich
3) The Iowa chart (with the breakdown increases/decreases included on image -2,-4,-3, 0,0,0,+9)
4) links to relevant documents (such as the ones that started this thread) as well as links to source data

Keep it short and sweet so anyone can get the jist and then have links to far more examples and explanations. We also then need to have expanded data- not just a couple examples for quick perusal, but organized, full results across every state we have the data for.    I agree we don't want to lose this in our own noise... keeping it together, in one place would be best.

----------


## bbwarfield

I am very weary of including iowa in an initial packet of info..... no voter machines..... caucus... on site counting.... alot of ways throwing iowa could have simple answer dismissals (not saying it didnt happen there.... but it falls outside of the basic information and it might taint all the work.

I think the most damming would be NH......or florida..... same machines... so same algorithm would be present.... also hand counted counties are present.... so you could show the flip when the machines are involved but not in hand counting

Could they flip in hand counting like we are seeing suggested in Iowa? YES!! but its a red hearing that could just discredit the whole work.... focus on nh or fl for hand counting vs. machine.... sc for across the board effect

----------


## Mark37snj

Well also remember that the original author is scheduled to meet with the SCGOP Chairman this Wednesday. http://www.dailypaul.com/214415/gues...ts-in-question

----------


## Paul Fan

> I am very weary of including iowa in an initial packet of info..... no voter machines..... caucus... on site counting.... alot of ways throwing iowa could have simple answer dismissals (not saying it didnt happen there.... but it falls outside of the basic information and it might taint all the work.
> 
> I think the most damming would be NH......or florida..... same machines... so same algorithm would be present.... also hand counted counties are present.... so you could show the flip when the machines are involved but not in hand counting
> 
> Could they flip in hand counting like we are seeing suggested in Iowa? YES!! but its a red hearing that could just discredit the whole work.... focus on nh or fl for hand counting vs. machine.... sc for across the board effect


Yes, if the waters are muddied by a caucus state where the result could have been skewed by simple arm-twisting, that will just cast doubt on the validity of the statistics-based analysis of the machine votes.

----------


## Mark37snj

> I agree. But I would like to undertake the exercise so that we could respond with facts, rather than suppositions, to someone who suggests one of these hypotheses as an objection. So instead of saying, that is probably not the explanation, we could say, we've checked the demographic composition of the small-vote precincts and they aren't different from other precincts, eg they aren't located on college campuses. To me, hard data is way more convincing than suppositions. I don't have the skills to do these investigations on my own, unfortunately.


I don't know if you saw my EDIT on a previous post but I don't have the software to do any analysis on this, Sorry. It would take a whole day just to enter the data and I would still not know what to do to make the charts/comparisons and may not even have the Excel funtions to do so. How is your county coming? Do you need someone to pick up Greenville County for you? Are you gona pass off your Excel sheet once you got it finished for final analysis?
*
EDIT*: Step 1: identify the low-vote precincts by name/designation. Can you clarify what EXACTLY you need on this sheet. If its just one row of numbers then that I can do. The original Notepad doc. had all kinds of extra numbers that would have taken too long to imput but one set I can do.

----------


## chri5opher

//

----------


## Liberty1789

Some numbers on New Hampshire.

Breakdown of votes by precincts divided in quintiles in ascending order of number of votes cast.


Gingrich
Huntsman
Paul
Romney
Santorum
Perry

Smallest
11%
18%
29%
30%
11%
1%

Small
10%
19%
27%
33%
11%
1%

Medium
10%
20%
26%
33%
10%
1%

Large
10%
18%
25%
37%
10%
1%

Largest
9%
16%
21%
44%
9%
1%




What is at work in Iowa is identically at work in New Hampshire.

A 1% spread between Paul and Romney in the Smallest precincts becomes a 23% spread in the largest ones.

For info, the average vote count in the Largest quintile is 2,116, vs 127 in the Smallest.

----------


## Mark37snj

> Some numbers on New Hampshire.
> 
> Breakdown of votes by precincts divided in quintiles in ascending order of number of votes cast.
> 
> 
> Gingrich
> Huntsman
> Paul
> Romney
> ...


Nice work again. Can you list the number range you use for each precinct size? I'm gona take another stab at Greenville but don't know what ranges to use.

EDIT: Thanks for the ^ info.

EDIT 2.0: Sorry again, its IMPOSSILBE, that dam notepad is not even in sequential order or anything. It would take a week to sort it out.

----------


## Liberty1789

I took the 300 precincts with votes, sorted them by increasing number of votes cast and just split them into 5 quintiles of 60 precincts

----------


## chri5opher

//

----------


## Mark37snj

I'm seeing something really strange here. Greenville County:

Precinct: Greenville 14.....Registered Voters - 1728.....Ballots Cast -  17.....Voter Turnout - 0.98%
Precinct: Greenville 01.....Registered Voters - 1579.....Ballots Cast - 573....Voter Turnout - 36.29%

Is anyone else seeing stuff like this?

There are 12 precincts with 6% or less Voter Turnout, while every other precinct averages between 20-35%

----------


## kathy88

> I'm gona hold you to that.    Can I Haz Fireworks?!?!


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Mark37snj again.

----------


## ssjevot

This just seems like demographics.  Paul does better in rural areas (low population), Romney does better in urban areas (higher population).  We see this in the general election with Republicans doing better in rural areas and Democrats doing better in urban areas.  People are assuming the population of voters is evenly distributed throughout the state when we know that isn't true.

----------


## chris41336

> This just seems like demographics.  Paul does better in rural areas (low population), Romney does better in urban areas (higher population).  We see this in the general election with Republicans doing better in rural areas and Democrats doing better in urban areas.  People are assuming the population of voters is evenly distributed throughout the state when we know that isn't true.


But if this was the case, Gingrich and Santorum would see a similar pattern. There is no way that this would only be between two of the candidates, and there is now way that it would be exactly inverted.

----------


## bcreps85

> This just seems like demographics.  Paul does better in rural areas (low population), Romney does better in urban areas (higher population).  We see this in the general election with Republicans doing better in rural areas and Democrats doing better in urban areas.  People are assuming the population of voters is evenly distributed throughout the state when we know that isn't true.


In addition to Chris's answer, keep in mind someone applied what we are looking at to the '08 race when there was more people in the race, can't remember if it was 6 or 7, and saw the same pattern.  The more candidates you add while only having two affected by this "anomaly", the less likely it becomes.  In that case, Huck was "flipped" with Romney.  In addition to that, polling data averaged from 4 states does not suggest that Paul has significantly more or less favorability between rural and urban areas.  Please read through the thread before posting things we've already discussed and disproved.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Some numbers on New Hampshire.
> 
> Breakdown of votes by precincts divided in quintiles in ascending order of number of votes cast.
> 
> 
> Gingrich
> Huntsman
> Paul
> Romney
> ...


As the person that analyzed the New Hampshire results the most, a months long grassroots activist in NH and an official activist in NH, I'd like to say a few things.

-The Ron Paul campaign was the only campaign, as far as I know, to have poll watchers in NH for the 2012 Primaries.  Keep in mind that there were 44 candidates running for office in NH.
-I haven't seen any evidence of voter fraud in the 2012 NH Republican Primary.
-Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romeny, in that order, did better in the results than the Real Clear Politics average.
-The chart helps confirm the results, the voting pattern of the state and what was visible on the ground before the election.

Ron Paul did better in northern and western NH where the districts have less people.  Ron Paul did worse in southeast NH, where districts have more people.  This was easy to tell before hand.  The Northern Pass issue was much more prominent in northern and western NH.  The grassroots placed ads in several northern NH newspapers.  Northern and western NH are less Republican than southeastern NH.  Therefore, less of the Republican legislators that Mitt Romney helped get elected in 2010 lived in northern and western NH.  Some of those elected legislators, helped campaign for Romney.  The MA transplants that voted for Romney when he lived in MA and ran for office, are concentrated in the large Republican districts in southeastern NH.  Romney's national headquarters is in the Boston area, which is directly south of southeastern NH.  Lots of Romeny volunteers and staff helped him in NH and many of those people live in the Boston area.  As seen in other states, Romney does very well the the wealthy.  In NH, the people in southeastern NH tend to be the most wealthy.  Generally, the further north or west you go, the less wealthy the area is in NH.  The places in NH than lean libertarian the most (that have the lowest property taxes and least restrictive local regulations) tend to be very small towns.

----------


## affa

> This just seems like demographics.  Paul does better in rural areas (low population), Romney does better in urban areas (higher population).  We see this in the general election with Republicans doing better in rural areas and Democrats doing better in urban areas.  People are assuming the population of voters is evenly distributed throughout the state when we know that isn't true.


This does not even come close to explaining the statistics we are seeing.

To put it plainly:

Using predictive statistics, the smaller result precincts are predicting Gingrich and Santorum votes with deadly accuracy.  How accurate?

Well, it predicts Gingrich within 20 votes.  Santorum is also within 100, and we're talking over thousands and thousands of votes cast.  

But Ron Paul and Romney switch predictive results almost 1 for 1.  That is, the predictive statistics put Ron Paul at where Romney lands, and vice versa.

That means every single vote (in any precinct over a certain vote total) that was statistically supposed to go to Ron Paul got 'flipped' for Romney.   Only Ron Paul votes.  And only to Romney.

We've also see similar things happen in specific places to both Gingrich and Huckabee... also directly benefiting Romney, and only Romney.

This isn't a smoking gun, it's a smoking cannon.  We're never going to have this good of evidence again, and we need to dig in and make it stick.

----------


## bcreps85

> As the person that analyzed the New Hampshire results the most, a months long grassroots activist in NH and an official activist in NH, I'd like to say a few things.
> 
> -The Ron Paul campaign was the only campaign, as far as I know, to have poll watchers in NH for the 2012 Primaries.  Keep in mind that there were 44 candidates running for office in NH.
> -I haven't seen any evidence of voter fraud in the 2012 NH Republican Primary.
> -Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romeny, in that order, did better in the results than the Real Clear Politics average.
> -The chart helps confirm the results, the voting pattern of the state and what was visible on the ground before the election.
> 
> Ron Paul did better in northern and western NH where the districts have less people.  Ron Paul did worse in southeast NH, where districts have more people.  This was easy to tell before hand.  The Northern Pass issue was much more prominent in northern and western NH.  The grassroots placed ads in several northern NH newspapers.  Northern and western NH are less Republican than southeastern NH.  Therefore, less of the Republican legislators that Mitt Romney helped get elected in 2010 lived in northern and western NH.  Some of those elected legislators, helped campaign for Romney.  The MA transplants that voted for Romney when he lived in MA and ran for office, are concentrated in the large Republican districts in southeastern NH.  Romney's national headquarters is in the Boston area, which is directly south of southeastern NH.  Lots of Romeny volunteers and staff helped him in NH and many of those people live in the Boston area.  As seen in other states, Romney does very well the the wealthy.  In NH, the people in southeastern NH tend to be the most wealthy.  Generally, the further north or west you go, the less wealthy the area is in NH.  The places in NH than lean libertarian the most (that have the lowest property taxes and least restrictive local regulations) tend to be very small towns.


Nobody is questioning whether or not Paul *could* be less popular in more heavily populated areas.  Polls don't support that, but polls are polls.  The real question is that if this is true - why does Romney end up with ALL of the projected votes every time.  I completely believe Ron Paul could get less votes in more heavily populated areas...I don't believe that 100% of them would go to Romney.  More likely, I think they'd be spread amongst the other candidates, but that simply isn't the case.

----------


## Mark37snj

> You are right. Here we go for Washoe with 369 precincts split in quintiles.
> 
> Precinct by size
> Gingrich
> Santorum
> Paul
> Romney
> Paul+Romney
> 
> ...





> Some numbers on New Hampshire.
> 
> Breakdown of votes by precincts divided in quintiles in ascending order of number of votes cast.
> 
> 
> Gingrich
> Huntsman
> Paul
> Romney
> ...





> As the person that analyzed the New Hampshire results the most. The chart helps confirm the results, the voting pattern of the state and what was visible on the ground before the election.


This exact same voting pattern was seen in Nevada. We go from Independent dominated NH to Washoe County Nevada and we are seeing the same anomoly. Also, everyone else is holding steady but only Paul drops like a stone from low pop to high pop and only Romney rises from low pop to high pop. It's obvious were just gona half to produce these charts not only for each state but for each county. If these anomolies still hold true then there can be no doubt that demographics and location or whatever have nothing to do with what we are seeing.

----------


## affa

> As the person that analyzed the New Hampshire results the most, a months long grassroots activist in NH and an official activist in NH, I'd like to say a few things.
> 
> SNIP


You are missing one important concept in your analysis.   

Anyone seeking to engage in voter fraud is only going to 'exaggerate' the numbers.   What I mean by this is you don't switch the votes for two candidates in precincts known to be 'strongholds' for your opponent.   You also don't take 100% of the vote; you try to maintain numbers that seem reasonable if you look at them.

Thus, the exaggeration would be done in areas commonly perceived to be the benefactor's strong areas.  In this case, that conveniently happens to be perceived by many as 'larger precincts', even if other analysis in this thread has seemingly disproved this assumption.

Your explanation certainly accounts for why someone might do better in one area, than another.  There is no doubt this will happen.   However, as others have said, the numbers shouldn't so clearly be going from one specific candidate to another specific candidate in what was a 6 man race at that point.

That the divergence happens in areas where one might assume Romney will do better certainly 'hides' the problem, but in no way proves something shady isn't going on.

----------


## Keith and stuff

It was a 30 man race in NH and AFAIK, only Paul had people as poll watchers.  There were 14 Democrats running in NH and AFAIK, there were no Democrat poll watchers.  Where do you think the poll watchers where?  If there was fraud in NH in these areas, the campaign would know about it.

I understand that some people are claiming fraud in IA, SC, NV and ME.  However, I've never seen anyone to claim as such for NH.  I've certainly seen no evidence.  Additionally, not only Paul but also Santorum and and Gingrich did worse in the larger districts in the southeastern part of NH.  It looks like Huntsman also did worse in those districts.  Those districts tend to be Manchester 'burbs, Nashua 'burbs and than large Republican towns north of Boston.  That is solid Romney county.

----------


## Liberty1789

Some more illustration:



A vote flipper is at work. It is a fact.

If it is a socioeconomic factor, it must explain why it is massively affects some candidates (Paul, Romney always, Bachman and Perry in Iowa), and not at all others (Gingrich, Santorum always, Huntsman in Iowa). Good luck.

----------


## Mark37snj

> To get an indirect sense of the impact of precinct size on Ron Paul's voters, I have calculated his average CNN entrance/exit polling by urban type (includes IA, NH, SC, FL)
> 
> Overall
> 16%
> 
> Urban
> 17%
> 
> Suburban
> ...


Just to put everything close on the thread for easy reference.

EDIT: Nice work again Liberty1789 on the new graphs

----------


## Mark37snj

> It was a 30 man race in NH and AFAIK, only Paul had people as poll watchers.  There were 14 Democrats running in NH and AFAIK, there were no Democrat poll watchers.  Where do you think the poll watchers where?  If there was fraud in NH in these areas, the campaign would know about it.
> 
> I understand that some people are claiming fraud in IA, SC, NV and ME.  However, I've never seen anyone to claim as such for NH.  I've certainly seen no evidence.  Additionally, not only Paul but also Santorum and and Gingrich did worse in the larger districts in the southeastern part of NH.  It looks like Huntsman also did worse in those districts.  Those districts tend to be Manchester 'burbs, Nashua 'burbs and than large Republican towns north of Boston.  That is solid Romney county.


You are really missing the point. You can't see this fraud, it is happening electronically. There are no thugs, no dumping of ballots, just electrons and computer codes.

----------


## chri5opher

//

----------


## Mark37snj

> How long do you think before we have enough evidence to take this somewhere? 
> 
> I know it's a lot of work, but can this be done for primary thus far?


Hard to say. Looks like we needs charts for every state so far as well as ones for representative counties in each state. Right now we only got Liberty1789 on charts. He is doing awsome but I suspect he is still only human.    More chart makers would help greatly. The reason why these charts are important is because the original author did not run these types of analysis and as you can see they are very telling.

EDIT: We are also not sure as to what other material he has and has not done.

----------


## chri5opher

//

----------


## Mark37snj

> I know it's 30 pages long already, but is anyone else surprised this thread isn't more popular? Not many people seem to be posting
> 
> this is HUGEE.


Well it's had 7,916 views so people are checking it over.

----------


## bcreps85

> I know it's 30 pages long already, but is anyone else surprised this thread isn't more popular? Not many people seem to be posting
> 
> this is HUGEE.


I imagine people are reading it without posting...trying to jump into a conversation like this that is 30 pages long is kind of difficult without new, or at least interesting information.  Most threads like this have people calling the OP conspiracy theorist and stuff though...I'm kind of surprised that this thread is completely devoid of that type of talk...

----------


## bbwarfield

No ones contesting nh hand counted ballots..... We're concerned about electronic algorithm that does something odd in results when precincts hit a certain number.... In the past it meant nothing cause "larger places have electronic voting, smaller have hand ballots.... It's a demographics issue not a machine conspiracy" BUT we have south Carolina this year..... 100% electronic voting! So now we can prove what historically has been taken for granted...... Just check large hand counted precincts... If they do a flip... Then ya.... It's just a weird Anamoly.... If they don't? Your looking at a theory with a little teeth

----------


## affa

> If there was fraud in NH in these areas, the campaign would know about it.


Not if it was being done in the manner we are currently discussing... and not until this statistical analysis began to happen.   If what we are seeing is in fact fraud, which it sure looks like, no one on the ground would be able to see it unless they had visible access to each and every vote being placed.  That's the beauty of the technique being used -- it's hard to see without analysis of the data... but fortunately, they used such primitive algorithms that it's quite obvious when you look at the data. 

But really, it sounds like you're taking NH personally, and the vast majority of what we are discussing is not about NH.   You keep stating it was technically a 30 man race as if this matters... but first, most of those candidates were statistically insignificant - and second, if anything, the more people in the race, the less we should see all votes from one candidate suddenly going to another candidate (but rather, a spread) based on precinct size.    




> I understand that some people are claiming fraud in IA, SC, NV and ME. However, I've never seen anyone to claim as such for NH. I've certainly seen no evidence


Well, that's because we're trying to uncover the evidence in this very thread.

----------


## kathy88

> I know it's 30 pages long already, but is anyone else surprised this thread isn't more popular? Not many people seem to be posting
> 
> this is HUGEE.


Change your settings. It's only 8 pages long in my world.

----------


## bbwarfield

Okay.... Homework.... What county did Romney come in second in nh where electronic voting was used? Find this and we fine something we can create a chart off of to start with

----------


## Mark37snj

> Just check large hand counted precincts... If they do a flip... Then ya.... It's just a weird Anamoly.... If they don't? Your looking at a theory with a little teeth


I wouldn't dismiss hand ballots too fast. When those hand counted ballots are reported in those results can still be subjected to the algorithm.

EDIT: Do we have an Iowa graph?

----------


## Mark37snj

//

----------


## bbwarfield

> I wouldn't dismiss hand ballots too fast. When those hand counted ballots are reported in those results can still be subjected to the algorithm.


As pointed out there were poll watchers in nh..... All numbers should have and probably were been double checked between counting,reporting, posting at precinct, final reporting....... I agree some could have been but it would be the equivelant of the special night caucus in Nevada.... Too many people watched... Too many people counted.... Too many people double checked after the count..... Only thing you can double check on a voting machine is if it has the same amount of votes as the amount of people who came in the door

----------


## Keith and stuff

> As pointed out there were poll watchers in nh..... All numbers should have and probably were been double checked between counting,reporting, posting at precinct, final reporting....... I agree some could have been but it would be the equivelant of the special night caucus in Nevada.... Too many people watched... Too many people counted.... Too many people double checked after the count..... Only thing you can double check on a voting machine is if it has the same amount of votes as the amount of people who came in the door


Of course, when a candidate outperforms the polls and does about what the exit polls show, that should mean something.  http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/nh

It seems like if there was voter fraud in NH, which there is zero sign of, it didn't change the order.

----------


## Mark37snj

> As pointed out there were poll watchers in nh..... All numbers should have and probably were been double checked between counting,reporting, posting at precinct, final reporting....... I agree some could have been but it would be the equivelant of the special night caucus in Nevada.... Too many people watched... Too many people counted.... Too many people double checked after the count..... Only thing you can double check on a voting machine is if it has the same amount of votes as the amount of people who came in the door


Yeah, but we can't even get hand counted cauces results for a small state like Maine let alone Nevada.

----------


## bbwarfield

Iowa was bungled.... but at least hand counted (notice we actually caught stuff?) NH hand counted (watched by poll watchers) AND electronic (who can tell?) South Carolina ALL electronic (who can tell) Florida (we didnt care cause our guy didnt have a dog in the fight.... but same as NH... mixed bag of counting styles)  Nevada (gate-gate anyone?) but mostly hand counted and semi verifiable..... Maine hand counted (and that dam spam mail box!)

New Hampshire and Florida are the two places the smoking guns can be found... the others the trail went cold (sc is 100% electronic...cant be verified by physical ballots) or someone has tampered with the evidence so it would be completely inconclusive (Nevada...Maine)

----------


## Mark37snj

> Iowa was bungled.... but at least hand counted (notice we actually caught stuff?) NH hand counted (watched by poll watchers) AND electronic (who can tell?) South Carolina ALL electronic (who can tell) Florida (we didnt care cause our guy didnt have a dog in the fight.... but same as NH... mixed bag of counting styles)  Nevada (gate-gate anyone?) but mostly hand counted and semi verifiable..... Maine hand counted (and that dam spam mail box!)
> 
> New Hampshire and Florida are the two places the smoking guns can be found... the others the trail went cold (sc is 100% electronic...cant be verified by physical ballots) or someone has tampered with the evidence so it would be completely inconclusive (Nevada...Maine)


Well until we get a complete analysis of all states/counties/precincts with all ballots, mixed ballots/electronic, and all electronic we won't know for certain where all the rigging is taking place. Plus it will be very helpful to have them for comparison. If say it was only electronic machines in polling locations then we could compare it to a state that was all ballots and a mixed state. We really need a complete professional analysis by a credible company.

EDIT: I wonder what that would cost? Maybe even a chipin could handle it.

----------


## chri5opher

//

----------


## bbwarfield

http://www.scmagazine.com/electronic...rticle/104145/ ever wonder how a state did the opposite of the polls? happend.... 2008.... hillar vs. Obama.... seems to be the kinda things youd expect to see in a two man race but would notice in a two man. Did Barack Obama only have support from rural areas?

----------


## FrancisMarion

Can somebody give me some help with importing these "delimited" files from the SC election commission.  XLS.

http://www.enr-scvotes.org/SC/36831/...n/reports.html

I typed in all of the Anderson County 08 data by hand....  Its hell.  I need to be able to open them properly without seeing that "code"!  I feel like I'm spinning my wheels here. There has to be a quicker way.

----------


## affa

> http://www.scmagazine.com/electronic...rticle/104145/ ever wonder how a state did the opposite of the polls? happend.... 2008.... hillar vs. Obama.... seems to be the kinda things youd expect to see in a two man race but would notice in a two man. Did Barack Obama only have support from rural areas?


Yea,  Dennis Kuchinich called for a recount in New Hampshire in 2008 because of massive disparity between hand counted votes and electronic votes between Obama and Hillary Clinton.   I don't remember what came out of that, though I know most news sources seemed to ridicule him because he only had 2% of the vote, and they seemed to imply he thought he won or something, when in fact, he wasn't talking about his own votes.

Anyway, point is, there is some history of suspected vote flipping in New Hampshire.

Here's another article on it:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5544

from that link:
    Clinton Optical scan 91,717 52.95%
    Obama Optical scan 81,495 47.05%

    Clinton Hand-counted 20,889 47.05%
    Obama Hand-counted 23,509 52.95%

----------


## bbwarfield

how do you upload a file on here?

----------


## bbwarfield

I have the county with Keene NH in a spreadsheet.....Paul was in Keene ALOT from what i saw... and its a fairly rural area compared to Manchester Nashua area... but still enough of a population to use some electronic machines

----------


## Mark37snj

> http://www.scmagazine.com/electronic...rticle/104145/ ever wonder how a state did the opposite of the polls? happend.... 2008.... hillar vs. Obama.... seems to be the kinda things youd expect to see in a two man race but would notice in a two man. Did Barack Obama only have support from rural areas?


Thats a nice article. They tried to say demographics was the reason for the vote descrepency. We already showed precinct size was bunk so were gona half to focus on what Paul Fan started.




> Can somebody give me some help with importing these "delimited" files from the SC election commission.  XLS.
> 
> http://www.enr-scvotes.org/SC/36831/...n/reports.html
> 
> I typed in all of the Anderson County 08 data by hand....  Its hell.  I need to be able to open them properly without seeing that "code"!  I feel like I'm spinning my wheels here. There has to be a quicker way.


Thats the problem I was having. I gave up, your a better man then I. Would it be possible for someone to open it with a new version of Excel then save it in a way compatible with older versions of Excel?

----------


## Keith and stuff

> I have the county with Keene NH in a spreadsheet.....Paul was in Keene ALOT from what i saw... and its a fairly rural area compared to Manchester Nashua area... but still enough of a population to use some electronic machines


Paul went to Keene State College one time.  That's it.  Off the top of my head, here is how Cheshire County went.  12 towns and 1 city Romney, 8 towns Paul and 2 town Huntsman.  None of the large districts were in Cheshire County.  The largest districts were likely Swanzey and then maybe the 5 wards in Keene and perhaps Rindge and Jaffrey or another town.  Swanzey went to Romney.  Most of the wards went to Romney.  Paul won Ward 2.  Huntsman may have won a ward.  Rindge and Jaffrey went to Romney.
http://www.google.com/elections/ed/u...gop-primary/nh

----------


## chri5opher

//

----------


## FrancisMarion

> I have the newest version of Excel, but i'm not sure what your problem is. it looks like it's already in the 'old' excel format, not .xlsx


Its like its code for web browsing.  Try the CSV Summary: not a problem.  But looking at precinct details, not so easy.  Gotta be a way.

----------


## Mark37snj

> I have the newest version of Excel, but i'm not sure what your problem is. it looks like it's already in the 'old' excel format, not .xlsx


Well I got Excel 2000 and it won't work.

EDIT: Yeah that file type works, CVS, but it does not have the data needed. Why would someone save files like that?

----------


## bbwarfield

Are you sure he didnt go to keene more than once? maybe i saw more coverage... but I went to school in Dulbin and have relatives in Keene. 

on excel... there are four file types on that web site.... you may need to try each one to figure out wich one is best for you.

But how do i upload NEW home made stuff on here?

----------


## chri5opher

//

----------


## FrancisMarion

> Are you sure he didnt go to keene more than once? maybe i saw more coverage... but I went to school in Dulbin and have relatives in Keene. 
> 
> on excel... there are four file types on that web site.... you may need to try each one to figure out wich one is best for you.
> 
> But how do i upload NEW home made stuff on here?


yea there is a .csv summary that aint worth a $#@!, an .xml file that is for the web, a .txt file that aint worth a $#@!, and an excel file that is gobbledegook.

As far as you uploading, do you have the capability to save your work as a jpeg?  If not, pm me.  I have all the tools to help you on this end.

----------


## Mark37snj

chri5opher - Yeah that looks good, it does not look at all what I get. Your version of Excel is compatible with it. The one file type my Excel can handle, CSV, does not have much data, just the final total.

EDIT: I GOTS to upgrade my computer, this is just getting ridiculous. My Excel does not have any of those features.

----------


## chri5opher

//

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Are you sure he didnt go to keene more than once? maybe i saw more coverage... but I went to school in Dulbin and have relatives in Keene.


It is possible that he had a secret meeting in Keene that he told no one about   He also went to Peterborough and other places in the state like Concord, Manchester and Nashua.

----------


## bbwarfield

> It is possible that he had a secret meeting in Keene that he told no one about   He also went to Peterborough and other places in the state like Concord, Manchester and Nashua.


secret meeting! that was it...lol.... no it was just the one but i heard about it several times and there was some OWS thing... O'reilly did that radio show from keene maybe? the one that they announced we wouldnt be included in his poll?

----------


## Mark37snj

> is there a particular file type from this list that you would like? I'm happy to help, however small it may be.


The one I can open is CSV comma delimited. Don't see it on the list.

----------


## FrancisMarion

Sorry for the aside here folks:  

Chris, when you have that open what are the properties of the file please?

----------


## chri5opher

//

----------


## Mark37snj

> here's a google doc for you -- i assume you can handle that?
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...VRXSnlsNF9ScVE
> you talking to me? if so, i don't know what properties you are talking about



I was able to save it as Excel file and it works fine, THANKS!

EDIT: If you can do the same with the precinct one for Greenville County I would be much obliged there partner.

----------


## FrancisMarion

> here's a google doc for you -- i assume you can handle that?
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...VRXSnlsNF9ScVE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you talking to me? if so, i don't know what properties you are talking about


that's great, but those aren't precints, those are counties.  need precincts

nevermind dude

----------


## bbwarfield

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...WTmRQWmc#gid=0

precincts for Greenville county... have at it

----------


## bbwarfield

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...FSnhwclE#gid=0

Cheshire County New Hampshire


no analysis these are just raw numbers by precints (or towns/wards) but its the raw data

i took out anyone under 1% so vermin a perry are gone

----------


## Mark37snj

> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...WTmRQWmc#gid=0
> 
> precincts for Greenville county... have at it


 It said I had to request permission.

EDIT: THANKS

----------


## bbwarfield

> It said I had to request permission.


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...0JOaFZWTmRQWmc
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...nFjb2lFSnhwclE

fixed... dang computers

----------


## affa

> Some numbers on New Hampshire.
> 
> Breakdown of votes by precincts divided in quintiles in ascending order of number of votes cast.
> 
> 
> Gingrich
> Huntsman
> Paul
> Romney
> ...


Out of curiosity, if we 'undo' the possible vote flipping at the hinge point, what would the final tally be?  If there is a way to identify and remove hand counted precincts, all the better.

----------


## bbwarfield

> Out of curiosity, if we 'undo' the possible vote flipping at the hinge point, what would the final tally be?  If there is a way to identify and remove hand counted precincts, all the better.


im having difficulty getting excel to figure out what i want... so everything i wanna see id have to write down and retype....ugg.    I think this would be a two day weekend with five people around copmuters to break it all down.... but we are looking at is something that took one punk 10 minutes to write and implement..... sucks to be the good guys

----------


## FrancisMarion

AIKEN COUNTY 12'.  

This is first one I have done since my manual entry of Anderson County 2008'.  FYI, had to download trial version of MS Office.  My old Excel 2000 wasn't cutting it.

The top chart are the #'s that represent the line graphs below.  I'll do some more SC Counties tomorrow if anyone has a request.




Still working and ruminating.  I think these tell us that Romney took votes from all the others in the higher pop. precincts

----------


## invisible

> We all know the other canidates may all be in it together and not protest except maybe Newt. But what about the other canidates forums. I'm sure there are *Santorum supporters that would froth* at the mouth over this.


LMAO!  Was this wording intentional?  Haven't read through this point to the end of the thread yet, but I'm wondering who else caught this one.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...FSnhwclE#gid=0
> 
> Cheshire County New Hampshire
> 
> 
> no analysis these are just raw numbers by precints (or towns/wards) but its the raw data
> 
> i took out anyone under 1% so vermin a perry are gone


All of the NH data is on the Sec of State's website, http://www.sos.nh.gov/presprim2012/index.htm

Vermin is running as a Democrat this time around.

----------


## affa

> AIKEN COUNTY 12'.  
> 
> Still working and ruminating.  I think these tell us that Romney took votes from all the others in the higher pop. precincts


I think this chart tells us a lot.

Let's start with the basics: what your data shows in Aiken is one of two things:

1) If not fraud: A more natural case of what should happen when one candidate starts siphoning votes in a multi-candidate race.   That is, they take from everyone.  This makes some amount of sense - certainly far more than the 1:1 'vote flipping' we are seeing in most places.

2) If fraud: A slightly more intelligent application of voter fraud that is harder to identify, and harder to prove, because it's not nearly as obvious.  If this were the case everywhere, we likely wouldn't be having this discussion because it would be far, far harder to prove malfeasance.  If all charts looked like this, it's quite possible the author of the original report wouldn't have bothered to write an essay on it, chalking it up to natural voter activity.

BUT... and this is a big, Sir Mix A Lot sized but:

The existence of both of these charts is actually pretty good circumstantial evidence both are fraudulent.    

Why? 

Let's first assume that this chart is legit and fraud free.  If that is the case, then we see what we might have assumed would be the case -  one candidate siphons approximately equally from all other candidates. 

That tells us that where there is 1:1 siphoning we are seeing fraud, because 1:1 isn't what happens (which is obvious on its face, but what we're trying to prove in this thread). So, if we assume this chart isn't fraud, and that siphoning should spread out among all other contenders in all cases, we can establish that 1:1 in so many other cases is statistically impossible and fraudulent.

But in turn, the 1:1 charts tell us this chart is also fraud.  Because they show us that when vote flipping is 1:1, untouched candidates (usually but not always Santorum and Gingrich) don't waver and can be predicted with deadly precision.   Yet here we see all three 'gifting' votes to Romney, none of them following their predictive line.  And since we know from 1:1 vote flipping that unaltered candidates don't waver and are predictable, that means all of these are 'altered'.

So to be clear:

1) This shows that the 1:1 examples are almost certainly vote flipping and statistically improbable, if not impossible, especially at the frequency we see them.
2) The 1:1 vote flipping examples show us that non-altered candidates should be predictable. 

Thus both, taken together, effectively tell us BOTH are fraud.

You can bet your bottom dollar future algorithms will all do something more like this, which is why we absolutely NEED to break this wide open while we can.

----------


## bbwarfield

> All of the NH data is on the Sec of State's website, http://www.sos.nh.gov/presprim2012/index.htm
> 
> Vermin is running as a Democrat this time around.


yes thanks for posting the link..... this is where i got the numbers from. Remeber that the vote totals are based only on those in the chart. so if you go on and see them missing votes from the county or town total this is the reason. Candidate totals are accurate

----------


## Mark37snj

> AIKEN COUNTY 12'.  
> Still working and ruminating.  I think these tell us that Romney took votes from all the others in the higher pop. precincts


Nice work!!! Also this proves that this anomoly is not left over code. These results are situaitional, they are changing from state to state. I'm not totally sure but I don't think each state has their own electronic voting machines, rather one company has them and transports them from state to state and _"sets"_ them up. There is gona be more then one algorithym to figure out, granted they are probably almost exatctly the same but with minor differences. 




> LMAO!  Was this wording intentional?  Haven't read through this point to the end of the thread yet, but I'm wondering who else caught this one.


Yeah it is. I have been refraining from calling the other canidates by their slang names cause a mod asked people not to, but I was in withdrawn and HAD to get one in some way some how. 




> FYI, had to download trial version of MS Office. My old Excel 2000 wasn't cutting it.


Thanks for the heads up. I saw that free trial as I was checking out if I can possible eek out enough to buy it from BestBuy. Gone go download it now.

EDIT: Downloaded the new Office with Excel. 0000000000000000000000H, its shiney!!!!

EDIT 2.0: I'm having to learn Excel all over again but I'm making progress

----------


## bbwarfield

Francis Marions chart shows a county that Romney was in 2nd from the start to the end.... and no where within (what are we calling it? flipping distance? striking distance?) of the leader.

If I wrote the algorithm i would make sure it never flipped over a certain threshold.... say 7.5-10% and Newt and Romney never made it within those numbers

----------


## Mark37snj

> Francis Marions chart shows a county that Romney was in 2nd from the start to the end.... and no where within (what are we calling it? flipping distance? striking distance?) of the leader.
> 
> If I wrote the algorithm i would make sure it never flipped over a certain threshold.... say 7.5-10% and Newt and Romney never made it within those numbers


Yeah the machines don't know what the election day polls and final vote tally is. And most notebly, becaue the polling is so volatile these machines have to be programmed and set up in advance so the code has to be set and ready regardless. In this case it didn't help Romney finish better but there was no way on knowing that in advance. If Gringrich had made a real goof then there might have been an opportunity for Romney and the machines had to be prepared to take advantage of the situaition in advance if it occured. No goof did happen and Romeny was not helped. We can surmise that because the flipping took from all 3 of the other canidates that the code was set at a time when Romeny knew he needed as many votes as possible and had to take votes from all 3 of the other canidates. Situaitional and different from the other states.

----------


## affa

> Yeah the machines don't know what the election day polls and final vote tally is. And most notebly, becaue the polling is so volatile these machines have to be programmed and set up in advance so the code has to be set and ready regardless. In this case it didn't help Romney finish better but there was no way on knowing that in advance. If Gringrich had made a real goof then there might have been an opportunity for Romney and the machines had to be prepared to take advantage of the situaition in advance if it occured. No goof did happen and Romeny was not helped. We can surmise that because the flipping took from all 3 of the other canidates that the code was set at a time when Romeny knew he needed as many votes as possible and had to take votes from all 3 of the other canidates. Situaitional and different from the other states.


This could technically be occurring post-individual machine, could it not?  Also, the multi-theft may simply be in place as an advanced form of hiding manipulation.   i agree with bbwarfield that anyone spending time developing an advanced algorithm would make it threshold based to keep it less obvious.   Thus, stealing from all would solve multiple problems at the same time, while securing a stronger 2nd.  

We'd need to compare this situation to where 1:1 flipped Huckabee and Romney, which if I remember correctly also secured Romney second, but without multi-theft.   

My gut tells me we're seeing an evolution here, in addition to being situational.

----------


## Mark37snj

> This could technically be occurring post-individual machine, could it not?  Also, the multi-theft may simply be in place as an advanced form of hiding manipulation.   i agree with bbwarfield that anyone spending time developing an advanced algorithm would make it threshold based to keep it less obvious.   Thus, stealing from all would solve multiple problems at the same time, while securing a stronger 2nd.  
> 
> We'd need to compare this situation to where 1:1 flipped Huckabee and Romney, which if I remember correctly also secured Romney second, but without multi-theft.   
> 
> My gut tells me we're seeing an evolution here, in addition to being situational.


Well he is the gist. If it was happening afterwards then what is the criteria for them to flip the votes? If it would have made no difference in the election as it appears to be the case here then why risk it. It also was not like they were flipping to say hurt Ron. They took from all 3 of the other canidates and just gave Romney a little extra distance from the pack. Flipping here was a wasted effort. So was the flipping determined before election day in the machines programming or was it determined after. If it was done after and they realized it would not make any difference in the results then why do it. As far as the advance hiding the information, well it does have the advantage of keeping things consistent so nothing jumps out, but its still so subtle the hinding would really only be seen in the math. And if someone went to the math, like we are, then its worthless. It may have something to do with keeping the final tallies in line with the polls, who knows. I'm not gona put too much effort into thinking more then 2 steps into the hypotheticl realm of what their motivation/agenda is, each level increases the possibilites exponentially, this is how people lose it. 

EDIT: They also may have decided to still do it afterwards to give Romeny a boost so he didn't get completly clobbered by Newt.

EDIT 2.0: That threshold sounds really intersting. We needs lots and lots of data. If it is there we can sniff out atleast the general conditions for when it kicks in but we need lots and lots of data. I may be wrong on the amount of data needed, I hope I am, but for now I need lots and lots of coffee and time to give it some thought.

----------


## Liberty1789

I have finished processing all NH counties.

It is jaw-dropping. Again.



Is *artificial* vote flipping occuring in some counties? Anything anomalous? What do you think?

If Paul's campaign was to spend the entirety of its last money bomb on this, I would understand.

----------


## chri5opher

//

----------


## chris41336

h


> I have finished processing all NH counties.
> 
> It is jaw-dropping. Again.
> 
> 
> 
> Is *artificial* vote flipping occuring in some counties? Anything anomalous? What do you think?
> 
> 
> If Paul's campaign was to spend the entirety of its last money bomb on this, I would understand.


Hm. Why does Santorum and Huntsman show something similar in that bottom right county.

----------


## Liberty1789

Another extremely important point given numbers in IA, NV and NH: the vote flipping phenomenon appears in the largest counties of the state in which the election is held: *it takes a much more populous county in NH than in NV for the flipping to be triggered*.

----------


## bbwarfield

Liberty 1789.... could you show your methodology? I think its clear something is going on (anyone could see that) but its not the same format as earlier data... so could you explain the methodology a little so we can choose a best way of presenting and we dont have fifty ways of doing this with slightly different results?

on thing i noticed is you show percentage of vote while the original was using projected total vote.... yours shows volatility at the bottom but a clear trend..... but a extremely pronounced flip..... his would show it as the vote grew in the variance of the projected.... i think.... but just some clarification

----------


## Mark37snj

> So there are three demographics-based hypotheses as to why the small (low-vote) precincts may not be representative:
> 
> 1. The precinct voters are mostly young, so they don't vote (total votes are low) except for Ron Paul (who does well, out of proportion); and/or
> 2. The precinct voters are mostly Democrats and Independents, so they don't vote in the Republican primary (total votes are low), except for Ron Paul; and/or
> 3. The precinct voters are mostly men (military base or prison?)....
> 
> There was a fourth hypothesis that urban and rural precincts might perform differently, but this has been disproved by Liberty1789. 
> 
> So we need to look closely at the small-vote precincts and assess whether one or more of these remaining hypotheses are plausible.
> ...





> Which of these explains why all votes not cast for Paul go to Romney and only Romney?





> It is easier to detect this type of manipulation in smaller groups, so they only did it in large precincts.  That's what the data seems to say, anyway.  The flip is weird, and it is there.  I'm wondering if some of you have really understood the graphs and read the original paper.





> Just for clarification: I understand the analysis and think that it is suspicious. The fact that only 2 out of the 4 candidates are affected is particularly suspicious.
> 
> What I am trying to do is anticipate objections from people who do NOT understand the paper, and show that none of these factors explain a discrepancy between low-vote and high-vote precincts.





> Thanks for the clarification and nothing wrong with that (writer of paper made quite a few objections too), but I think some other people are confused.  I don't think the last graph helped with that for anyone who didn't look at the first.





> 1) The only area where you would find this to be true is around colleges but they are way outnumbered. There are far more small precincts then there are college precincts.
> 2) It's too selective a criteria to be applicable across all the states we are seeing.
> 3) The same as 1, there are not enough small military precincts. Some states like SC may have alot, but not Florida, NH, and Iowa
> 
> It is gona be really hard if not impossible to find a smoking gun demographic to explain the disparagies between small precincts and large precincts across all the states. Each states small precinct demographics changes complared to the other states and the more states we analyse and see this disparagy the harder it will get.
> 
> Using programming code you can create any kind of voter crossover you want. You can create one that occurs over a short range of pricinct size, or one that occurs over a very large range of precinct sizes. The key will be the consistency of the crossovers across all precincts. The only way to combat that through programming is to program the demographics into each and every voting machine.





> I agree. But I would like to undertake the exercise so that we could respond with facts, rather than suppositions, to someone who suggests one of these hypotheses as an objection. So instead of saying, that is probably not the explanation, we could say, we've checked the demographic composition of the small-vote precincts and they aren't different from other precincts, eg they aren't located on college campuses. To me, hard data is way more convincing than suppositions. I don't have the skills to do these investigations on my own, unfortunately.





> It is not that hard. 
> Step one: identify the *low-vote precincts* by name/designation. 
> Step 2: map them, and correlate the map data with the locations of residential *colleges, military bases, and prisons* (to address hypotheses 1 and 3)
> Step 3: look at *voter registration* data for those precincts to see if some are skewed *democratic/independent* (to address hypothesis 2)
> 
> All of these steps are doable.


Ok, I rounded up all the relevant quotes here so we can clarify what were doing and how to do it.

Plz remember that this is to *DEBUNK* what others might say to use as an excuse to discredit the original authors and our findings. However, finding are findings and they will have to be accepted and explored further if necessary regardless of which side they come down on.

If you have any suggestions of demographics we should add/remove from the list, how to find them, sort them, etc plz jump right in, all opinions are welcomed.

Current potential list - colleges, miliitary bases, prisons, independent/democratic voter registration

For consideration - elderly populations/communities, retirement/convelescent homes. Kind of the reverse so we can explain high vote areas

EDIT:Nice work *AGAIN* Liberty1789!!!

----------


## Mark37snj

> I have finished processing all NH counties.
> 
> It is jaw-dropping. Again.
> 
> 
> 
> Is *artificial* vote flipping occuring in some counties? Anything anomalous? What do you think?
> 
> If Paul's campaign was to spend the entirety of its last money bomb on this, I would understand.


Coots County - Low turnout county, at 2.5K votes, votes are flipped from Paul to Romney, but really not convincingly at such low pops and may just be variation.

Grafton County - At 2.5K votes, votes are flipped from Paul to Romeny and appears to wind down and stop flipping at 4K. At 7K votes are flipped from Paul to Huntsman. At 13K votes, votes are flipped from Paul and Gingrich to Huntsman.

Merrimack County - At 4K votes, votes are flipped from Paul to Romeny and increasing in rate the higher the vote totals.

Hillborough - At 10-13K votes, vote flipping from Paul to Romeny

*EDIT*: This vote flipping progam is fairly sophisticated. Look at Coots Romney/Paul at 2.5K and Grafton Romney/Paul at 4K. Look very similar, but the canidates are in opposite positions. (Also Merrimack at 7K) It's keeping both of them close to each other. At low vote totals it keeps both of them close to each other and at high vote totals it just flips them. I would like to see Grafton charted but only up to the first 5K votes.

*Im kinda seeing a pattern here*, I will be editing while I'm fiddling with it. Are there corrections going on at a consistent rate? The amount in (  ) when added to the correction target value seems to point to the next spot where I am seeing potential corrections and the (  ) is doubled and added to that correction target value, etc.

2.5K + (1.5K)  Coots correction
4.0K    + (3.0K)  Grafton correction
7.0K    + (6.0K)  Merrimack correction
13.0K  + (12K)   Grafton/Merrimack/Hillborough correction
25.0K  + (24K)   After the 13K point either the charts can't distinguish anymore corrections or a different phase of the program has kicked
49.0K  + (48K)  in, the straight 1:1 Flipper (with possible adding).
97.0K  + (96K)

There may be a maximum % separation allowed. 5% seems to be the max separation allowed until the 18-19.5K Flipper is activated.
13.0K/2 = 6.5K, 13.0K + 6.5K = 19.5K, 18.0K also seems it may be important, (3.0K)*(6.0K) = 18.0K
18.0K or 19.5K - Hillborough/Merrimack potentially where the second phase Flipper begins?

Can anyone give me some input on this potential pattern?

----------


## Valli6

> http://www.scmagazine.com/electronic...rticle/104145/ ever wonder how a state did the opposite of the polls? happend.... 2008.... hillar vs. Obama.... seems to be the kinda things youd expect to see in a two man race but would notice in a two man. Did Barack Obama only have support from rural areas?


Diebold's spokesman was named Chris Rig-all? 



> Chris Riggall, spokesman for Diebold's Premier Election Systems, which manufactures the voting machines, said the machines produce a paper trail, which would help rule out any allegations of misconduct.
> 
> You can examine them to your heart's content and address these types of issues, Riggall told SCMagazineUS.com today. We think a recount would be a wonderful thing from the standpoint of confirming what we're very confident is an accurate result.

----------


## Mark37snj

> h
> 
> Hm. Why does Santorum and Huntsman show something similar in that bottom right county.


Color bars looked fixed now.

----------


## S.Shorland

I agree Liberty and others should show their workings and sources (we really need experts involved right away,who will do their own work).On the bright side,Paul's credentials as the anti-Romney are indisputable.They repel eachother like same magnet poles!

----------


## Forty Twice

From the GreenvilleCountyPrecincts.xls spreadsheet distributed last night I have done some analysis.  Instead of precinct size, I used % Turnout as independent variable (100 x Total Votes Tallied / Registered Voters).  I suppose precinct size in earlier discussions has been Reg Voters / Precinct but it could be Votes Tallied / Precinct.  I can't recall where that was defined.  Here is some information about populations of Precinct Reg Voters, Precinct Tallied Votes, and Precinct Turnout.



                                                  Reg Voters in Precinct                     Votes Tallied in Precinct                  %Turnout
Average                                             1842                                             491                                          26.6%
Std Deviation                                       453                                             218                                           10.1%
% Average/Std Deviation                       24.6%                                         44.4%                                       38%

Max                                                 2834                                            993                                             45.3%
Min                                                   606                                              17                                               1.0%

I converted tallied votes per candidate by precinct into % Precinct Vote per candidate by precinct.  Then plotted each candidate's % Precinct Vote vs Precinct Turnout.  It is obvious that Paul performed much better than Romney in low turnout precincts and their relative support swapped as precinct turnout increased.  Santorum and Gingrich are not noticeably affected by precinct turnout.

I would have thought that independents and cross-over Democrats would cause higher turnout and therefore better results for Paul in high turnout precincts.  This is obviously not the case.

I do not have an explanation for this graph but thought people would be interested to see the data expressed in this manner.

----------


## bbwarfield

New funky thing..... wouldnt one ASSUME that provisional ballots would be done in an equal % for each candidate? 
these are done when there are voting errors..... in greenville... Romnye had the least amount of provisional ballots... pauls and his seemed flipped
Newt: 117 Paul 72 Santorum 61 and mitt 48

newt 1st place paul 4th santorum 3rd mitt 2nd

shouldnt they line up percentage wise? why would paul supporters disproportianately need failsafe provisional ballots?

----------


## kathy88

All of you who are working so hard on this are doing an absolutely fantastic job. With that said, has anyone been in contact with REVpac, or anyone else who may be able to foot the bill to get this to the appropriate number crunchers? And have we determined the best course of action? I'm all about chip ins if we need to. This MUST be done.

----------


## Mark37snj

> All of you who are working so hard on this are doing an absolutely fantastic job. With that said, has anyone been in contact with REVpac, or anyone else who may be able to foot the bill to get this to the appropriate number crunchers? And have we determined the best course of action? I'm all about chip ins if we need to. This MUST be done.


Actually yours and everyone elses support is a very important motivating factor. Don't under estimate it. I think in a few days, maybe Wednesday we will take a reassesment of where were at. We all really want to crunch some more numbers to go on.

----------


## Paul Fan

> From the GreenvilleCountyPrecincts.xls spreadsheet distributed last night I have done some analysis.  Instead of precinct size, I used % Turnout as independent variable (100 x Total Votes Tallied / Registered Voters).  I suppose precinct size in earlier discussions has been Reg Voters / Precinct but it could be Votes Tallied / Precinct.  I can't recall where that was defined.  Here is some information about populations of Precinct Reg Voters, Precinct Tallied Votes, and Precinct Turnout.
> 
> 
> 
>                                                   Reg Voters in Precinct                     Votes Tallied in Precinct                  %Turnout
> Average                                             1842                                             491                                          26.6%
> Std Deviation                                       453                                             218                                           10.1%
> % Average/Std Deviation                       24.6%                                         44.4%                                       38%
> 
> ...


Thank you. I was playing around with these three numbers but you've done the graph I wanted to see.

----------


## Paul Fan

> Ok, I rounded up all the relevant quotes here so we can clarify what were doing and how to do it.
> 
> Plz remember that this is to *DEBUNK* what others might say to use as an excuse to discredit the original authors and our findings. However, finding are findings and they will have to be accepted and explored further if necessary regardless of which side they come down on.
> 
> If you have any suggestions of demographics we should add/remove from the list, how to find them, sort them, etc plz jump right in, all opinions are welcomed.
> 
> Current potential list - colleges, miliitary bases, prisons, independent/democratic voter registration
> 
> For consideration - elderly populations/communities, retirement/convelescent homes. Kind of the reverse so we can explain high vote areas
> ...


There seems to be only one college in Anderson: Anderson University. 
There is a prison: Anderson Detention Center. 
There are masses of nursing homes. 
I haven't looked at military bases yet. 
I haven't found out how to identify how voters are registerd (R, D, I) within a precinct.
I put the college, prison, and some of the nursing homes on a google map. I'm doing it manually because I don't know any other way. 
Now I'm using Google maps to draw the precinct boundaries. It takes forever.  I'm not sure it's worth it. But I'll keep doing it so I can say with more certainty that the precinct turnouts don't appear to vary with locations of any of the above.

----------


## Mark37snj

> There seems to be only one college in Anderson: Anderson University. 
> There is a prison: Anderson Detention Center. 
> There are masses of nursing homes. 
> I haven't looked at military bases yet. 
> I haven't found out how to identify how voters are registerd (R, D, I) within a precinct.
> I put the college, prison, and some of the nursing homes on a google map. I'm doing it manually because I don't know any other way. 
> Now I'm using Google maps to draw the precinct boundaries. It takes forever.  I'm not sure it's worth it. But I'll keep doing it so I can say with more certainty that the precinct turnouts don't appear to vary with locations of any of the above.


Nice, I downloaded the free trial version of Excel so now I can at least work with it. It was simple to take Greenville County and sort it according to precint size, the question is which stat do I use to sort it? Precinct size(population), Registered voters, votes cast, % turnout?

----------


## Paul Fan

> Nice, I downloaded the free trial version of Excel so now I can at least work with it. It was simple to take Greenville County and sort it according to precint size, the question is which stat do I use to sort it? Precinct size(population), Registered voters, votes cast, % turnout?


The original analyst said he did it by votes cast. You will need to add a column per candidate that shows that candidate's cumulative total as each precinct is added, along with a column for the combined total. Then create an X Y scatter graph using the total cumulative votes cast as the X data and each candidates cumulative total as the Y data. Best to remove the minor candidates since they just clutter the graph.

Hope this helps.

----------


## bcreps85

> Actually yours and everyone elses support is a very important motivating factor. Don't under estimate it. I think in a few days, maybe Wednesday we will take a reassesment of where were at. We all really want to crunch some more numbers to go on.


I agree with Wednesday as a major "re-assessment point".  That is when I believe the second meeting with GOP officials in SC is taking place...just the fact that they saw the information and deemed it appropriate to have a second meeting makes me think.  I wonder if they took any of the data to get it independently researched.  In either case, I suspect that meeting will end one of three ways...

1.  Ok, this is interesting...our numbers guys agree.  We are going to look into this.

2.  We can't explain why this is happening, but we *promise* nothing is going on, so please go away.

3.  This is why you are seeing this, <insert plausible debunk here>, and then we do the work to verify whether this accurately debunks the hypothesis and act accordingly.

In both 1 and 2, I think we need to move onward and with 100x more vigor.  Both of those will be a tipping point where it becomes very apparent to the perpetrators that someone is "on to them", and the algorithms will get more complex.  We would absolutely need to make this explode and use it as a catalyst for a voting machine genocide.  If, by chance, it is 3, and the debunk proves accurate, then we drop it and move on.

----------


## bbwarfield

lets get a chatroom private room going.... say around 6:00 tonight? EST ...... we can decide what we want to look at.... crunch numbers and such.... but a little more live

----------


## Mark37snj

> lets get a chatroom private room going.... say around 6:00 tonight? EST ...... we can decide what we want to look at.... crunch numbers and such.... but a little more live


I'm pretty sure I can make it.

----------


## kathy88

Mark I sent u a pm

----------


## chapchap70

I've been following this thread for days now but I haven't had anything to add so I haven't posted.  I can understand what the theory is but I am not adept enough in spreadsheets to help out.  I did try to open some files from SC results that some were having trouble opening with Open Office.  I was unsuccessful.  Keep up the good work.

P.S.  As one person already pointed out, you can change your settings so you can view 40 (I believe) posts per page.  As I post this, I am on page 10 of this thread.

----------


## invisible

For all of you who are having trouble opening the various file types, my suggestion would be to use openoffice.  It's freeware, and is supposedly universal as far as being compatible with all of the various spreadsheet programs.  As I do not understand most of the statistics-based discussion here, I haven't tried it, as analysis of the files is beyond me.

Mark37snj, I haven't been using any of those alternate references because I don't feel any of them are really that worthy.  Remember how this place was 4 years ago?  The one I liked was rudy mcromney.  It always made me think of a clown trying to sell me a hamburger, except that time it was a bunch of guys trying to sell us a turd inside that bun.  None of them since have ever made me laugh like that one did.

edit: Even though the statistical analysis is mostly beyond my understanding, this has probably been the most epic thread for this election cycle!

----------


## S.Shorland

Very interesting site by computer scientists.See the 'verifier map' on the right hand side for voting practices and machinery used per state and precinct (SC no voter verified paper trail machine voting?).
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/index.php

  So when they say 'paper ballot' in Iowa it can mean an optical scan 'Diebold' machine.The paper ballots are retained in the machine and then securely for a time for verification?By whom?

----------


## Mark37snj

> I've been following this thread for days now but I haven't had anything to add so I haven't posted.  I can understand what the theory is but I am not adept enough in spreadsheets to help out.  I did try to open some files from SC results that some were having trouble opening with Open Office.  I was unsuccessful.  Keep up the good work.
> 
> P.S.  As one person already pointed out, you can change your settings so you can view 40 (I believe) posts per page.  As I post this, I am on page 10 of this thread.


Two of us, who were still using an abacus, downloaded the free trial version of Microsoft Office. No problem in opening them now.




> For all of you who are having trouble opening the various file types, my suggestion would be to use openoffice.  It's freeware, and is supposedly universal as far as being compatible with all of the various spreadsheet programs.  As I do not understand most of the statistics-based discussion here, I haven't tried it, as analysis of the files is beyond me.
> 
> Mark37snj, I haven't been using any of those alternate references because I don't feel any of them are really that worthy.  Remember how this place was 4 years ago?  The one I liked was rudy mcromney.  It always made me think of a clown trying to sell me a hamburger, except that time it was a bunch of guys trying to sell us a turd inside that bun.  None of them since have ever made me laugh like that one did.
> 
> edit: Even though the statistical analysis is mostly beyond my understanding, this has probably been the most epic thread for this election cycle!


It's the potential of what it could mean. I have never found myself trying to be so unbiased but at the same time totally convinced we got something here. I so hated Giuliani, Santorum is filling in that role quite nicely this election.




> Very interesting site by computer scientists.See the 'verifier map' on the right hand side for voting practices and machinery used per state and precinct (SC no voter verified paper trail machine voting?).
> http://www.verifiedvoting.org/index.php


I would personaly grow the trees needed to make all elections paper ballots. The good news is that this Genie is coming out of the bottle never to return to it once it does emerge. They have complete control of all aspects of elections, they have been at it for decades. What good are paper ballots if you can't verify them. They should add this to the Freedom of Information Act. If somone is willing to pay what it costs for them to view it, it would take care of that. But we have to rage against the machines first to get rid of them.

----------


## Paul Fan

This thread shows how campaigning in three particular Nevada precincts on the day of the vote took votes from ALL the other candidates:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=Nevada+caucus

I think this is useful to refute the suggestion that extra campaigning by Romney in the large precincts would take votes ONLY from Paul.

----------


## Mark37snj

> This thread shows how campaigning in three particular Nevada precincts on the day of the vote took votes from ALL the other candidates:
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/shocwth...=Nevada+caucus
> 
> I think this is useful to refute the suggestion that extra campaigning by Romney in the large precincts would take votes ONLY from Paul.


Link does not work.

----------


## Mark37snj

> Mark I sent u a pm


You have to clear some stored messages. You've reached your quota.

----------


## FrancisMarion

Alright! I've got a theory.  Some of you will say, "Yes, that's what we knew all along".  However, I think the same way, but the initial graphs were a little jarring and this layman decided to research.

We have seen graphs like this before:  CHARLESTON COUNTY 2012 (My county)


and the other format


We can see the dramatic change in % of votes as the larger precinct results come in.
Below is the same graph but instead based on actual % of voter turnout per precinct.  It looks very much the same.  



So why is this happening?  Well I picked my county because I know the demographics of the county.  Take a look at this screenshot below.



Now I know it is really hard to see but you can if you look closely.  Fact is that the two highlighted row are the two wealthiest precincts in Charleston.  Let me tell you that is wealthy.  Kiawah Island and Seabrook Island.  Not only did they have some of the highest percentage turnout but they voted Romney 71% and 59% respectively while RP garnered 4% and 6%!  As a matter of fact, most of the precincts with the highest turnout are the wealthier areas in the county.  Yep, you guessed it, Romney with flying colors.

Look at this graph below that you have seen, but with voter turnout % overlaid.



Do you see the two white swells at the end?  Notice how Romney moves up 3 % points with those two swells. They are the Kiawah and Seabrook bump.

The variable is the STATUS QUO folks.  I bet if those other "anomalies" are looked at the same way its going to boil down the same situation.
Now this is only one county in the whole USA, but I don't see any fraud folks.  I hope I am right.  Its one thing to have your candidate that you support whole-heartedly with money, time, and other support not win.  Its another to feel that your country's democratic process is a farce.

FWIW, I got some great insight and excel practice looking into this.  Now, I need to go back to work with my woodworking tomorrow.

Respectively off this now,

Swampfox

----------


## Mark37snj

> Alright! I've got a theory.  Some of you will say, "Yes, that's what we knew all along".  However, I think the same way, but the initial graphs were a little jarring and this layman decided to research.
> 
> We have seen graphs like this before:  CHARLESTON COUNTY 2012 (My county)
> 
> 
> and the other format
> 
> 
> We can see the dramatic change in % of votes as the larger precinct results come in.
> ...


1) Well the first thing I noticed was the voter turnout % overlay. Whats going on between 15-25%? No peaks or valleys like the rest of the data. I would check to see what happened there. *HOWEVER*, I see something very interesting going on there. I think your voter turnout % overlay may have just discovered more proof of vote flipping. Paul, Gingrich, and Romney are steady just before the non-undulating area between 15-20%. Then Gingrich and Paul decline while Romeny gains. This is also happening in the area where I noticed a possible consistent vote flipping point at ~13K. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...18#post4196318 I would need to know more about how that flatening was created before I yell YAY.

1.5) After comparing your vote flipping point to mine at the higher values you can see they are not matching up across all graphs. I surmised that after the 13K flipping point around 18-19.5K a different phase of the program might be kicking in. The The algorithym may still chose variable break points depending on programmed parameters especially after the different phase kicks in. However, YOUR voter turnout % overlay may give us a way to pinpoint/predict where the vote flipping point is per graph/precint. The 18-19.5 flipping point seems to show up in all 4 of your graphs. 

2) Your conclusion is still subjective, an opinion with no real data to support it. Your assuming the rich have high turnout. Ok the rich vote, what is the % of rich in the actual voting population? Did they actually show up and vote? If alot of rich did vote making them a high turnout precinct then that still supports what we are saying about most of the flipping going on in high turnout regions, the two bumps you were referring to. And I don't think you can make the rich turnout to vote argument for the rest of the states/counties/precinct. If thats the case then I would yell TAX THE RICH and that would solve our deficit problem.

3) You definitivly showed that the high voter turnout precints is where Romneys magic is happening. I think the best way to determine if the rich voter turnout argument has any traction is to determine what % of high turnout precincts are in rich areas. I would immediately speculate that the highest turnout regions would be where it is crowded, high population density, rich don't like to be crowded. They like big mansions, big yards, and lots of space. I would consider that because of their status they may have a higher turnout % then other classes, but it all comes down to shear numbers. Some kind of study that shows what the % of voters in each economic class actually do vote. Example poor X%, Middle class Y%, Rich Z%.

----------


## FrancisMarion

> 1) Well the first thing I noticed was the voter turnout % overlay. Whats going on between 15-25%? No peaks or valleys like the rest of the data. I would check to see what happened there. *HOWEVER* I see something very interesting going on there. I think your voter turnout % overlay just discovered more proof of vote flipping. Both Gingrich and Romney are steady just before the non-undulating area between 15-20%. Then Gingrich and Paul decline while Romeny gains. This is also happening in the area where I noticed a possible consistent vote flipping point at ~13K. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...18#post4196318 I would need to know more about how that flatening was created before I yell YAY.
> 
> 2) Your conclusion is still subjective, an opinion with no real data to support it. Your assuming the rich have high turnout. Ok the rich vote, what is the % of rich in the actual voting population? Did they actually show up and vote? If alot of rich did vote making them a high turnout precinct then that still supports what we are saying about most of the flipping going on in high turnout regions. And I don't think you can make the rich turnout to vote argument for the rest of the states/counties/precinct. If thats the case then I would yell TAX THE RICH and that would solve our deficit problem.
> 
> 3) The two bumps you referred to also confirm what we believe. The higher the turnout the more votes that are flipped. 
> 
> 4) You definitivly showed that the high voter turnout precints is where Romneys magic is happening. I think the best way to determine if the rich voter turnout argument has any traction is to determine what % of high turnout precincts are in rich areas. I would immediately speculate that the highest turnout regions would be where it is crowded, high population density, rich don't like to be crowded. They like big mansions, big yards, and lots of space. Also, some kind of study that shows what the % of voters in each economic class actually do vote. Example poor X%, Middle class Y%, Rich Z%.


1.  That flattening is from a large portion of precincts that have exactly 968 Registered Voters.  That is very wierd, I agree.  The overlay is the slight gradual increase in one "968 Pop." precinct to the next.

2.  I agree with you that my conclusion is subjective, I could very well be wrong.  It just happens to be my opinion on what is going on with the area I know well.  Does it pertain to other areas? Maybe so, maybe not.  I thought about getting property tax maps to check this wealth theory.  I might still do it and come back with this information crossed with the property values.  I would still like someone to chime in that is local from these areas that have shown the flip and possibly give us some insight.

By the way this is pretty useful: http://www.state.sc.us/scsec/vrcurr.html

3.

4.  Actually if you look at precinct maps from Charleston county at least they are really not area based, but population based.  You will certainly have more acreage per precinct the farther away from urban areas.  Check it out here:  http://www.enr-scvotes.org/SC/Charle...n/pr_zoom.html

Like I said,  I am no authority on the issue.  I have my opinion on it and I could be wrong or not.

----------


## bbwarfield

> 1.  That flattening is from a large portion of precincts that have exactly 968 Registered Voters.  That is very wierd, I agree.  The overlay is the slight gradual increase in one "968 Pop." precinct to the next.
> 
> 2.  I agree with you that my conclusion is subjective, I could very well be wrong.  It just happens to be my opinion on what is going on with the area I know well.  Does it pertain to other areas? Maybe so, maybe not.  I thought about getting property tax maps to check this wealth theory.  I might still do it and come back with this information crossed with the property values.  I would still like someone to chime in that is local from these areas that have shown the flip and possibly give us some insight.
> 
> By the way this is pretty useful: http://www.state.sc.us/scsec/vrcurr.html
> 
> 3.
> 
> 4.  Actually if you look at precinct maps from Charleston county at least they are really not area based, but population based.  You will certainly have more acreage per precinct the farther away from urban areas.  Check it out here:  http://www.enr-scvotes.org/SC/Charle...n/pr_zoom.html
> ...



good anaysis..... your right... maybe we need to re analize with some of these thing... since we are trying to kick the tires..... so wouldnt 2008 charleston help with this? Romney Huckabee and McCain.... there Mcain is the status quo choice.... does he do the same in these precincts?

----------


## Mark37snj

I'm still editing my observations. I appologize but I keep picking at it and notice new things.

----------


## Mark37snj

> 1.  That flattening is from a large portion of precincts that have exactly 968 Registered Voters.  That is very wierd, I agree.  The overlay is the slight gradual increase in one "968 Pop." precinct to the next.


It is really strange that there are that many precincts with the exact same number and now from the graph we see that as soon as the numbers are being tallied the votes distribution starts to change noticibly and also the votes distribution ends when those precincts have ended. FASCINATING. Even more fascinating is the fact that these precincts appear to not be high turnout rich areas that would give Romney the boost he appears to be getting from them. And thanks for the graphs and analysis, its an impressive amount of quality work.

----------


## Forty Twice

Downloaded details.zip from this link.  It contains 2008 Greenville County Precinct Votes for 2008 Presidential election.  I wanted to see the "Republican-ness" of each precinct.  I had read somewhere that the # Registered Voters in Greenville was for all parties, not just Republican.  If that is so, I would expect low turnout in the 2012 Republican primary in precincts that voted heavily for Obama.  The chart below does show this to be the case.  

http://www.enr-scvotes.org/SC/Greenv...n/reports.html

From the details.zip spreadsheet, I could calculate vote% for McCain and Obama by precinct in 2008.  I used McCain% - Obama% to generate a McCain Lead indicator of precinct Republican-ness.

So when we are seeing Ron Paul do well in "small" precincts, we were initially looking at "small" total primary vote.  But it turns out that Ron Paul was doing better in Low Turnout precincts.  Here, we see that Low Turnout precincts are that way because they are heavily Democratic precincts.  You would not expect strong turnout in a Republican primary from a Democratic precinct.

----------


## Liberty1789

Hi FrancisMarion

Great to read!

You data shows that Romney is crushing Paul in those rich precincts. However he is crushing the other candidates as well. The key anomaly that we are discussing is that ONLY PAUL loses out to Romney in some districts: the other guys' share of votes are flatlined whereas Romney surges and Paul tanks.

Anyway, we can check easily correlation with turnout. Could you create a two column table with your numbers. The list should include all precincts. 1st data column is voter turnout in precinct in%, 2nd data column is Paul's share of vote in precinct in %. Then create a scatter chart with dots only. Right Click one of the dots, select add Trendline in the pop-up menu. Select Linear and check the "Display R-square value on chart" and give us the number. It will settle it.

----------


## Forty Twice

Continuing on, I plotted Republican Candidate Vote percentages by precinct against this McCain Lead indicator of precinct Republican-ness.  Here you can see that Ron Paul does well in Democratic precincts (McCain Lead < 0) and continually does worse as McCain Lead increases.  This is a very plausible explanation as Ron Paul is known to poll better with Democrats and Independents (Obama voters) than Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum.  What is interesting, is that as Paul gives up vote percent in precincts, that vote share grows at the same slope for each of the others.  In this representation, Paul is not giving votes only to Romney.  

I don't understand why Paul's losses were equally distributed in this analysis but only handed to Romney when viewing precinct vote total (precinct size) as the independent variable.

These results show basically the same thing that Francis Marion's did.  And to me, they explain the OP's findings well enough with a plausible explanation that I do not think the simple vote-flipping occurred.  I do not think we can show voter fraud until we find a better explanation.

On the other hand, I do not believe for a minute the whole set of results we have seen in these first few caucuses and primaries.  Every transparent and puclicly-viewed vote has gone heavily in Ron Paul's favor.  I've never met a Mitt Romney fan.  I've seen little personal evidence of real live Santorum/Gingrich supporters.  I only see big crowds at Paul rallies.  My observable data does not match up with the votes that have first passed through Establishment control.  So, no, I do not believe the votes we've been presented.  But I don't think the simple relationship between SC precinct size and RP vs Romney preference is proof of fraud.

----------


## FrancisMarion

> Hi FrancisMarion
> 
> Great to read!
> 
> You data shows that Romney is crushing Paul in those rich precincts. However he is crushing the other candidates as well. The key anomaly that we are discussing is that ONLY PAUL loses out to Romney in some districts: the other guys' share of votes are flatlined whereas Romney surges and Paul tanks.
> 
> Anyway, we can check easily correlation with turnout. Could you create a two column table with your numbers. The list should include all precincts. 1st data column is voter turnout in precinct in%, 2nd data column is Paul's share of vote in precinct in %. Then create a scatter chart with dots only. Right Click one of the dots, select add Trendline in the pop-up menu. Select Linear and check the "Display R-square value on chart" and give us the number. It will settle it.


I hope this is what you were looking for.  Let me know if not.

----------


## Mark37snj

> I don't understand why Paul's losses were equally distributed in this analysis but only handed to Romney when viewing precinct vote total (precinct size) as the independent variable.
> 
> These results show basically the same thing that Francis Marion's did.  And to me, they explain the OP's findings well enough with a plausible explanation that I do not think the simple vote-flipping occurred.  I do not think we can show voter fraud until we find a better explanation.


It's not just simple vote flipping. If you look at previous posts the algorithym appears to operate under different conditions using different parameters. At certain vote totals it acts in a specific way under specific circumstances. For example, at low vote totals it appears to flip votes to keep its targets, which are also variable depending on the voting dynamic, within 5% of each other. Then after a certain point the targets begin to diverge from one another and never approach 5% of each other again with one on a steady incline and the other on a steady decline. We are seeing this over and over across different states, different precincts, different population dynamics.

----------


## Liberty1789

Thanks FrancisMarion

The chart confirms some correlation. Now we need to think if correlation means causation here and that is a tricky one. From the county that I am currently looking at, there is a material positive correlation between turnout and absolute number of votes cast. This thread has consistently shown that the larger the number of votes cast, the larger the Romney-Paul vote flip. If vote flip correlates to size of votes tallied and size of votes tallied to turnout, vote flip will correlate to turnout, possibly without causality... you get my drift. So tricky, and needs more work.

----------


## Mark37snj

> good anaysis..... your right... maybe we need to re analize with some of these thing... since we are trying to kick the tires..... so wouldnt 2008 charleston help with this? Romney Huckabee and McCain.... there Mcain is the status quo choice.... does he do the same in these precincts?


I think we are gona need to go back even further to elections where these machines were definately not used. The only other time Ron Paul ran was in 1988 as a Libertarian and only garnered 0.47% of the vote. In 2008 the electronic voting machines had storied problems in Florida, South Carolina (Charleston), Washington D.C., Ohio, New Jersey, and others. http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/El...lures-in-2008/ Still, comparisons of elections before voting machines were introduced could be very telling. Will those same patterns we are seeing now show up in those election?

----------


## bbwarfield

I think the key is focusing on the other candidates.... Newt is an establishment choice... santorum is becoming one. 

IF we are to believe status quo voting in high voter turnout is the cause of the demise of "fringe" huckabee and paul.... then we need to focus were it flips with establishment choices

----------


## Mark37snj

> I think the key is focusing on the other candidates.... Newt is an establishment choice... santorum is becoming one. 
> 
> IF we are to believe status quo voting in high voter turnout is the cause of the demise of "fringe" huckabee and paul.... then we need to focus were it flips with establishment choices


I don't see how you can focus on one and not the others. Each graph we produced shows the same data for all the canidates. Thats kinda the point, comparing results against the others. How would you focus on just one? We can watch to see if there is a noticible shift of votes going on. Right now it benefits Romney. It has from the beginning and we have no idea if there will be a shifting of status quo support. If the data starts showing that its now benefiting Newt then that will be interesting. But our primary focus is on finding out if there is fraud going on regardless of who it is benefitting. The data anomolies/flips should remain our focus regardless of who it is benefitting at the moment. Fringe huckabee could be the same as fringe Newt or Santorum. Their demise is part of the illusion that we still have representation. Now if the establishment decides that Romney is out and selects another chosen one then the data will show it. We can watch for it. But I don't know how you would focus on it other then to do what we are already doing. I'm not just gona abandon analysing primaries/caucuses that have already voted and just sit back and watch for a possible future shift that may never happen. Were gona analyze them all anyway, every precinct, every county, every state. We don't know how much data the original author has so we have no justification now to start skipping anything. So I don't quite know how you would go about focusing on Newt, how would it be different from what we are doing now?

----------


## Liberty1789

Let's summarize briefly.

Previous posts have offered evidence of vote flipping in IA, NH and NV.

Some counties are affected, others not. Washoe, NV (6.6k votes) is affected. Grafton, NH (14k votes) is not.

In all cases it exclusively benefits Romney.

In IA, it is at the sole expense of Perry, Paul and Bachman. Gingrich and Santorum are unaffected.
In NH, it is at the sole expense of Paul. Gingrich and Santorum are unaffected.
In NV, it is at the sole expense of Paul. Gingrich and Santorum are unaffected.

So needless to say, Florida was expected to be fascinating...

Here we go, X-axis cumulative cast votes in %, ordered by ascending precinct vote count, Y-axis cumulative candidate share of votes in %.
(Analysis restricted to the last big 4)



In Florida,
Some counties are affected, some are not.Romney is always the sole beneficiary.Romney wins at the expense of Paul, sometimes Gingrich and sometimes Santorum.

----------


## Mark37snj

EXCELLENT work Liberty1789, there would be no Grassroots effort on this without your work!!! I'm trying to help but my Excel skills are Fail. 

Can you list the populations of each county you graphed. I just wana get a look at whats going on in Nassau. It looks like it was a low votes cast cause the graph is so smooth.

I don't even know where to start with all this. Profound!

----------


## cjm

> Some counties are affected, some are not.Romney is always the sole beneficiary.Romney wins at the expense of Paul, sometimes Gingrich and sometimes Santorum.


When you say some counties are not affected, does that mean that all candidates' final vote totals in those counties fall within the margin of error established by the sample size chosen from the least attended precincts?  Can you give the numbers for total counties affected vs not affected?

Thanks.

----------


## Mark37snj

> When you say some counties are not affected, does that mean that all candidates' final vote totals in those counties fall within the margin of error established by the sample size chosen from the least attended precincts?  Can you give the numbers for total counties affected vs not affected?
> 
> Thanks.


Liberty1789, can you post some normal counties so we can see what NORMAL looks like.

----------


## Liberty1789

Vote count G/P/R/S

Duval
87,096

Alachua
16,944

Tampa
89,811

Palm Beach
82,658

Nassau
12,039

Leon
21,913

----------


## chri5opher

//

----------


## chri5opher

//

----------


## Liberty1789

Hi cjm

You are exactly correct. A "normal", "unaffected" county is a county where the lines go flatish around 25-30% of votes tallied. The sample of voters that you have by then is a solid predictor of the outcome at 100%. Systematic deviation away from the expected value, with a binary on and off according to county and candidate, is a statistical impossibility.

Unaffected, in short, is where Romney's line does not exhibit a systematic uptrend at the expense of other specific candidates, especially Paul as he is always one of them. In my FL charts, only Nassau matches that criterium ; in my NH charts, Coos and Grafton did. In NH, only Hillsborough and Merrimack exhibit strident vote flipping.

----------


## Liberty1789

Duval : feed from Gingrich and Paul
Alachua: feed from Gingrich and Paul
Tampa: feed from Gingrich, Santorum and Paul
Palm Beach:  feed from Gingrich, Santorum and Paul
Nassau: no feed
Leon: feed only from Paul (obscenely: Paul's score is just destroyed and look how untouched Gingrich and Santorum's flatliners remain)

----------


## Mark37snj

Compare Romney and Paul in Hillborough NH up to 30K votes and Merrimack NH 30K votes. You could transpose them on top of each other and they look to have almost identical characteristics. Romney and Paul in Coots NH at 2.5K and Grafton NH at 4K, same thing if you transpose.

EDIT: Do you have the new graphs with votes instead of % at the bottom (X axis)?

----------


## chris41336

The head of the stats department at my university replied. Here's what she said so far:




> Dear Chris,
> 
> thank you for sharing this article with me. Do you happen to know the authorship or/and the outlet (journals, magazines, or newspapers, ...) of this article? If you do, could you please let me know. I'll be more than happy to ask for input from some of my colleagues on this article.
> 
> Thanks, and with best regards,


So I need to give her more information. Does anything have anything I can send her? I'm glad she us willing to take a look. Also, I need links to all of the original data, etc.

----------


## cjm

> Hi cjm
> 
> You are exactly correct. A "normal", "unaffected" county is a county where the lines go flatish around 25-30% of votes tallied. The sample of voters that you have by then is a solid predictor of the outcome at 100%. Systematic deviation away from the expected value, with a binary on and off according to county and candidate, is a statistical impossibility.


Thanks, let me take a step back now and let you know what I'm wondering.  And just for the record, I've lurked this thread from the beginning, I've read every post at least once and read the google docs at least once each.  If my questions below have already been covered, I'm repeating because I missed it, not because I didn't bother to read.

When projecting the final vote totals from a sample, those projections have a margin of error.  When the projected total falls outside that margin of error, what does that mean?  I think someone would be hard pressed to claim that statistics doesn't work, so we're left with either (a) statistical methods were not applied properly, or (b) there was cheating.  Is that a fair statement?

Is selecting low turnout precincts for one's sample random enough to be a proper use of statistical methods?  To select a sample of 5000 random people throughout a county, you will undoubtedly select some from each precinct, but the selection of precincts by definition excludes members of all other precincts from the sample.  This might work in a somewhat homogeneous county, but my guess is that not all counties will be homogeneous enough to use this technique.  Something that looks fishy might just be an artifact of our non-random sample.  If we can believe that different counties can have different preferences, it's not a far jump to conclude that different precincts within a county could have different preferences.  The homogeneity of the county is crucial to the technique used here.

With the selection of low turnout precincts as a sample in the original Anderson County document, we saw that two candidates' results were predictable from the low turnout precincts and two others were not.  Could it be that Anderson is not as homogeneous as we think and that the predictability of Gingrich and Santorum were just coincidence?  I know that the sample _size_ was good, but were those precincts really representative of the county as a whole?  I think to establish this, we would need to see other elections predicted by the results from these same Anderson County precincts:  earlier federal elections, state-wide races, and county-wide races.

----------


## Mark37snj

> The head of the stats department at my university replied. Here's what she said so far:
> 
> 
> 
> So I need to give her more information. Does anything have anything I can send her? I'm glad she us willing to take a look. Also, I need links to all of the original data, etc.


Well the author has not relased anymore info yet, maybe in a few days. But you could also link this Thread to them as an appatizer or copy and paste the pics.

----------


## bcreps85

Hey CJ,

When projecting the vote totals from a sample, there is a MOE relative to the size of the sample we use. For example, the first SC article that started this whole thing used a sample of 5142 of roughly 26k voters (this is off the top of my head, don't tar and feather me if I'm a bit off), which yields a MOE of 1.23%, so the huge amount of deviation we are seeing is in no way normal.   Your assessments are correct, but so far nobody has shown any information to suggest that the methods have not been properly applied.

Selecting a single low turnout precinct would not be random enough on it's own for a statistical method because voters in one precinct can have greatly different voting patterns than a precinct over.  This is why the original document used 35 low turnout precincts for his analysis.  This ensures a wide range of preferences are included and averaged.

As far as your third question about the predictability of Santorum and Gingrich being a coincidence...if we saw it once or twice, I think you might be spot on.  I think the fact that we are seeing it in different counties, different states, over and over kind of rails against this assertion.

That's my take anyway, one of the smarter people can answer better if I haven't summed it up :P

----------


## Mark37snj

> 1) When projecting the final vote totals from a sample, those projections have a margin of error.  When the projected total falls outside that margin of error, what does that mean?  I think someone would be hard pressed to claim that statistics doesn't work, so we're left with either (a) statistical methods were not applied properly, or (b) there was cheating.  Is that a fair statement?
> 
> 2) Is selecting low turnout precincts for one's sample random enough to be a proper use of statistical methods?  To select a sample of 5000 random people throughout a county, you will undoubtedly select some from each precinct, but the selection of precincts by definition excludes members of all other precincts from the sample.  This might work in a somewhat homogeneous county, but my guess is that not all counties will be homogeneous enough to use this technique.  Something that looks fishy might just be an artifact of our non-random sample.  If we can believe that different counties can have different preferences, it's not a far jump to conclude that different precincts within a county could have different preferences.  The homogeneity of the county is crucial to the technique used here.
> 
> 3) With the selection of low turnout precincts as a sample in the original Anderson County document, we saw that two candidates' results were predictable from the low turnout precincts and two others were not.  Could it be that Anderson is not as homogeneous as we think and that the predictability of Gingrich and Santorum were just coincidence?  I know that the sample _size_ was good, but were those precincts really representative of the county as a whole?  I think to establish this, we would need to see other elections predicted by the results from these same Anderson County precincts:  earlier federal elections, state-wide races, and county-wide races.


This is all I can contribute. 

1) Just simple error as well is possible
2) A low turnout precinct would only be a representative sample to be used in comparing low turnout precints, unless some study conclusivly proved that it could be applied to all precint sizes. But not all low turnout precincts are made equal. So you would have to goto an extra level of representation. Example, a low turnout precint in surburban texas would not follow the same voting pattern in say rural Chicago.
3) More previous results to compare to would definatley help to fine tune the counties voting dynamic. But there is also proven statistical methods that can be used to prove fradualent data.

----------


## Liberty1789

cjm

You ask the right questions.

I have studied advanced stats. This is heart-stopping evidence.

One of the crux is the binary nature of the vote flip. It's on or off. Trendless flatines on or off. On/off per candidate! A stat pro will fall off his chair when he sees that. After a few R-squared and t-stat (some are north of 15 for those in the know), he will exactly say what the original poster from SC has said: algorithm, and crude one at that. 

I am just publishing the most accessible data here, in the most telling form I can think of. To raise awareness, or should I say alarm.

Senior moderators, for Heaven's sake, where are you? Could you chime in please?

----------


## Mark37snj

> cjm
> 
> You ask the right questions.
> 
> I have studied advanced stats. This is heart-stopping evidence.
> 
> One of the crux is the binary nature of the vote flip. It's on or off. Trendless flatines on or off. On/off per candidate! A stat pro will fall off his chair when he sees that. After a few R-squared and t-stat (some are north of 15 for those in the know), he will exactly say what the original poster from SC has said: *algorithm, and crude one at that.* I am just publishing the most accessible data here, in the most telling form I can think of. To raise awareness, or should I say alarm.
> 
> *Senior moderators, for Heaven's sake, where are you? Could you chime in please?*


THIS^^^^

Well it seems sophisticated for statistical boobs like myself.

----------


## cjm

> As far as your third question about the predictability of Santorum and Gingrich being a coincidence...if we saw it once or twice, I think you might be spot on.  I think the fact that we are seeing it in different counties, different states, over and over kind of rails against this assertion.


Well, that goes back to my original question about the numbers of affected vs non-affected counties.  Are we seeing predictability in 150 counties with aberrations in 10?  or predictability in 80 counties and aberrations in 80?  This might not be important to those who live and breathe statistics, but it can help a layman like myself get a better picture of what's going on.

EDIT:  Also, since no two counties are equal, I'd be interested to see repeated success of the technique within a county that shows an aberration in the current election.

----------


## Mark37snj

> EDIT:  Also, since no two counties are equal, I'd be interested to see repeated success of the technique within a county that shows an aberration in the current election.


Oh that gives me an idea. If we can find a precinct that did not have its results altered and compare it with one that was... They used them in the 2008 election, but if they expanded their use in this election then that means we can find an uncorrupted 2008 and compare it to a corrupted 2012.

EDIT: http://www.verifiedvoting.org/verifier/ 2010

Duval County Florida - Premier Election Solutions (Diebold) (86,316 votes)
Alachue County Florida - Premier Election Solutions (Diebold) (16,884 votes)
Tampa County Florida - Premier Election Solutions (Diebold), Election Systems & Software, Premier Election Solutions (Diebold) (89,717 votes)
Palm Beach County Florida - Sequoia Voting Systems (82,627 votes)
Nassau County Florida - Election Systems & Software (12,039 votes)
Leon County Florida - Premier Election Solutions (Diebold) (22,505 votes)

Paper Ballot - Iowa, NH, Maine
Mixed Paper Ballot and DREs without VVPAT - Florida
DREs with VVPAT - Nevada

DREs  - Direct Recording Electronic Voting Machines 
VVPAT - Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail

----------


## Liberty1789

cjm

If that helps... 23 counties analysed so far here, 2/10 abnormal in NH, 2/5 in NV (but they represent 72% of total votes - Clark/Washoe) , 7/8 in FL. Most populous counties within a state always anomalous.

The aggregate votes in IA tell you something identical is going on but I have not had time to go into it by county.

The original poster on SC proved same stuff going on in his state.

----------


## S.Shorland

> The head of the stats department at my university replied. Here's what she said so far:
> 
> 
> 
> So I need to give her more information. Does anything have anything I can send her? I'm glad she us willing to take a look. Also, I need links to all of the original data, etc.


  I emailed certain parties who I thought might be interested but only as a concerned layman.It probably means anyone at university here actually asking a friend of a friend or going to the 'statistics department cafeteria' and politely asking for interest.Liberty or someone with statistical training maybe could run up a synopsis as his passion coupled with some knowledge might get the juices flowing in someone similarly interested in that subject.Either that or the PACS/Mises etc.Professor Block at New Orleans might ask his colleagues?

----------


## Liberty1789

How could Paul lose Iowa? Remember?

That one went like a dagger through my heart:



I now know what Rand Paul felt on that night...

3 feeders: Paul, Bachman, Perry. Santorum, Gingrich and Huntsman nice flatliners.

13,560 votes (23% of IA total)

----------


## chris41336

I'm a tad confused guys as to what these new charts are really saying. I understand completely the original PDF, but these new grapsh with the % vs % seem to not be saying anything. Obviously Romney would go up and Paul go down by equal amounts iin a grap liike that because its based on a percentage from 100%. Why are these anything spectacular?

----------


## chapchap70

So if there was no tampering, Paul beats Romney 32% to 19% or there abouts in Polk County, IA?  

I don't understand by all this analysis who is doing the tampering and how it would be proven.  Is it the National GOP or the Romney campaign?  I would think it is possible that whoever would be doing this would have gotten wind of this thread!?

----------


## Lishy

!!!!!

Wait so if I understand what's going on (Sorry, I couldn't read too in-depth to this thread), is that the math of Ron Paul's total somehow became Mitt Romney's!? WTF!?!?


WHY WHY WHY WHY is this not all over the place!!!?!?? If this is true, we should be storming into their offices NOW, and DEMANDING the media report on these facts!!!!

----------


## cjm

Thanks to all of you for your responses to my questions.  I'm playing a little bit of catch-up here by learning or re-learning some basic statistics so that I can help review the work done so far, so please don't take any of this as nay-saying or a rejection of your work.  I don't deny the results, they speak for themselves.  Unpredictable events happen, but as in the Anderson County document, a complete switch with almost pin-point accuracy to the opponent's projected total is just incredible.  But no matter how incredible the results, even perfectly executed surveys only have a certain level of confidence, meaning that unexpected results are to be, well, expected every once in a while.





> Sorry for the wall of text, but it is worth reading...
> 
> Ok, after seeing some numbers in the comments on DP, I decided to verify some of the numbers because they sounded unreal.  Originally I was looking for the formulas to calculate it all out myself, but it turns out there are already calculators out there to be used for these purposes.  I didn't come up with the calculations, I only verified what someone else was saying...this isn't "my work" blah blah blah.  Anyway...
> 
> First I calculated the margin of error for an election with 26,175 votes based on a sampling of 5142 votes.  These are the numbers reflected in the document, which is an average of 35 smaller counties.  This shows an error margin of 1.23%.  This is how we have predictions with 5-10% of the vote in of who won, and why it is rarely, if ever, wrong.  You can verify this number here: http://americanresearchgroup.com/moe.html


I originally used this calculator to check some elections in my area (we haven't voted in 2012 yet) just to see how well they hold.  I've only checked a few candidates so far from the 2008 Republican primary, but so far the technique holds up when I use enough low turnout precincts to reach the minimum sample required for a given MOE.  Note that this calculator is built on a 95% confidence level which means 1 election in 20 could have completely unexpected results.

I've been reading up on sampling, questioning the technique that we're using and I happily learned that this is an accepted sampling technique which is called _cluster sampling_.  Unfortunately, the calculator above seems to be built on _simple random sampling_ and doesn't apply to cluster sampling.  I cannot say whether it's close enough or not, I'm just pointing this out so that real statisticians can use the correct formulas if they have been overlooked to this point.  To calculate the confidence level and MOE for cluster samples, there is an example of analyzing cluster samples here for those not familiar with this sampling technique.




> cjm
> 
> If that helps... 23 counties analysed so far here, 2/10 abnormal in NH, 2/5 in NV (but they represent 72% of total votes - Clark/Washoe) , 7/8 in FL. Most populous counties within a state always anomalous.
> 
> The aggregate votes in IA tell you something identical is going on but I have not had time to go into it by county.
> 
> The original poster on SC proved same stuff going on in his state.


Liberty1789, yes this helps a lot.  Thanks.  Again, with regard to confidence levels, assuming proper statistical analysis has been performed, finding 1 in 20 county elections that look crazy (or at least unexpected) is to be expected.  Even the 2/10 in NH might be ok since 1 in 20 does not suggest a perfect distribution.  2/10 might be the beginning of a 2/40 streak.  2/5 in NV is very questionable and 7/8 in FL is, again assuming our cluster sampling methods are solid, completely unthinkable.  So having an idea of how many counties hold up and how many deviate is helpful to me personally in understanding what's going on.

I know that every time I post to this thread that takes time from all of you crunching numbers.  I'll try to keep it to a minimum.  I just noticed that our sampling was not what I would call "traditional" random sampling of an entire population and thought it was worth mentioning.  I'm just trying to play devil's advocate here.  I'm going to continue to read up on cluster sampling and see how it applies to what we're doing here.  Thanks to all of you for your hard work.

----------


## chapchap70

> !!!!!
> 
> Wait so if I understand what's going on (Sorry, I couldn't read too in-depth to this thread), is that the math of Ron Paul's total somehow became Mitt Romney's!? WTF!?!?
> 
> 
> WHY WHY WHY WHY is this not all over the place!!!?!?? If this is true, we should be storming into their offices NOW, and DEMANDING the media report on these facts!!!!


There are a few here that have been spending days on this and are not finished with their analysis.  I would think they have to put it in a presentable format after they are sure there are no errors so no one is embarrassed.

----------


## kathy88

> cjm
> 
> You ask the right questions.
> 
> I have studied advanced stats. This is heart-stopping evidence.
> 
> One of the crux is the binary nature of the vote flip. It's on or off. Trendless flatines on or off. On/off per candidate! A stat pro will fall off his chair when he sees that. After a few R-squared and t-stat (some are north of 15 for those in the know), he will exactly say what the original poster from SC has said: algorithm, and crude one at that. 
> 
> I am just publishing the most accessible data here, in the most telling form I can think of. To raise awareness, or should I say alarm.
> ...


Agreed. This is the most important thread posted on these forums in a while.

----------


## Liberty1789

Hi chris41336

The original PDF and this are two presentations of the same data. The PDF extrapolates the line that you obtain after the smallest precincts have voted. It is as if extending a line from the first quarter of data on the left. This tends to give you a linear fit that is a flat line in my chart. It should be flat because 25% of the votes are a very powerful predictor of the final outcome, as "poll science" tells you. *It should all be more or less trendless flatliners from there on.* My chart shows how much and where it deviates from that.

It is no superior representation to the original work (and that guy deserves all the credit anyway), but I reckon that it is more readable if linear fits are obscure to you.

----------


## bcreps85

> I'm a tad confused guys as to what these new charts are really saying. I understand completely the original PDF, but these new grapsh with the % vs % seem to not be saying anything. Obviously Romney would go up and Paul go down by equal amounts iin a grap liike that because its based on a percentage from 100%. Why are these anything spectacular?


It doesn't matter if it is percentages or actual numbers.  If Romney shoots up, then the other three have to have downward variations to some extent, which would be affected by a myriad of different reasons.  In either case, after enough votes come in, almost all of the charts should have a relatively linear pattern without huge variation...that's why the pollsters already know the outcome of the election after some percentage has reported.  The fact that there are so many areas where Romney shoots up and only Paul has any opposite variation is the "smoking gun" here.  It is almost a statistical impossibility for that to happen in a 4 man race.  In a two man race, you'd be dead on.

----------


## kathy88

> !!!!!
> 
> Wait so if I understand what's going on (Sorry, I couldn't read too in-depth to this thread), is that the math of Ron Paul's total somehow became Mitt Romney's!? WTF!?!?
> 
> 
> WHY WHY WHY WHY is this not all over the place!!!?!?? If this is true, we should be storming into their offices NOW, and DEMANDING the media report on these facts!!!!


Mostly because we don't want to come off like a bunch of half-cocked conspiracy theorists AGAIN. The right people need to verify it first.

----------


## Mark37snj

Enlight of this new evidence I would like to ask Ron Paul Grassroots one favor...*NO MORE FLAMING FOR NOT VOTING, THEY DID*

----------


## kathy88

> Enlight of this new evidence I would like to ask Ron Paul Grassroots one favor...*NO MORE FLAMING FOR NOT VOTING, THEY DID*


Unfortunately the flamers aren't reading this thread. Deaf ears.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

When they stop counting the caucus because Romney is the "clear" winner and ballot boxes go missing, we have the right to suspect voter fraud.

----------


## Barrex

Can someone tell me what is next step?
Who is going to find that expert to verify all those data?
When can we expect some conclusion?

----------


## Mark37snj

> Can someone tell me what is next step?
> Who is going to find that expert to verify all those data?
> When can we expect some conclusion?


The original author is expected to give us more to go on some time this week. Watch Dailypaul. In the meantime were just gona keep grinding numbers.

----------


## Barrex

> The original author is expected to give us more to go on some time this week. Watch Dailypaul. In the meantime were just gona keep grinding numbers.


I followed this thread from begining. I am following dailypaul too. I see talk about giving numbers to "expert" and talking to SC republican party but when is that going to happen and who is going to find that expert and get in touch with SC RP? Is there a plan or you are just at "crunching numbers for now"? 
If this is "going to happen" it would be better that it happens before Super Tuesday.

I understand that it takes time to get it all and that some things are better not discussed in the open... but a hint of a expected time and plan would be nice.


Thanks for answering and keep up the good work...OR ELSE

----------


## chris41336

> I followed this thread from begining. I am following dailypaul too. I see talk about giving numbers to "expert" and talking to SC republican party but when is that going to happen and who is going to find that expert and get in touch with SC RP? Is there a plan or you are just at "crunching numbers for now"? 
> If this is "going to happen" it would be better that it happens before Super Tuesday.
> 
> I understand that it takes time to get it all and that some things are better not discussed in the open... but a hint of a expected time and plan would be nice.
> 
> 
> Thanks for answering and keep up the good work...OR ELSE


I have given it to the head of the stats department at my university. I put her first reply a few posts ago in a thread. She needs/wants more info, as do I. I want to know waht to send her. As of now, she is the only "expert" that I see in this thread willing to look at this stuff so I need some backup with this.

----------


## Liberty1789

Exercice.

Can you tell which county was subjected to a vote flipping algorithm, with maximization of the loser's frustration (by 10 votes)?

If you have read the whole thread, I think that by now, you can...

----------


## cjm

> Exercice.
> 
> Can you tell which county was subjected to a vote flipping algorithm, with maximization of the loser's frustration (by 10 votes)?
> 
> If you have read the whole thread, I think that by now, you can...


Wow.  Story County was electronic voting, right?  Was Sioux County paper?

----------


## Barrex

> I have given it to the head of the stats department at my university. I put her first reply a few posts ago in a thread. She needs/wants more info, as do I. I want to know waht to send her. As of now, she is the only "expert" that I see in this thread willing to look at this stuff so I need some backup with this.


*
You are our best chance and it is all up to you*  

Did you contact person who started this all? Leave message 
tohttp://www.dailypaul.com/user/12371
and 
http://www.dailypaul.com/214415/gues...ts-in-question
Get all the data and sources "do your thing" and deliver it to that expert..

Enthusiasm is great but time is passing by and there is need to bring this up a notch. On dailypaul this story is forgotten and here on RPF we are on page 44. If by page 47-50 there is no clear plan I am a little pessimistic that anything will happen.

Also for all of you that analyze could you put in your graph information how many voters.

----------


## Liberty1789

Apologies: Sioux 2,069 voters, Story 4,190.

----------


## cjm

> Exercice.
> 
> Can you tell which county was subjected to a vote flipping algorithm, with maximization of the loser's frustration (by 10 votes)?
> 
> If you have read the whole thread, I think that by now, you can...


Liberty,

Are there any examples of the RP/MR convergence (like Story County where Mitt does better in high turnout precincts and Ron does poorly) where Mitt does *not* overtake Ron, but falls short?

----------


## Liberty1789

Hi cjm

Sure, it happens: convergence just short of the overtaking at the county level. I was being a bit humorous with Story County, even though my sympathy goes to the Ron Paul supporters there. They were robbed. The name of the game is not to win the county, but the caucus/primary.

----------


## cjm

> Hi cjm
> 
> Sure, it happens: convergence just short of the overtaking at the county level. I was being a bit humorous with Story County, even though my sympathy goes to the Ron Paul supporters there. They were robbed. The name of the game is not to win the county, but the caucus/primary.


Gotcha.  I was just curious to know if _every_ instance of convergence yielded a county "win" for MR or not.  It goes back to the confidence/probability point of view.  If _every_ example of convergence yielded a swap of position, that would be all the more damning.  That isn't to say convergence in itself isn't damning, but if every instance of that convergence yielded a swap in positions, a layman's gut will tell him without any knowledge of statistics that something is rotten in Denmark.

----------


## Liberty1789

This is the battle to win:



And it was won.

The chart allows to deconstruct the algorithm.

Romney's quasi perfect straight line between 30% and 80% (R-squared 0.99%) indicates that for every additional 10% of votes cast, 10% of them, i.e. 1% is transferred to Romney.

There is a new slope at 80%.

The quasi perfect line between 80% and 100% (R-squared 0.99%) indicates that for every additional 10% of votes cast, 15% of them, i.e. 1.5% is transferred to Romney. Bigger precincts allow for more aggressive vote flipping!

Caucuses are private affairs, rules are conventional and non-binding

----------


## Paul Fan

> Romney's quasi perfect straight line between 30% and 80% (R-squared 0.99%) indicates that for every additional 10% of votes cast, 10% of them, i.e. 1% is transferred to Romney.
> 
> There is a new slope at 80%.
> 
> The quasi perfect line between 80% and 100% (R-squared 0.99%) indicates that for every additional 10% of votes cast, 15% of them, i.e. 1.5% is transferred to Romney. Bigger precincts allow for more aggressive vote flipping!


To me this is the potential smoking gun. It is expected that Romney would do better in the bigger precincts as that is where he would concentrate campaign and GOTV resources. It is not expected that he would do exactly 10% better for each 10% of votes cast. That is too exact and there is no way it could happen naturally. Is that really what happened, or does this number represent an average? This is the critical information in my view.

 It would also be interesting to redo this looking at precinct population size, or maybe registered voters, because that is the information that would have been available beforehand to guide campaign resource allocation. Then do some kind of comparison to show that the result was more than the mere result of resource allocation.

----------


## Paul Fan

Looking at Sioux County, is it possible that Paul and Romney were flipped, but that the algorithm didn't account for Santorum's strength and so ignored him? It looks like Paul and Romney are mirror images, and that Romney just pips Paul at the end.

----------


## Simple

The next step imho should be for one of the PACs to hire a statistician. The implications are huge compared to the benefit of any ad.

----------


## goldpants

How sad is our country that this board is unsure as to where this info should be shared with for the good of RP and more importantly our country? I mean we are only talking about potentially the frickin smoking gun of vote fraud!

----------


## hillertexas

Is the campaign even aware of this?
Headquarters Phone (Toll-Free): 	1-855-886-9779
Headquarters Phone (Local): 	1-703-563-6620
Store Phone (Local): 	1-979-297-5414
Headquarters Fax: 	1-703-563-7330
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/contact-us/
Mailing address:
Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee.
8000 Forbes Place, Suite 200
Springfield VA 22151
_______

All of the current States' Attorneys General as well as their contact information can be found here: http://www.naag.org/current-attorneys-general.php

Pam Bondi (R)
*Florida* Attorney General
Elected: 2010
The Capitol, PL 01, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
(850) 414-3300
http://myfloridalegal.com/

Sam Olens (R)
*Georgia* Attorney General
Elected: 2010
40 Capitol Square, SW, Atlanta, GA 30334-1300
(404) 656-3300
http://law.ga.gov/02/ago/home/0,2705,87670814,00.html

Tom Miller (D)
*Iowa* Attorney General
Elected: 1978, 1982, 1986, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010
Hoover State Office Bldg., 1305 E. Walnut, Des Moines, IA 50319
(515) 281-5164
http://www.iowaattorneygeneral.gov

Jack Conway (D)   <----- 
*Kentucky* Attorney General
Elected: 2007, 2011
700 Capitol Avenue, Capitol Building, Suite 118, Frankfort, KY 40601
(502) 696-5300
http://ag.ky.gov/

William J. Schneider (R)
*Maine* Attorney General
Appointed: 2010
State House Station 6, Augusta, ME 04333
(207) 626-8800
http://www.maine.gov/ag/

Bill Schuette (R)
*Michigan* Attorney General
Elected: 2010
P.O.Box 30212, 525 W. Ottawa St., Lansing, MI 48909-0212
(517) 373-1110
http://www.michigan.gov/ag

Catherine Cortez Masto (D)
*Nevada* Attorney General
Elected: 2006, 2010
Old Supreme Ct. Bldg., 100 N. Carson St., Carson City, NV 89701
(775) 684-1100
http://ag.state.nv.us/

Michael Delaney (D)
*New Hampshire* Attorney General
Appointed: 2009
State House Annex, 33 Capitol St., Concord, NH 03301-6397
(603) 271-3658
http://doj.nh.gov/

Alan Wilson (R)
*South Carolina* Attorney General
Elected: 2010
Rembert C. Dennis Office Bldg., P.O.Box 11549, Columbia, SC 29211-1549
(803) 734-3970
http://www.scattorneygeneral.org

Greg Phillips (D)
*Wyoming* Attorney General
Appointed: 2011
State Capitol Bldg., Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-7841
http://attorneygeneral.state.wy.us
__________________________________________________  ________________
Bev might be a resource:
Black Box Voting
330 SW 43rd St. Suite K
PMB 547
Renton WA 98057

Founder Bev Harris:
(206)-335-7747
crew@blackboxvoting.org
__________________________________________________  ___
And I know people were 1/2 joking about contacting the UN, but I found that it would not be the first time: 



> NAACP Taking Complaints About U.S. Voter Laws to United Nations
> Copies of the latest report are being sent to the United Nations, as well as attorneys general across the country and the Department of Justice.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz1fo4oyttv

----------


## bbwarfield

> How sad is our country that this board is unsure as to where this info should be shared with for the good of RP and more importantly our country? I mean we are only talking about potentially the frickin smoking gun of vote fraud!


I agree its not just about Ron.... problem is we cry wolf alot (and there are alot of wolves out there) so people stopped listening even though we are usually proven right.

My debate is a) who would listen b) how do we present the information so it is irrefutable> (kuccinich tried and everyone called him crazy cause they thought he wanted it to change his votes....not realizing it was fraud in other candidates totals he was worried about)

----------


## sailingaway

> Bev might be a resource:
> Black Box Voting
> 330 SW 43rd St. Suite K
> PMB 547
> Renton WA 98057
> 
> Founder Bev Harris:
> (206)-335-7747
> crew@blackboxvoting.org
> ...


I sure wouldn't want this used as an excuse to let the UN control the black boxes in order to 'safeguard' our election, if it is evidence of wrongdoing.

----------


## affa

hey liberty, thanks for explaining the % graphs - i had been slightly misunderstanding them, but now they make complete sense.   sharp spikes and valleys at the very beginning, but quickly forming a horizontal line as votes increase due to predictive statistics.  The kind of slopes you're showing for specific candidates are, well, absolutely shocking.

The more eyes on this the better.   The algorithms they're using are so crude, in most cases, as to be almost laughable, if it weren't so serious.   So bad that even someone predisposed not to believe vote fraud is happening is going to shake their head in disbelief.   We're going to need this story to break, and break hard, because it will leave the primary race in shambles once exposed.    It would be very interesting to see a breakdown of all precincts/counties 'unflipped', and a complete 'unflipped' version of primary results.   

Uncovering this, and exposing it, could play a key role in getting Ron Paul into the presidency.

----------


## affa

has anyone contacted the person who wrote the original report?   The conversation and research here is far more in depth than the comment section on dailypaul, and I bethe person would be immensely interested in both the discussion and further research being done here.  especially since they're going to go talk about this tomorrow with the SCGOP if I understand correctly.

----------


## bcreps85

> has anyone contacted the person who wrote the original report?   The conversation and research here is far more in depth than the comment section on dailypaul, and I bethe person would be immensely interested in both the discussion and further research being done here.  especially since they're going to go talk about this tomorrow with the SCGOP if I understand correctly.


I think most in this thread are doing what they can and waiting for the person who wrote the original report to meet with the SCGOP tomorrow to see where this stands.

----------


## Liberty1789

> It is not expected that he would do exactly 10% better for each 10% of votes cast. That is too exact and there is no way it could happen naturally. Is that really what happened, or does this number represent an average? This is the critical information in my view.


It is a constant number between 30% and 80%. It is the slope of the line. It becomes a different but constant 15% between 80% and 100%. In those 2 segments, the variance in the total number of votes cast explains 99% of the variance in Romney's score. And I cannot think of a way of debunking it.

----------


## Mark37snj

> I followed this thread from begining. I am following dailypaul too. I see talk about giving numbers to "expert" and talking to SC republican party but when is that going to happen and who is going to find that expert and get in touch with SC RP? Is there a plan or you are just at "crunching numbers for now"? 
> If this is "going to happen" it would be better that it happens before Super Tuesday.
> I understand that it takes time to get it all and that some things are better not discussed in the open... but a hint of a expected time and plan would be nice.
> Thanks for answering and keep up the good work...OR ELSE


Accorging to what was written at DailyPaul Wednesday he is supposed to meet with that SCGOP person. Wether that will still happen or the plan was changed we don't know. The sooner the better but we don't know how long it will take a professional analysis to be performed. We don't know how much data was analysed by the original author. He may have it all or just pieces. I wouldn't jump the gun to get this out before we are ready because of an upcoming vote. This WILL be a game changer. All previous results will half to be recounted, SuperTuesday and all. When America finds this out all voting preference and voting dynamic analysis previously done goes right out the window.




> I have given it to the head of the stats department at my university. I put her first reply a few posts ago in a thread. She needs/wants more info, as do I. I want to know what to send her. As of now, she is the only "expert" that I see in this thread willing to look at this stuff so I need some backup with this.


Liberty1789 is also an expert but he is only human, he is not being paid for this, he has other responsibilities, ect. Our analysis and your university stats department head purpose is to kick the tires, verify the authors findings, find things maybe the author didn't, and find more smoking guns or debunk this. We are testing the validity of the original authors data and conclusions. So far we may have found out things the author did not find out or we just independently confirmed them. We have to determine whether there is enough evidence to move to the next step, HELL YEAH THERE IS. But that next step and how it is to take place is yet undetermined. Were at the final stages of verifying our commitment to taking this to the next step. But at this point it must follow with the orignal authors lead. Once we have more info info from him then we can more accurately determime what Grassroots needs to do next. We have only the original pdf's the original author posted. More would be nice, Liberty1789 and others are just indepently obtaining their own, contacting him would also help, but Wednesday is tomorrow so that may or may not be necessary. Time is important as Barrex has noted. We need to move this to the next level which is professional analysis and big dollar super-pac campaign funds, a Chip-in if necessary. So getting more data to your university asscoiate might not bare any fruit and be pointless because of the time constraints. All of Grassroots current actions are to tire kick/verify the original authors findings and justify us going to the next step. I think we have done that so just give it an extra day or so to see what transpires with the original author.




> *
> You are our best chance and it is all up to you*  
> 
> Did you contact person who started this all? Leave message 
> tohttp://www.dailypaul.com/user/12371
> and 
> http://www.dailypaul.com/214415/gues...ts-in-question
> Get all the data and sources "do your thing" and deliver it to that expert..
> 
> ...


Nice, Liberty1789 and chris41336 will be shot out of a cannon with a purpose should we need more statistical tire kicking before we goto the next step.




> The next step imho should be for one of the PACs to hire a statistician. The implications are huge compared to the benefit of any ad.


Yeah I agree were at that stage now but we need to see what the original auther has planned. He may have already talked to a professional statistican company, a Super-Pac, the Campaign, etc. If thursday afternoon comes and still no word from anyone, then I suspect Grassroots will partake in the most desperate, determined, frenzied thread furrball in human history to determine what to do next.




> How sad is our country that this board is unsure as to where this info should be shared with for the good of RP and more importantly our country? I mean we are only talking about potentially the frickin smoking gun of vote fraud!


What bbwarfield says below and also what I've said above. We need to see what the original author has up his sleeve, what he has been up to and has planned first.




> I agree its not just about Ron.... problem is we cry wolf alot (and there are alot of wolves out there) so people stopped listening even though we are usually proven right.
> 
> My debate is a) who would listen b) how do we present the information so it is irrefutable> (kuccinich tried and everyone called him crazy cause they thought he wanted it to change his votes....not realizing it was fraud in other candidates totals he was worried about)





> has anyone contacted the person who wrote the original report?   The conversation and research here is far more in depth than the comment section on dailypaul, and I bethe person would be immensely interested in both the discussion and further research being done here.  especially since they're going to go talk about this tomorrow with the SCGOP if I understand correctly.


No one has contacted him that I am aware of. Yes he is supposed to have his meeting tomorrow and we should wait till he has his meeting before altering our current course. Either way he should have something more to say late Wednesday or Thursday. It would be nice to know if he has read this thread. Maybe someone should goto DailyPaul and contact the poster of the info about this thread. 

*EDIT: I sent a forum mail to the person who posted the original info. allerting her of this thread.*




> I think most in this thread are doing what they can and waiting for the person who wrote the original report to meet with the SCGOP tomorrow to see where this stands.


THIS ^^^  Just kick the tires some more, plan for both more tire kicking and Super-Pac, Campaign, etc participation as the next step. 

We can't go off on a tangent that may be pointless and damaging to the overall effort. We are really flying blind right now and the next step requires us to fly the friggin Alps. As in all things similar, war for example, we need more information/intellegence. You can have inferior forces and still win the battle with the right intelligence, see Midway.

----------


## Mark37snj

This is the latest info posted at DailyPaul. It does not say when it was updated but it has been up there for atleast a week.

http://www.dailypaul.com/214415/gues...ts-in-question




> Hey guys. I just want you all to know that I have graphed in detail all of the counties in NH, SC and Fla that have the precinct information available on the Election Commissions' website. I have amassed a couple of hundred graphs probably. The most difficult part of this is getting this information into a form that is brief but easy to understand. Please appreciate this.
> 
> There are surely exceptions to the following observations, but here are some generalities:
> 
> 1. In any county where Ron Paul has more votes than Mitt Romney using the low vote total precincts, you get a ridiculous- looking curve like the one in Anderson County. (Anderson, Greenville, Spartanburg, and Oconee Counties). Mitt ends up at a vote total that could have been Paul's projected total and Paul crashes to the ground.
> 
> 2. In the counties where Romney has more votes than Paul in the low vote total precincts, There is no ridiculous anomaly like the one in Anderson County.
> 
> 3. In any race where Newt is ahead of Romney and Romney is anywhere close to Gingrich in vote total, Newt gets flipped by Romney (Richland, Charleston, and Beaufort Counties in SC) much like the maneuver in Anderson County where Mitt flips Paul. It appears to me that Newt actually won these counties as well as Polk and Duval Counties in Florida.
> ...

----------


## SCButterfly

> *EDIT: I sent a forum mail to the person who posted the original info. alerting her of this thread.*


Well, guess you what?  I did not receive any mail regarding this RPF post (not your fault just further confirmation that my isp [bellsouth.net] truly does censor incoming e-mails) .... but was actually alerted by "the analyst" who (yes) has read the thread.

*"The analyst" is in que here, as "The Man", and is awaiting approval in order to reply directly to this post.*

----------


## Mark37snj

> Well, guess you what?  I did not receive any mail regarding this RPF post (not your fault just further confirmation that my isp [bellsouth.net] truly does censor incoming e-mails) .... but was actually alerted by "the analyst" who (yes) has read the thread.
> 
> *"The analyst" is in que here, as "The Man", and is awaiting approval in order to reply directly to this post.*


LOL, didn't know you were over here. I joined DailyPaul and sent it through them. I received a confirmation in my personal email that it did go through.

----------


## bcreps85

> Well, guess you what?  I did not receive any mail regarding this RPF post (not your fault just further confirmation that my isp [bellsouth.net] truly does censor incoming e-mails) .... but was actually alerted by "the analyst" who (yes) has read the thread.
> 
> *"The analyst" is in que here, as "The Man", and is awaiting approval in order to reply directly to this post.*


Thanks for the update, you and "The Man" will be welcome additions to the thread.  There is a lot of concern over this right now for those of us following it.

----------


## hillertexas

> *"The analyst" is in que here, as "The Man", and is awaiting approval in order to reply directly to this post.*


Just flagged the post and asked if they could expedite the acceptance of "The Man"

----------


## SCButterfly

> LOL, didn't know you were over here. I joined DailyPaul and sent it through them. I received a confirmation in my personal email that it did go through.


Oh okie doke.  Still I did not get any e-mail re: RPF from DP.  This is just my personal aside thingy because I've been trying to access RPF for years, only finally got on 2 years ago and have been convinced there's an "RPF block" with bellsouth (as with DP and C4L as well, long story but look it up re: bellsouth censorship....I didn't know it for a long time and thought "nobody loved me" LOL).

So anyway, if'n y'all can get the admin to check your approval que, "The Man" awaits and should assuage everyone's analytical hissies ASAP.

----------


## Mark37snj

> I didn't know it for a long time and thought "nobody loved me" LOL).


AWE, can I hug her? 

I will copy the message and send it through this forum.

----------


## bbwarfield

the forums can take a bit to approve new people.... took me three days

----------


## SCButterfly

> Thanks for the update, you and "The Man" will be welcome additions to the thread.  There is a lot of concern over this right now for those of us following it.


Tell me about it!  My precinct pulled a strong 2nd for Dr. P and my sister precinct across town did as well.  I was happy/stunned we'd made (I'd/my precinct members made) so much actual philosophical progress since 08.  So after seeing that (the actual voter tape) I came home expecting an overall state 2nd place.  Figuring that if 15+ GOP/Conservative = my county, my town was indicative of the entire vote (since everywhere else in SC would be <15+) but apparently (maybe) it was only indicative of my will to not give up and my persistence with my town.

----------


## kathy88

GIRL POWER WOO HOO!!!!!! Get The Man access now!

----------


## SCButterfly

> Just flagged the post and asked if they could expedite the acceptance of "The Man"


Thank you Dear!

----------


## Mark37snj

Alright guys, we have a couple ladies on the thread now so NO belching, burping, or scratching yourself.

----------


## affa

can't wait to hear 'the man' weigh in.  some of these graphs are so... off the charts, so to speak, that i don't even know what to make of them.  so blatant i can't even believe they used such a crude algorithm.  voter fraud hiding in plain sight...

----------


## kathy88

> can't wait to hear 'the man' weigh in.  some of these graphs are so... off the charts, so to speak, that i don't even know what to make of them.  so blatant i can't even believe they used such a crude algorithm.  voter fraud hiding in plain sight...


But we still can, right?

----------


## kathy88

> Oh okie doke.  Still I did not get any e-mail re: RPF from DP.  This is just my personal aside thingy because I've been trying to access RPF for years, only finally got on 2 years ago and have been convinced there's an "RPF block" with bellsouth (as with DP and C4L as well, long story but look it up re: bellsouth censorship....I didn't know it for a long time and thought "nobody loved me" LOL).
> 
> So anyway, if'n y'all can get the admin to check your approval que, "The Man" awaits and should assuage everyone's analytical hissies ASAP.


I had a virus software that wouldn't let me on until I replaced it.

----------


## presence

*100% Unverifiable Statewide E-Voting in South Carolina's 2012 GOP Primary*

                              Friday 20 January 2012     
Brad Friedman

"And now we come to the "First-in-the-South" Republican primary in South  Carolina, 
where *all evidence* of how voters vote...

***DISAPPEARS ENTIRELY***

...as  the voters will be forced across the entire state to vote on 
 _easily-manipulated, oft-failed_, 
*100% unverifiable touch-screen voting  systems* 
made by the nation's largest voting machine company, ES&S."

http://www.truth-out.org/100-unverif...ary/1327167525

_Res ipsa loquitur,_

presence

----------


## SCButterfly

and 

100% of South Carolina Votes Go Through SCYTL
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/for...=/8/81828.html

_In South Carolina, 100% of election results will be redirected through a private Barcelona, Spain-owned company, Scytl/SOE Software, before being reported to the public_.

----------


## Mark37snj

> Exercice.
> 
> Can you tell which county was subjected to a vote flipping algorithm, with maximization of the loser's frustration (by 10 votes)?
> 
> If you have read the whole thread, I think that by now, you can...





> This is the battle to win:
> 
> 
> 
> And it was won.
> 
> The chart allows to deconstruct the algorithm.
> 
> Romney's quasi perfect straight line between 30% and 80% (R-squared 0.99%) indicates that for every additional 10% of votes cast, 10% of them, i.e. 1% is transferred to Romney.
> ...





> *100% Unverifiable Statewide E-Voting in South Carolina's 2012 GOP Primary*
> 
>                               Friday 20 January 2012     
> Brad Friedman
> 
> "And now we come to the "First-in-the-South" Republican primary in South  Carolina, 
> where *all evidence* of how voters vote...
> 
> ***DISAPPEARS ENTIRELY***
> ...


Quote from the website on Iowa: http://www.truth-out.org/100-unverif...ary/1327167525




> The "First-in-the-Nation" caucuses in Iowa allowed voters to vote on hand-marked paper ballots, counted by hand in front of the public at the caucus site, with results announced to everyone right then and there before being called in to GOP headquarters and before ballots were move anywhere. The wonderfully transparent system allowed for Republican voters by the Iowa GOP (which they hypocritically fight against allowing for everybody else in other states, and even in their own during general elections) is just about as close as we general get in this country to Democracy's Gold Standard. It's also what allowed reporting errors to be discovered and confirmed by the public after an election with some 122,000 votes counted transparently within an hour or so of polls closing, leading to almost nobody charging "fraud" even though just 34 votes are said to separate first and second place in the certified results of the impossibly, and historically, close election.


I'm gona reserve judgement on what they _think_ went on in Iowa.

----------


## SCButterfly

Who's the best contact for this thread?

----------


## chris41336

I don't want to email the head of the stats dept. At my univ. A link to this thread because I don't want her to think this is partisan, when its not. I'm worried about our country in general and I know all you guys are too.

 Now that I know the original author was readin this thread I'm going to wait for them to see what they think the next steps should be if anything.

----------


## Mark37snj

> Who's the best contact for this thread?


In regards to what? For the egg head statistics stuff it would have to be Liberty1789 
For general lurkers well there are a few.

EDIT: Did you check your Notifications at the top of the web page for the other info I sent you?

----------


## presence

Everybody needs to *go back to page 44* and give Liberty1789 +rep for these graphs.


Sent the above images to:

karen@voterescue.org
karp@voterescue.org
votefraud@fuse.net
info@givemeliberty.org
crew@blackboxvoting.org
writers@infowars.com

and the vote auditor in Story County:

auditor@storycounty.com

with a fat *WTF???*

I took several statistics courses in college and was an A student.  I was a mathematics major for my first 3 years.  Those curves in Story County *CANNOT HAPPEN*, ditto for the whole of Iowa.

In a one day vote, voting curves should be erratic at first, then stablize... then proceed nearly flat, every single time... just like Sioux County.  Anything else denies basic mathematical principles; namely: 


* CONFIDENCE INTERVAL BECOMES NARROWER AS SAMPLE SIZE INCREASES*.   









When 10% is in... that is a very strong representative sample.  When 30% is in... its statistically OVER.  For Romney to go from 17% to 25%, AFTER 30% of votes have been tallied... NOT POSSIBLE, NOT FATHOMABLE.  

Lemme do some math... I'll be back to you.   *cracks open now moldy statistical analysis text books*

In the mean time... ponder this thought... you flip a penny... 50/50 heads or tails... Right?  You do it 5 times... it might be 5 heads, no tails... but before long its going to even out... by 500 iterations you're going to get closer to 250/250... it might be a little off (variance) lets say 240/260... but as you get to 5000 iterations that variance is going to get smaller, you're going to get closer and closer to an even split; say 2489/2511  your line is going to level out.  Romney's results in Iowa would be like flipping a penny 10,000 times... getting very near to 5,000 / 5,000 ...then all out of nowhere you become more and more skewed away from 50/50 each additional time you flip the penny.  Its like wearing off one side of the penny every time you flip it, so it contiually becomes more likely to land on heads.  Its just not possible.  The universe doesn't work that way.  And for the slope to increase as time goes on?  Impossible on top of impossible.   The only way this works is by "weighting the dice" mid game; and when the slope increases... weighting the dice even more.

*Liberty1789*, do you have the data you were using to create these graphs?  I didn't see them when scanning the thread.  Much thanks.

presence

*UPDATE:

I RECANT THIS ENTIRE POST
I MISUNDERSTOOD THE MATERIAL
I FORMED AN INCORRECT 
NULL HYPOTHESIS
PLEASE SEE MY COMMENT 
#563 ON PAGE 57.*

*
Please disregard my commentary from here until that post.*

----------


## bcreps85

> I'm gona reserve judgement on what they _think_ went on in Iowa.


Well, keep in mind that there were some voting irregularities in Iowa too.  More than anything, I think the media fueled "Santorum Surge" is what really derailed us from an outright win, but the final tallies were counted in a secret location due to a threat from an activist group (some sources claim Anonymous, others claim OWS...who knows) and after this secret counting, 8 precincts were suddenly "missing" and Romney lost 7 of those 8 last time around - an interesting fact considering he is always the beneficiary of the "flipping".  Finally, even if these were counted in public and announced in all locations which I truly doubt, we are talking over a thousand precincts.  We had a hard time verifying some of the numbers out of Maine where there were a lot less voters and a lot less precincts...

Without electronic voting there are still ways to cheat, though not as easily...unless you are counting the votes in a...secret location or something.  Dead people voting, ineligible people voting (don't think they required ID in Iowa from some of what I read...last minute rule change), throwing away ballots, stuffing ballots etc etc.  Like I said, I'm not sure what I think happened in Iowa, but I attribute the loss *mostly* to the fake surge.  Aside from that...other things *could* have happened, but I'm not aware of any "smoking guns'.

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Occupy-Cau...2/29/id/422514

Oh, and I know a lot of people don't like Alex Jones, but this video has a lot of the "problems" with the Iowa Caucus in one location...I've seen them all reported elsewhere, just posting this because he has it all in one place.  He's kind of a nut, but he does report more truth than the MSM: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB7_Q...eature=related

----------


## Mark37snj

*UPDATE* - I just talked to The Man, he is still having technical difficulties joining the Forum. Can a Mod plz check his status. He is waiting for his confirmation email with his password. TY

----------


## jct74

> *UPDATE* - I just talked to The Man, he is still having technical difficulties joining the Forum. Can a Mod plz check his status. He is waiting for his confirmation email with his password. TY


I don't think mods can approve accounts but I'll make a thread in the mod forum so one of the administrators will see it soon.

----------


## Jeremy

> *UPDATE* - I just talked to The Man, he is still having technical difficulties joining the Forum. Can a Mod plz check his status. He is waiting for his confirmation email with his password. TY


PM JoshLowry and ask him to remove admin approval if you don't like it.

----------


## Mark37snj

Welcome aboard The Man! Glad to have you with us.

----------


## The Man

Hey guys. I want to tell you that what you are doing on this thread is precisely what needs to happen to explain the obvious percentage differentials between low and high vote total precincts. I have to tell you that I am an just an electrical engineer by education and make or imply no inflated claims otherwise. However, the premise used in the Anderson and Greenville reports were learned in the 9th grade in basic algebra. I have watched, like many of you, at the vote totals coming in from these precincts and it hits like dynamite: Is this discrepancy due to some honest cause? My opinion, after studying graphs from SC, NH, and Fla, is that if the anomalies were natural, more than a single candidate (Mitt Romney) would benefit... somewhere.... right?!? I mean, Newt Gingrich Steam Rolls here in SC but there is not one single instance that I can find any possible algorithm that could have helped his vote totals. I have much I'd like say, but for this initial post.... Good to be here.

----------


## Mark37snj

> Hey guys. I want to tell you that what you are doing on this thread is precisely what needs to happen to explain the obvious percentage differentials between low and high vote total precincts. I have to tell you that I am an just an electrical engineer by education and make or imply no inflated claims otherwise. However, the premise used in the Anderson and Greenville reports were learned in the 9th grade in basic algebra. I have watched, like many of you, at the vote totals coming in from these precincts and it hits like dynamite: Is this discrepancy due to some honest cause? My opinion, after studying graphs from SC, NH, and Fla, is that if the anomalies were natural, more than a single candidate would benefit... somewhere.... right?!? I mean, Newt Gingrich Steam Rolls here in SC but there is not one single instance that I can find any possible *algorithm*. I have much I'd like say, but for this initial post.... Good to be here.


Did you mean plausible explanation here?

----------


## The Man

Hello FrancisMarion, your graphs from the 2008 Primary caught my attention. I have not been able to find these. How many counties in SC did you download. Do you have the Url? Could be a significant find.

----------


## The Man

No. I find no instance where it looks as if any other candidate benefits from a possible computer "algorithm" using the Small precinct vote total percentage projection as a measuring stick.

----------


## The Man

> Did you mean plausible explanation here?


No. I find no instance where it looks as if any other candidate benefits from a possible computer "algorithm" using the Small precinct vote total percentage projection as a measuring stick.

----------


## Mark37snj

> No. I find no instance where it looks *as if any other candidate* benefits from a possible computer "algorithm" using the Small precinct vote total percentage projection as a measuring stick.


Do you mean any other canidate beside Romney?

----------


## bcreps85

> Do you mean any other canidate beside Romney?



I think what he's saying is that Newt Gingrich absolutely dominated SC, yet never appears to be "siphoning" votes off of anyone in a 1:1 ratio in any of the graphs - even though he won.  Ergo, Newt won, period.  Romney on the other hand...

----------


## Mark37snj

> I think what he's saying is that Newt Gingrich absolutely dominated SC, yet never appears to be "siphoning" votes off of anyone in a 1:1 ratio in any of the graphs - even though he won.  Ergo, Newt won, period.  Romney on the other hand...


Gotcha, ty

----------


## mosquitobite

so they leave Santorum & Gingrich's votes alone...
which again goes to show what we all here know: there is really only ONE anti-establishment candidate - and they cannot let him win a single state.  Period.

----------


## Adam West

This is Dynamite! Keep up the good work.

----------


## bcreps85

> so they leave Santorum & Gingrich's votes alone...
> which again goes to show what we all here know: there is really only ONE anti-establishment candidate - and they cannot let him win a single state.  Period.


Well, I interpret it a different way.  Other candidates have had their votes siphoned in some of these charts...Perry, Bachman, and Paul all have had votes stolen at some point from memory of the charts I've seen, but the real key is that Romney always seems to be the beneficiary.  To me, that means that he's the only establishment candidate...other than Obama.  Whoever is pulling the strings might prefer Newt or Santorum over Paul, but Romney is the pick...or the perpetrator...

----------


## The Man

> Well, I interpret it a different way.  Other candidates have had their votes siphoned in some of these charts...Perry, Bachman, and Paul all have had votes stolen at some point from memory of the charts I've seen, but the real key is that Romney always seems to be the beneficiary.  To me, that means that he's the only establishment candidate...other than Obama.  Whoever is pulling the strings might prefer Newt or Santorum over Paul, but Romney is the pick...or the perpetrator...


That's exactly right. "Cui Bono?" Mitt. This may be the most honest journalism we've had in modern times. The MSM has told us all aloong that Mitt was "Flip Flopper". We just didn't understand that he's flip flopping *votes*!"

----------


## Hospitaller

Posting to mostly be part of an epic thread.

For Liberty patriots keep up the good work

----------


## cjm

> ...or the perpetrator...


I'll probably get my first neg rep for this, but here goes...   I'd be really surprised if Mitt were the perpetrator.  He seems like a pretty sincere guy, and I see the "flip flopping" as just a desire to please whomever the current constituency is.  A generous term might be "adaptable."  That being said, if TPTB think he'd do their bidding, I have no reservations believing someone would do this "on his behalf."

----------


## The Man

> I'll probably get my first neg rep for this, but here goes...   I'd be really surprised if Mitt were the perpetrator.  He seems like a pretty sincere guy, and I see the "flip flopping" as just a desire to please whomever the current constituency is.  A generous term might be "adaptable."  That being said, if TPTB think he'd do their bidding, I have no reservations believing someone would do this "on his behalf."


I make no claims as to who is responsible. It wouldn't surprise me if Romney has no idea.

----------


## presence

I'm pesterin' the statisticians here:

http://www.talkstats.com/showthread....ossible-please!

They're telling me:

"There are often systematic differences between people who vote at  different times, resulting in different trajectories for different  candidates"

"Without knowing more about the demographics and how the polls  were tallied I really don't think you have a shot at [calculating the odds that romney increased his share in the way he did.]"

*I respond:
*
"I don't mean to be rude, and I appreciate your input/opinion... but *I  didn't join this forum for opinions on what might have been.*  You seem  to be avoiding the meat and potatoes I would expect from a number  crunching statistician.  I have a graphical data set and I want to  crunch some numbers regarding statistical confidence in the projection  of that set at the 30% sample size.  Can you guide me or can you point  me towards someone on this board who can?"

???

presence

----------


## presence

> I make no claims as to who is responsible. It wouldn't surprise me if Romney has no idea.


Romney has no idea... just like obama has no clue... just like bush had no clue...

"adaptable" = puppets

tptb like marianettes 

presence

----------


## affa

to above poster: Based on their response, I don't think they're sitting down and looking at all the charts.  The only 'trajectory' in the charts Liberty is posting should be horizontal.

Re: Romney - 
I doubt Romney knows a thing about this, if only because of two words:  'plausible deniability'.  Doesn't mean this information won't sink his battleship, though.

However --- and this is important:  I just read the article someone posted recently on here ( http://www.truth-out.org/100-unverif...ary/1327167525 ) and need to be very clear:  some of the vote fraud documented in that article is downright atrocious and I bet you very, very few voters have ever heard of these problems.  Why?  They don't get media attention.  Shoved under the rug.

We NEED to ensure this goes viral when the data is ready.  This needs to break through the media wall.  I don't know how quite to accomplish that short of the campaign embracing it.  But we need to try.   This needs to get out.

----------


## PolicyReader

> to above poster: Based on their response, I don't think they're sitting down and looking at all the charts.  The only 'trajectory' in the charts Liberty is posting should be horizontal.
> 
> Re: Romney - 
> I doubt Romney knows a thing about this, if only because of two words:  'plausible deniability'.  Doesn't mean this information won't sink his battleship, though.
> 
> However --- and this is important:  I just read the article someone posted recently on here ( http://www.truth-out.org/100-unverif...ary/1327167525 ) and need to be very clear:  some of the vote fraud documented in that article is downright atrocious and I bet you very, very few voters have ever heard of these problems.  Why?  They don't get media attention.  Shoved under the rug.
> 
> We NEED to ensure this goes viral when the data is ready.  This needs to break through the media wall.  I don't know how quite to accomplish that short of the campaign embracing it.  But we need to try.   This needs to get out.


With an issue like this one way to break through (or at least do an end run on) is to find NPOs and other orgs that already have part of the mission statement applying to this type of situation and forwarding the information (with as many sources and as much back up as possible) to them.  They all have mailing lists of their own as well as websites and could make a lot of noise with the right info even if the MSM was still dragging its feet on the subject (it would also make the MSM less likely to just block it out)

2c

----------


## presence

Where's the raw data for those graphs???

----------


## bcreps85

> I'll probably get my first neg rep for this, but here goes...   I'd be really surprised if Mitt were the perpetrator.  He seems like a pretty sincere guy, and I see the "flip flopping" as just a desire to please whomever the current constituency is.  A generous term might be "adaptable."  That being said, if TPTB think he'd do their bidding, I have no reservations believing someone would do this "on his behalf."


I personally don't believe Romney is the perpetrator; I only said it because it is technically a possibility.  What I'm about to assess could technically be part of an act, but I don't think so at this point in time.  I think the reason Mitt is the "chosen candidate" is because he is malleable.  He'll go in whatever direction the wind is blowing at any given time, just like Obama.  This would make him a strong choice for TPTB...easy to control, unlike Newt or Rick.  Newt is vindictive and therefore unpredictable.  Santorum actually believes the crap that comes out of his mouth, and IMHO, views this election as more of a crusade.  Also unpredictable.  I'm pretty sure this race was supposed to be over by now, but Paul was the wrench thrown into the gears and they couldn't let the other two drop out before him or he might really pick up the kind of momentum that would make him catch fire.  I think the push is for a brokered convention now so they can claim all of the candidates are too weak and then bring in another establishment pick - which is conveniently starting to be hinted at by the MSM...

I also think his malleability is what makes this weird relationship between Paul and him happen.  I think that he plays nice because he knows he'll need Paul's support.  I think Paul plays nice because he sees a potential student, however slim the chance...

----------


## bcreps85

> I'm pesterin' the statisticians here:
> 
> http://www.talkstats.com/showthread....ossible-please!
> 
> They're telling me:
> 
> "There are often systematic differences between people who vote at  different times, resulting in different trajectories for different  candidates"
> 
> " 			 		 	  Without knowing more about the demographics and how the polls  were tallied I really don't think you have a shot at [calculating the odds that romney increased his share in the way he did.]"
> ...


We aren't seeing different trajectories for different candidates.  We're seeing the exact same trajectories play out over and over in demographically different areas.  Big difference!  There is no way to calculate "exactly" what the odds of this happening in each case are because there are too many factors that can't be calculated.  If one assumes that each of the four candidates have equal "pull", however, we can still calculate that the likeliness is extremely small to the extent that happening once would have been a miracle.  Over and over...divine intervention?

----------


## Liberty1789

> Where's the raw data for those graphs???


For Iowa, precinct data taken here:

http://bradblog.com/Docs/IowaCaucus2...2_0738pmPT.csv

----------


## arsenius

> We NEED to ensure this goes viral when the data is ready.  *This needs to break through the media wall.*  I don't know how quite to accomplish that short of the campaign embracing it.  But we need to try.   This needs to get out.


In my dreams, the Good Doctor goes "Perot" when asked about electability at the debate tonight, and whips out some graphs.

----------


## Barrex

Hi. It is me again with silly point of view:
Long story(50+ pages) short:
-There are some evidence (based on statistic) that votes are stolen from Ron Paul.
-Name of this "operation" to be: "MAKE TEA, NOT LOVE".
-all people involved in calculating it are here on this thread now.
-Need more data. Where are you guys going to get it?Who is going to get it?
-Need to have project leader("Primus inter pares") and get organized. Who will it be and who will organize all of this?
-head of the stats department at chris41336 is interested but need more data to analyze. 
-thanks to presence who found out people on talkstats.com who are looking interested to give opinion.
etc.


MOVE IT!!!elect project leader; get organized; set time frame; chew bubblegum; kick-ass....

I want it done yesterday! You will sleep when you are dead! We need this(little motivational speech)

----------


## ghengis86

Quick question/observation:  there's no time scale on these graphs correct?  Only by precinct vote total, right?

So here's my devils advocate position: these graphs are not a timeline of the vote totals coming in, so some of the cumulative statistical anaylsis doesn't necessarily prove the fraud. I.e, as the sample size grows, the standard deviation shrinks but that's for all the data, additively. You can have large precincts report at the same time as small precincts. So there would have to be a concerted effort by whomever to only mess with the large precincts. And we would have to use another form of statistical analysis to prove our case, not the totals based on precinct size without considering time. 

Just my two cents. Maybe you all have covered this but I thought I'd throw it out there. Not saying there wasn't fraud, just that we need to counter any challenges to our position/data/analysis. 

Keep up the great work.

----------


## The Man

> Where's the raw data for those graphs???


I will email the raw data to anyone who needs it. Just send me a message.

----------


## bbwarfield

The statistics website that says time is a factor..... point out these simple points

Anderson County has no significant demographic shift.... all polls open and close at the same time and these are numbers base off of total votes for the day...... so even if Ron Paul people all vote at exactly 8:25 AM it woudnt show up at all cause these numbers are tallied at 7 pm. 

Remember.... they are kicking the tires too...but... they are not gonna care about candidate names like we are... they only are seeing "ron paul that crazy nut who is on TC is saying he won colorado  and nevada when he clearly lost" we need to just answer there objection with simple facts that are irrelevant of our candidate

Time has no affect whatsoever cause no numbers were released by time.... no numbers were released seperate of the total vote over a period of time that went from poll opened to poll closed. If they were looking at exit polls not matching its a legit beef cause they were done early in the day. But we are looking at final precinct numbers only

----------


## presence

*I'll be on the phone* with http://www.votefraud.org/ this afternoon RE:

*FW: EVIDENCE of voting algorithms in  IOWA*
"Very interesting email -- charts show progressive  drop of Ron Paul in Iowa as each 10% of the vote was reported, from  zero to 100% of the vote counted. Call me xxx-xxx-xxxx"

I'll let you know the results of that conversation.  I hope I haven't breached privacy in reposting their reply; if so I'll remove this post later.  In the mean time *let me know what you'd like me to convey to votefraud.org*.

thanks,

presence

----------


## Forty Twice

Time has no effect.  But in South Carolina, precinct size is a misnomer for # Votes Cast in precinct.  A small precinct is really a precinct that had low turnout.  Precinct # Registered voters was much more standard than Precinct # Votes.

One of the assumptions made by the OP was that there was no reason for smaller precincts to vote differently than large precincts.  I say there was.  The "small precincts" in Greenville, SC also voted overwhelmingly for Obama against McCain.  These "small precincts" were small because they had low turnout.  I contend that low turnout is due to them being heavily Democratic precincts.  Which Republican should do best in a Democratic precinct?  You got it, Shaggy.  Ron Paul. 

I spent last weekend working on this and my posts are somewhere back around page 30 - 36.  I can't remember.  But I'm done as my mind is satisfied there was no vote fraud due to "vote flipping" in "large" precincts.  I keep reading from time to time in case anyone has a good explanation, but I think the OP's assumption of precinct size having no expected bearing on candidate preference was incorrect and led to all of this discussion and effort. 

I hope Ron does not pull a Perot and bring this up.  Remember what happened to Perot when he brought up the "Republican Dirty Tricks" squad?

----------


## The Man

Guys- Let me clarify something. This analysis has nothing to do with "time" or "polls" or "exit polls". The report simply compares real vote totals, reported by the respective election commission, in small vote total precincts to those in large vote total precincts. I am an engineer that has found something that doen't look right and I can't explain by applying proven procedures: Gargantuan vote receiving percentage difference dependent upon the number of precinct voters. There is always one particular candidate that receives the benefit- Mitt Romney. Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum appear to all be oblivious vote donors, especially Paul.  


> The statistics website that says time is a factor..... point out these simple points
> 
> Anderson County has no significant demographic shift.... all polls open and close at the same time and these are numbers base off of total votes for the day...... so even if Ron Paul people all vote at exactly 8:25 AM it woudnt show up at all cause these numbers are tallied at 7 pm. 
> 
> Remember.... they are kicking the tires too...but... they are not gonna care about candidate names like we are... they only are seeing "ron paul that crazy nut who is on TC is saying he won colorado  and nevada when he clearly lost" we need to just answer there objection with simple facts that are irrelevant of our candidate
> 
> Time has no affect whatsoever cause no numbers were released by time.... no numbers were released seperate of the total vote over a period of time that went from poll opened to poll closed. If they were looking at exit polls not matching its a legit beef cause they were done early in the day. But we are looking at final precinct numbers only

----------


## presence

> The statistics website that says time is a factor..... point out these simple points


I reposted an abridged version of your points.  

I have also contacted the site admin via email to see if I couldn't be pointed towards more "meat and potatoes" members of the board.

presence

----------


## bbwarfield

> Time has no effect.  But in South Carolina, precinct size is a misnomer for # Votes Cast in precinct.  A small precinct is really a precinct that had low turnout.  Precinct # Registered voters was much more standard than Precinct # Votes.
> 
> One of the assumptions made by the OP was that there was no reason for smaller precincts to vote differently than large precincts.  I say there was.  The "small precincts" in Greenville, SC also voted overwhelmingly for Obama against McCain.  These "small precincts" were small because they had low turnout.  I contend that low turnout is due to them being heavily Democratic precincts.  Which Republican should do best in a Democratic precinct?  You got it, Shaggy.  Ron Paul. 
> 
> I spent last weekend working on this and my posts are somewhere back around page 30 - 36.  I can't remember.  But I'm done as my mind is satisfied there was no vote fraud due to "vote flipping" in "large" precincts.  I keep reading from time to time in case anyone has a good explanation, but I think the OP's assumption of precinct size having no expected bearing on candidate preference was incorrect and led to all of this discussion and effort. 
> 
> I hope Ron does not pull a Perot and bring this up.  Remember what happened to Perot when he brought up the "Republican Dirty Tricks" squad?


your analysis was good.... i would like to see it debunked... but didnt it also hinge on the two "rich" precincts? I havent gon indepth in you numbers yet but I seem to remember that those two precincts had ridiculous high turnout but were also demographically skewed. Is it not also suspicous when a demographics turnout is higher?  also it never explained other candidates losing votes.... I saw the status quo only going to Romney in larger numbers... while the states status quo should have been going to Newt if the polls are too be believed... those two precincts werew always romneys to have. Newt should have recieved more of a variance than romney if we are to believe that as precincts reach 100% they coalesce around the status quo

Newts numbers are were you see the most consistency when hes winning.... not Romneys.... so Newt would be the status quo candidate in any precint with no special demographic that skewes number "military..... rich district" 

Also this is a primary.... comparing with mcain vs. obama means little. give Ron Paul a handicap if you believe its crossover vote... okay.... but santorum and newt are not getting crossover

----------


## presence

> Guys- Let me clarify something. []The report simply compares real vote totals, reported by the respective election commission, in small vote total precincts to those in large vote total precincts.


I'm confused then.  Why is the x-scale on your graph listed as a percent?  I thought that was representative of the total percent of votes counted over time.

----------


## presence

Matter of curiosity... so you're not The Man as in "Adam The Man" RT reporter, former US military right?

I sent you a PM with my email.  Get me some data!

----------


## bbwarfield

they are total percent of the over all vote by precinct size

so (made up numbers here( 5,000 or less precincts make up the first 10%... 5-10,000 make up 10-30%..... 10,000+ make up 30% to 100% this is where the numbers start showing through.... cause the lower precincts show a flip once you hit a certain vote size precinct EVEN IN DEMOGRAPHICALLY NEUTRAL counties

----------


## presence

So you're saying the larger the precinct... the more skewed the result?  As opposed to the later in the count the more skewed the result?  Interesting; I have to rearrange and rethink my internal logic on the whole situation...  I need a moment to defrag for sure; I already slept on this one way  I can't begin to describe to you (or myself really) the ins and outs of the vividly lucid algorithmic dream I had last night regarding this topic; I woke up 5 times from it and slipped back in only to find myself deeper into a shifting statistical matrix vote percentages.

In the end, it still seems unlikely.   I have to let this go for now.  Responsibilities for the day.  I'll check back in late this afternoon.  Exactly what do you mean by "demographically neutral".

To what degree am I in breach of this boards terms and conditions as I quote from here to other boards and verbally quote from here over the phone later this afternoon???  I certainly have a RP slant and I'm seeking to clarify and promote this cause.  I've been booted from private boards in the past for promoting cross-interest collaboration on topics like this.  I'm new, but like my home here; don't wish to jeopardize anything at this juncture.

presence

----------


## affa

> One of the assumptions made by the OP was that there was no reason for smaller precincts to vote differently than large precincts.  I say there was.  The "small precincts" in Greenville, SC also voted overwhelmingly for Obama against McCain.  These "small precincts" were small because they had low turnout.  I contend that low turnout is due to them being heavily Democratic precincts.  Which Republican should do best in a Democratic precinct?  You got it, Shaggy.  Ron Paul. 
> 
> I spent last weekend working on this and my posts are somewhere back around page 30 - 36.  I can't remember.  But I'm done as my mind is satisfied there was no vote fraud due to "vote flipping" in "large" precincts.  I keep reading from time to time in case anyone has a good explanation, but I think the OP's assumption of precinct size having no expected bearing on candidate preference was incorrect and led to all of this discussion and effort. 
> 
> I hope Ron does not pull a Perot and bring this up.  Remember what happened to Perot when he brought up the "Republican Dirty Tricks" squad?


Your explanation doesn't even begin to explain 1:1 vote flipping with Romney.    Sure, this might explain if Ron Paul had an early 'bump' in low vote precincts, then dropped a bit and leveled off as higher vote total precincts are factored in.   That would be something we could dismiss as you do.  You'd still see the line flatten out, just maybe after a dip after the small precincts are accounted for.

But for each vote statistically predicted for Paul to go to Romney?  No way.  There is no way your explanation even remotely explains that.   And to see this happen, in certain cases, with others (Huckabee, Gingrich, etc) in specific cases where that would benefit Romney more than switching with Paul?  No way.

It simply does not make sense that the Democrat presence in small counties would create a trendline for Paul that exactly matched Romney's trend line in 'Republican' districts, and vice versa.  Not only this, but your hypothetical Democrat presence in small counties did not affect Gingrich or Santorum trendlines whatsoever.

No way. Not buying it.

----------


## bbwarfield

I have been sitting out doing my own analysis of the numbers for two reason a)excel frustrates me when making graphs.... b) my knowledge of statistics are very  limited....

that said I am good at one thing... I worked at an archives that was just barely started but had been "collected" over 75 years. My job was when someone asked a question figuring out how to find an answer. This is why I am making statements more of what we are looking at and what we should be looking at.

But I have two books on statistics and excel coming in the mail today... so tomorrow on my day off I should be able to start really helping out here

----------


## affa

> So you're saying the larger the precinct... the more skewed the result?  As opposed to the later in the count the more skewed the result?  Interesting; I have to rearrange and rethink my internal logic on the whole situation...  I need a moment to defrag for sure; I already slept on this one way  I can't tell you the ins and outs of the algorithmic dream I had last night; I woke up 5 times from it and slipped back in.    
> 
> In the end, it still seems unlikely.   I have to let this go for now.  Responsibilities for the day.  I'll check back in late this afternoon.  Exactly what do you mean by "demographically neutral".
> 
> To what degree am I in breach of this boards terms and conditions as I quote from here to other boards and verbally quote from here over the phone later this afternoon???  I certainly have a RP slant and I'm seeking to clarify and promote this cause.  I've been booted from private boards in the past for promoting cross-interest collaboration on topics like this.  I'm new, but like my home here.
> 
> presence


These charts we are seeing are across precinct vote total, not 'time'.  They are not based on when vote was tallied.  So yes, what they seem to be showing is that in low vote tally precincts form predictive trend lines that can nail Santorum and Gingrich's final tally with alarming accuracy... but flip Romney and Paul with alarming accuracy.  

In certain precincts, we can see slightly different algorithms where Romney flips with other candidates, but Romney is always the only benefactor.   More importantly, these other precincts show us that it's not some impossibly odd issue specific to Ron Paul.   Furthermore, a few cases where votes are apparently siphoned off all other candidates (once again to the sole benefit of Romney) show us that fraud is the likely culprit in all cases (see this post for what I mean by this: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...17#post4195817).

----------


## presence

Affa in your signature... abbreviations ABO and NOBP ???  I can tell what you're getting at... I'm just drawing a blank... perhaps you should add a line in your sig regarding the definitions of those abbreviations.

----------


## Forty Twice

Another forum member named Francis Marion (the swamp fox?) had some posts right before mine that mentioned the two large,rich, Romney-preferring precincts.  I think he was seeing the same effect I was.  My discussion has been pointed more to the other end where Ron Paul does well, the precincts are "small", and were won handily by Obama.

----------


## affa

> Affa in your signature... abbreviations ABO and NOBP ???


Anyone but Obama, No One But Paul

My vote goes only to Ron Paul.  The bit in my sig is just an oversimplification of my opinion of the general.   Vote fraud not in effect, obviously.

----------


## affa

> Another forum member named Francis Marion (the swamp fox?) had some posts right before mine that mentioned the two large,rich, Romney-preferring precincts.  I think he was seeing the same effect I was.  My discussion has been pointed more to the other end where Ron Paul does well, the precincts are "small", and were won handily by Obama.


Again, this wouldn't explain the trendlines we are seeing.  This might account for a large dip in RP votes after these districts are accounted for, but afterwards, in my opinion, his trendline should still flatten out.   Furthermore, all other candidates should be affected, not just Romney... and certainly not just Romney to the degree we're seeing (1:1).   What you're suggesting is these small districts hurt Romney and only Romney, and help Ron Paul and only Ron Paul.  That makes no sense, especially when we're presented with other counties where Romney is still the 'benefactor' but others play the role of gifter that would never benefit from Democrat crossover (like Huckabee).

----------


## Mark37snj

> Again, this wouldn't explain the trendlines we are seeing.  This might account for a large dip in RP votes after these districts are accounted for, but afterwards, in my opinion, his trendline should still flatten out.   Furthermore, all other candidates should be affected, not just Romney... and certainly not just Romney to the degree we're seeing (1:1).   What you're suggesting is these small districts hurt Romney and only Romney, and help Ron Paul and only Ron Paul.  That makes no sense, especially when we're presented with other counties where Romney is still the 'benefactor' but others play the role of gifter that would never benefit from Democrat crossover (like Huckabee).


Mornin all. This post should be our standard reply when others post more isolated incidents of demographics as an explanation of whats going on. We keep going over this and showing why these isolated demographic issues are not valid and were spending time rebutting them instead of moving forward. Just quote affa post as a reply and move on.

----------


## Forty Twice

> Your explanation doesn't even begin to explain 1:1 vote flipping with Romney.    Sure, this might explain if Ron Paul had an early 'bump' in low vote precincts, then dropped a bit and leveled off as higher vote total precincts are factored in.   That would be something we could dismiss as you do.  You'd still see the line flatten out, just maybe after a dip after the small precincts are accounted for.


When ordered by "precinct size" or "votes cast" as the OP reported the precincts show a 1:1 flip between Romney and Paul.

When ordered by 2008 McCain Vote% - Obama Vote%, or partisan affiliation of the precincts, Ron Paul's vote drops and the other three benefit equally.

I cannot explain the 1:1 flip in the first case.  I observed even distribution in the second case.  I don't know which trumps which.

Believe me that I want to find evidence of vote fraud as badly as you do.  But I want to debunk all plausible alternatives first.  Don't make the campaign look foolish a la Ross Perot.

Here are my charts from earlier:

----------


## bcreps85

> Time has no effect.  But in South Carolina, precinct size is a misnomer for # Votes Cast in precinct.  A small precinct is really a precinct that had low turnout.  Precinct # Registered voters was much more standard than Precinct # Votes.
> 
> One of the assumptions made by the OP was that there was no reason for smaller precincts to vote differently than large precincts.  I say there was.  The "small precincts" in Greenville, SC also voted overwhelmingly for Obama against McCain.  These "small precincts" were small because they had low turnout.  I contend that low turnout is due to them being heavily Democratic precincts.  Which Republican should do best in a Democratic precinct?  You got it, Shaggy.  Ron Paul. 
> 
> I spent last weekend working on this and my posts are somewhere back around page 30 - 36.  I can't remember.  But I'm done as my mind is satisfied there was no vote fraud due to "vote flipping" in "large" precincts.  I keep reading from time to time in case anyone has a good explanation, but I think the OP's assumption of precinct size having no expected bearing on candidate preference was incorrect and led to all of this discussion and effort. 
> 
> I hope Ron does not pull a Perot and bring this up.  Remember what happened to Perot when he brought up the "Republican Dirty Tricks" squad?


This doesn't explain several things...

1.  1:1 vote flipping.  I could be convinced Paul would receive a "boost" from Democratic voters, but the fact that it is always turning out almost exactly 1:1 is very unlikely.

2.  You are ASSUMING low turnout areas have large Democrat-leaning population.  This can be proved or disproved, which I'm sure someone will do at some point.

3.  This does not explain the graphs we have seen from the '08 election where Huckabee had the exact same occurrence of "siphoned" votes.  Are you also suggesting that he somehow appealed to Democrats?

Appreciate the debunk attempt, but I don't think it explains it off.

----------


## Mark37snj

> 


Instead of a scatter plot with the slope line can you graph this the same as the others?

----------


## Liberty1789

Debunking attempts are vital and the most useful thing that can be done at this stage. So thank you to all critics. It's great.

I have calculated the correlation between Paul's share of vote and voter turnout for Palm Beach, FL (a joyous 700 precincts, 61,000 votes). The result is -0.06. No correlation at all. Voter turnout has no detectable bearing on Paul's performance.

----------


## Forty Twice

That's not a bad idea.  I'll do it tonight.

----------


## TheGrinch

If you don't know statistics and just want to theorize, please leave those who do alone to work. The one thing I know about statistics is that it should be far more predictable and not increasing deviation and spikes with more samples (right?), unlike what we see in most typical cases with Santorum in Gingrich (i.e., the way it's supposed to look, and how they predict elections). If they see so many of theses unexplainable anomalies, not just a few, then let them do their work and come to conclusions before you interject opinions folks. Further, with Romney always the recipient and Paul always a loser in the deal, is plenty enough to warrant more examination.

You don't _have_ to have all the answers yet, to see that things look extremely fishy.

----------


## bbwarfield

florida is a good place to look... cause i bet youll see this happen to newt.... not Paul... i think it has little to do with names but relative position.... remember though... palm beach may not be all electronic voting either.... 

BUT.... palm beach has some pretty heavy demographics wed need to sort through im also certain. Forty Twice does show evidence votre turnout can be a factor... but once again... NEWT shows steady.... so does santroum (if im reading this right.... different graph might help cause these scatter ones always confuse me) but once again... im seeing mixed data.... obama vs. mcain while still an ELECTION has little to do with primary voting.... cause your looking at a demographic within a demographic....

its like saying "people like grilled cheese sandwiches" then proving this is wrong by sampling people asked who there grilled cheese sandwiches were made with blue cheese and ricotta...... its a sub group within a larger group.... apples and oranges and all that.

comparing general elections to general eletions and primaries to primaries is the only thing im seeing being useful. and even the Republican to republican... democrat to democrat. 


The only exception that is useful is NH obama vs. Hillary cause they show the difference betweeen hand count and electronic voting. 

Lets keep in mind folks

Iowa:Hand counted caucus 100% public counting available
New Hampshire: electronic and handcounted primary public counting where hand counted
South Carlonia: 100% electronic primary no public record of counting
Florida: electronic and handcounted primary counting where hand counted
Nevada: Hand counted Caucus: public tallyinging of votes was completely suspect do to actions of the party

South Carolina is the only primary that was not a mix.... so you find the oddities here and move on to New Hampshire and Florida where you must descern the difference of hand counted and electronic. 

Caucuses are "more verifiable" but not electronic. Can the numbers be messaged? yes..... were they? probably..... but SC is a primary where there is no papertrail..... nh and florida have partial paper trails

----------


## bbwarfield

> If you don't know statistics and just want to theorize, please leave those who do alone to work. The one thing I know about statistics is that it should be far more predictable and not increasing deviation and spikes with more samples (right?), unlike what we see in most typical cases with Santorum in Gingrich (i.e., the way it's supposed to look, and how they predict elections). If they see so many of theses unexplainable anomalies, not just a few, then let them do their work and come to conclusions before you interject opinions folks. Further, with Romney always the recipient and Paul always a loser in the deal, is plenty enough to warrant more examination.
> 
> You don't _have_ to have all the answers yet, to see that things look extremely fishy.


I dont know statistics but I do know when I see methodology problems. Those of us who have had jobs in academic fields may have a base knowledge in statistics but we do have a great amount of knowledge in methodology. Demographics and such I do understand cause of my archives work, my job was finding information that was missing and using existing information to a)find where something is missing and b)actually finding it .... some times that meant reading a full years worth of a daily newspaper from the 1930's to find no mention of an event and finding that similar events were regularly discussed... this just to prove we had a location or date wrong.

So I wont be making graphs... but I will watch methods used closely

----------


## Mark37snj

> Debunking attempts are vital and the most useful thing that can be done at this stage. So thank you to all critics. It's great.


I just want to get an idea of what kind of time frame you had in mind for moving foward. I'm concerned that we are just gona keep going over and over these hypotheticals. We have more primaries/caucuses coming up all the way into the summer. After each one, where we see these anomolies, it will just be a new round of demographics hypotheticals and what IF's to debunk each with new arguments because of the different states/precincts demographics and voting/canidate situaition.

EDIT: Are there a few specific things you are/want to work on and get finished first?

----------


## bbwarfield

whens super tuesday? I think we should try to have a full report done by then so the news gets out then and then people can confirm it in the super tuesday numbers....... but if we need to take more time to find the errors and get more data for the weak spots... thats whats gotta happen : (

----------


## TheGrinch

> I dont know statistics but I do know when I see methodology problems. Those of us who have had jobs in academic fields may have a base knowledge in statistics but we do have a great amount of knowledge in methodology. Demographics and such I do understand cause of my archives work, my job was finding information that was missing and using existing information to a)find where something is missing and b)actually finding it .... some times that meant reading a full years worth of a daily newspaper from the 1930's to find no mention of an event and finding that similar events were regularly discussed... this just to prove we had a location or date wrong.
> 
> So I wont be making graphs... but I will watch methods used closely


Umm, your "time" methodology question was debunked as a moot factor. "The Man" is an engineer who cannot reconcile this:




> Guys- Let me clarify something. This analysis has nothing to do with "time" or "polls" or "exit polls". The report simply compares real vote totals, reported by the respective election commission, in small vote total precincts to those in large vote total precincts. *I am an engineer that has found something that doen't look right and I can't explain by applying proven procedures*: Gargantuan vote receiving percentages dependent upon the number of precinct voters. There is always one particular candidate that receives the benefit- Mitt Romney. Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Sartorum appear to all be oblivious vote donors, especially Paul.


Sorry, but I'm going to defer to him over someone who doesn't know anymore about Statistics than this guy who took STAT101, but wants to question the methodology of those who do.

----------


## bbwarfield

I may be beating a dead horse.... and i know you guys have put a lot of work into it..... but Iowa seems to be something that would be best done later.... theres a reason pollsters stay away from caucuses.... they always make them look foolish

South Carolina... florida.... new hampshire .... these have all the info we could ever want. We dont need to prove ALL fraud... just fraud in general

----------


## bbwarfield

> Umm, your "time" methodology question was debunked as a moot factor. "The Man" is an engineer who cannot reconcile this:


? I think your confusing me with someone else... i never said anything about time being a factor in anything... someone asked about time being a and I responded that the statistics had NOTHING to do with time


edit: heres what I said about the time theory earlier 


> Time has no affect whatsoever cause no numbers were released by time.... no numbers were released seperate of the total vote over a period of time that went from poll opened to poll closed. *If* they were looking at exit polls not matching its a legit beef cause they were done early in the day. *But we are looking at final precinct numbers only*


Im pretty sure I was debunking the time thing

----------


## TheGrinch

> ? I think your confusing me with someone else... i never said anything about time being a factor in anything... someone asked about time being a and I responded that the statistics had NOTHING to do with time
> 
> 
> edit: heres what I said about the time theory earlier 
> 
> Im pretty sure I was debunking the time thing


My apologies then. I misunderstood the first sentence from your post to be supporting that idea. I just want to make sure that those of us who don't necessarily know what we're talking about, don't derail the ones that do, that's all. By all means question the methods, I'm just questioning those who seem to want to use it to claim there's nothing fishy, when the statisticians will tell you there appears there is. 

My apologies if I lumped you in without good reason.

----------


## Paul Fan

One thing to keep in mind is that, assuming there was fraud, someone had to create this algorithm. How did they do it? What parameters did they use? Might they have looked at the McCain-Obama race as something to piggyback off somehow? I am not a statisticuan but just wanted to throw that out there.

----------


## bbwarfield

> My apologies if I lumped you in without good reason.


all is forgiven ; ) I just want to make sure we are getting good hard data first before we add things that muddy the water : ) 

gotta admit ive got an obervers bias.... i just want to make sure the methodology is right... my old job was finding the truth.... so it was sort of the figuring out what were "lies, damn lies, and statistics" you can make statistics say anything when using the wrong data.. BUT... if the methodology used it true... the statistics will be as well

----------


## The Man

Voter % turnout is without a doubt a factor. That was my first justification before a single spreadsheet was created. But answer this: Why do you not see any substantial difference in RP's percentage from, say, a precinct with 30 voters to one with, say, 200 voters? I want to know.  It appears to me that RP'S vote percentage is a straight line up to 250 votes per precinct. 


> Time has no effect.  But in South Carolina, precinct size is a misnomer for # Votes Cast in precinct.  A small precinct is really a precinct that had low turnout.  Precinct # Registered voters was much more standard than Precinct # Votes.
> 
> One of the assumptions made by the OP was that there was no reason for smaller precincts to vote differently than large precincts.  I say there was.  The "small precincts" in Greenville, SC also voted overwhelmingly for Obama against McCain.  These "small precincts" were small because they had low turnout.  I contend that low turnout is due to them being heavily Democratic precincts.  Which Republican should do best in a Democratic precinct?  You got it, Shaggy.  Ron Paul. 
> 
> I spent last weekend working on this and my posts are somewhere back around page 30 - 36.  I can't remember.  But I'm done as my mind is satisfied there was no vote fraud due to "vote flipping" in "large" precincts.  I keep reading from time to time in case anyone has a good explanation, but I think the OP's assumption of precinct size having no expected bearing on candidate preference was incorrect and led to all of this discussion and effort. 
> 
> I hope Ron does not pull a Perot and bring this up.  Remember what happened to Perot when he brought up the "Republican Dirty Tricks" squad?

----------


## Mark37snj

> One thing to keep in mind is that, assuming there was fraud, someone had to create this algorithm. How did they do it? What parameters did they use? Might they have looked at the McCain-Obama race as something to piggyback off somehow? I am not a statisticuan but just wanted to throw that out there.


In order to figure out the exact nature of the algorithym I think that will take either a talented/dedicated statisticain with the proper resources or a stats company. There may even be multiple algorithys based on the same algorithym structure but which has had certain parameters changed according to voting/demographic dynamics. My guess is with enough examples they will be able to pin point the algorithyms parameters. They may even be able to give an educated guess as to what they used to model their algorithym on but some of your questions we may never know the answer to.

----------


## SonofThunder

Can someone tell me what exactly the X axis represents?

I have assumed that it represents the number of votes counted, as they are counted. So it's not time, and it's not just the number of votes counted, but it shows the number of votes counted as they are coming in.

In other words, the left part of the X axis is the first votes that were counted, and the right part of the X axis is the last votes that were counted.

Is this correct?

----------


## The Man

I just received this from the article's author, Dr. Kaz: http://healthfreedom2012.com/HFblog/...ael-sctyl-soe/

----------


## Liberty1789

You are right, SonOfThunder. X is cumulative percentage of votes counted, counted precinct after precinct, precincts ordered by ascending order of total votes cast.

----------


## affa

first off, watch the infighting guys.  we're all on the same team.  don't let anyone divide and conquer.




> Here are my charts from earlier:


I don't view either of these charts as particularly meaningful.

I don't think anyone is going to doubt that RP does slightly better in heavily Democratic regions (crossover votes, plus independents) than known Republican strongholds that voted McCain.  In fact, we'd all be surprised if that wasn't the case, since it would defy what is to believed to be Ron Paul's appeal to the general electorate.   But this first graph isn't even about Ron Paul to begin with;  rather, the first chart essentially tells us that the higher percent of people that showed up for the Republican primary, the better McCain did in the general.  Unsurprising, and really, anything else would look odd.    Also of note, that this represents a two-man race between two diametrically opposed candidates (Dem vs. Rep).  And of course, this is only taking Greenville ino account.

However, the second chart is even more interesting.  Perhaps most important to note is this chart does not take precinct size into account at all.   There is no way of knowing what the precinct size of any given result point is.   So what we're seeing here is that Ron Paul does better in areas that swayed Obama (crossover votes + independents) and the others don't.  But since precinct size is not a part of this graph, it's difficult to evaluate this against our other results.  

What would this chart look like if you 'flipped' precincts over the threshold point for Romney/Paul 1:1?    Would the chart those numbers generated be any more or less believable?  Afterall, the scattershot is so prevalent in this chart, the lines are actually misleading since they imply 'predictive' statistics, when it doesn't appear that is actually the case.

In a way, this assumption that Romney would do better in 'Republican' areas than Ron Paul is at the very crux of what is being discussed.  After all, isn't the assumption this is trying to show?  But what if vote flipping did occur? Is it really that hard to believe that Republicans would actually be rejecting Romney?  

Also, it's clear from looking at this second chart that Romney shows the most variability.  Some of his 'highs' are almost off the chart -  for example, look at his scattershot near the 0% mark, just below 40%, and at around 60%.  Nobody else is getting jumps of this magnitude.  

But then look at the point on the chart at about 75%, where the scattershot is dropping off.   See where Ron Paul has a mark way off his line and on Romney's line?   And Romney, oddly, has his mark for the same precinct way off his line, dropping way down off his own chart?   Could those be únflipped precincts?  Impossible to tell, really, since precinct total isn't part of this chart... but you can see examples like this throughout, if you look at it closely enough.

My point, really, is that I don't think this chart shows what you think it shows.  And again, I'd  be quite interested to see this same  chart done únflipped at the suspected hinge point.

----------


## The Man

No. The graph is constructed from the final precinct data at the Election Commissioner's website. We order the votes counted from smallest precincts to largest. In other words in the graphs in the report, the left side of the "line" represents the precincts with the smallest number of votes whereas the right side represents the precincts with the largest vote totals. 


> Can someone tell me what exactly the X axis represents?
> 
> I have assumed that it represents the number of votes counted, as they are counted. So it's not time, and it's not just the number of votes counted, but it shows the number of votes counted as they are coming in.
> 
> In other words, the left part of the X axis is the first votes that were counted, and the right part of the X axis is the last votes that were counted.
> 
> Is this correct?

----------


## Liberty1789

> Voter % turnout is without a doubt a factor. That was my first justification before a single spreadsheet was created. But answer this: Why do you not see any substantial difference in RP's percentage from, say, a precinct with 30 voters to one with, say, 200 voters?


Sorry, no problem, semantics are the issue here. I call voter turnout in a precinct : votes cast / voters registered. Absolute number of votes cast in a precinct is a factor, of course! Sorry about the confusion.

----------


## Mark37snj

> Also, it's clear from looking at this second chart that Romney shows the most variability.  Some of his 'highs' are almost off the chart -  for example, look at his scattershot near the 0% mark, just below 40%, and at around 60%.  Nobody else is getting jumps of this magnitude.


Notice that at each point where Romney's highs are that Ron Paul has corresponding lows.

----------


## The Man

> Matter of curiosity... so you're not The Man as in "Adam The Man" RT reporter, former US military right?
> 
> I sent you a PM with my email.  Get me some data!


I am not Adam the Man. I wrote the report on Anderson and Greenville Counties. I am an Electrical Engineer, not a professional statistical analyst. The math used in the report was essentially learned in the 9th grade.

----------


## Liberty1789

On where to go from here, my 2 cents.

My agenda?

I am finishing off Maine, which I was reluctant to look at because the very low number of votes means that the votes samples are, a priori, poorly "powered" (the statistical relevance is low). Some results here soon.

I have full county coverage of IA an NH. Want to do the same for NV.

Want to look at SC as it is the only instance of Romney's defeat. Are the line patterns different? Gonna take a while.

Then publish all in a friendly format.

Get friends of mine, whose are math geniuses, to demolish it all if they can.

The forum's agenda?

Accumulate data.
Debunk.
PhD vetting.
Make Superpac and campaign aware, just in case they assess that the analysis already warrants resources.
Do not go public yet.

----------


## Mark37snj

> On where to go from here, my 2 cents.
> 
> My agenda?
> 
> I am finishing off Maine, which I was reluctant to look at because the very low number of votes means that the votes samples are, a priori, poorly "powered" (the statistical relevance is low). Some results here soon.
> 
> I have full county coverage of IA an NH. Want to do the same for NV.
> 
> Want to look at SC as it is the only instance of Romney's defeat. Are the line patterns different? Gonna take a while.
> ...


This ^^^ was very helpful, thanks. I will volunteer to call Revolution Pac tomorrow unless a good reason not to is posted.

EDIT: to The Man, are you able/going to get chris41336 anymore data to give to his university stat associate?

----------


## bcreps85

> I just received this from the article's author, Dr. Kaz: http://healthfreedom2012.com/HFblog/...ael-sctyl-soe/


I remember reading about that before the election, I think on BlackBoxVoting.org.  Frightening.

----------


## Barrex

> On where to go from here, my 2 cents.
> 
> My agenda?
> 
> I am finishing off Maine, which I was reluctant to look at because the very low number of votes means that the votes samples are, a priori, poorly "powered" (the statistical relevance is low). Some results here soon.
> 
> I have full county coverage of IA an NH. Want to do the same for NV.
> 
> Want to look at SC as it is the only instance of Romney's defeat. Are the line patterns different? Gonna take a while.
> ...


Thanks finally a plan to follow.

Could someone put all data(voting record from SC Iowa,Maine etc.) on google documents so people can download them and pass them to others who are interested?

Also can you set a time frame? Few days or few weeks or months?

*
Do not go public yet.                         
*

----------


## The Man

> I just want to get an idea of what kind of time frame you had in mind for moving foward. I'm concerned that we are just gona keep going over and over these hypotheticals. We have more primaries/caucuses coming up all the way into the summer. After each one, where we see these anomolies, it will just be a new round of demographics hypotheticals and what IF's to debunk each with new arguments because of the different states/precincts demographics and voting/canidate situaition.
> 
> EDIT: Are there a few specific things you are/want to work on and get finished first?


1. We need to continuously expand this to any qualified statistical professional willing to consider.
2. If the RP meetups could exit poll at some precincts close to 100% and compare to reported results that would be huge!!!! Forget demographics-"Who'd you vote for?"
3. Special plan for SC- private.

----------


## Mark37snj

On a side note I just talked to a close friend of mine in Arizona and she is going to the debate tonight. She could not get a ticket but she will be outside with the big screen. I told her to take her cell phone and give me updates of whats going on. She said that the Mormons in AZ have Romney at 40% already in early voting.

----------


## cachemaster

> Thanks finally a plan to follow.
> 
> Also can you set a time frame? Few days or few weeks or months?


Obviously we don't want to release information until we have all of it and are 100% sure, but at the same time we can't afford to wait until it's too late. Ideally if we have sufficient data we need to come forward before super Tuesday.

----------


## Liberty1789

Low vote count. Was not too sure what to expect.

5310 votes cast. Original caucus report used. Excludes Aroostook as there is no precinct breakdown.



If you look at the lines from 50% on the X-axis (cumulative % of votes cast), quick math shows that Romney gains 1% every additional 10%, a similar climb rate to NH and IA (!), but the climb starts later into the vote count than IA (where the climb starts at 25%)and NH (starts at 20%). The gains come 50-50 from Paul and Gingrich, Santorum unaffected.

At 50%, Maine's precinct size is 33 votes. At 25%, Iowa's precinct size was 60. At 20%, NH was 620.

Hmmm...

----------


## hillertexas

Possible people to contact

Jerome H. Friedman
Jerome H. Friedman is one of the world's leading researchers in statistical data mining. He has been a Professor of Statistics at Stanford University for nearly 20 years and has published on a wide range of data mining topics including nearest neighbor classification, logistic regression, and high-dimensional data analysis, and machine learning.  http://stat.stanford.edu/~jhf/
Email: jhf@stanford.edu 

Bradley Efron
Professor Efron is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, president of the American Statistical Association, recipient of the MacArthur Prize, and winner of the Wilks Medal of the American Statistical Association. Professor Efron is renowned internationally for his pioneering work in computationally intensive statistical methods, particularly the bootstrap method and the biased coin design.  He is still a very active researcher, having worked more recently in statistical genetics.
http://fsi.stanford.edu/people/bradleyefron/
Contact Info: brad@stat.stanford.edu
(650) 723-2206 (voice)

Anirban DasGupta
Professor of Statistics, Purdue University
Research Interests: Asymptotics, Probability and Analysis, * Probability Inequalities*
http://www.stat.purdue.edu/people/faculty/dasgupta/
E-mail : dasgupta@purdue.edu
Phone : 765-494-6033

----------


## Barrex

I am from Croatia (Europe) and here every graph got information on it:

What is x what y?
This might get confusing when you got x and y to be percentages.
When you are comparing 1 caucus with another it would be good if you would write number of voters in both caucuses. Some people could think 1 caucus had 10 voters and another had 10000.
In final version all candidates should have their own color. At the moment every new graph got different color associated with a candidate.

I know some of this is just aesthetic  but it got me a little confused when I pulled all  graphs on 1 page.
Goal is that people who look at graph for the first time know what they are looking without needing to read entire document (at least that is what I was taught in my basic economy class)

----------


## bbwarfield

Maine has another interesting issue with analysis that will cause alot of work.... it was not just a caucus... but a WEEK long caucus. So precint flipping would be hard to determine as one day to the next national and local information also changed. Also Mitt only focused on massive precincts. So it causes a problem that you would have to start cherry picking in rder to not write a doctoral thesis on how its determined.

----------


## bcreps85

It would take some time to put together, but one thing I'm interested in as a "buddy document" to compound the findings in this is a comparison of how Ron Paul fairs in instances where votes are counted in the open,  how he fairs in instances where votes were tallied in "secret" regardless of how they were taken, and where electronic voting took place so we can compare all of these things side by side.

What I am noticing as things progress is that when the count is open and under close scrutiny, Paul seems to dominate.  The last two caucuses held in Maine are a prime example...the GOP there was under close watch and Paul got like 2x the votes as Romney.  Then there were the caucuses in Nevada that were broadcast live where again, Paul dominated.  We seem to do better when things are open/honest...

----------


## Adam West

> I make no claims as to who is responsible. It wouldn't surprise me if Romney has no idea.


See nothing... Know nothing...

----------


## Forty Twice

> It would take some time to put together, but one thing I'm interested in as a "buddy document" to compound the findings in this is a comparison of how Ron Paul fairs in instances where votes are counted in the open,  how he fairs in instances where votes were tallied in "secret" regardless of how they were taken, and where electronic voting took place so we can compare all of these things side by side.
> 
> What I am noticing as things progress is that when the count is open and under close scrutiny, Paul seems to dominate.  The last two caucuses held in Maine are a prime example...the GOP there was under close watch and Paul got like 2x the votes as Romney.  Then there were the caucuses in Nevada that were broadcast live where again, Paul dominated.  We seem to do better when things are open/honest...


^^^^^^^^

Now this is for damn sure.  I strongly suspect serious vote fraud is happening.  What disappoints me is how few cases we have seen independently confirming caucus results.  I thought there would be a Ron Paul supporter at every precinct in Iowa snapping a picture of the caucus results and posting them here.  Why didn't this happen?  At least we could see all the cases where the caucus result did in fact equal the officially reported results.  Right now, I can't believe any of the official caucus results and there should be confirming evidence for the vast majority of those caucuses.  I never expected to be provided with proof on primary votes, but our people should have documented more of the caucus results.

As of now, there is the Las Vegas Late Night precinct caucus and the two Maine county caucuses we had last Saturday that I have any faith in.  The rest of the votes mean nothing to me.  And how do we have 13 voters in an Arapahoe, CO precinct and they all become delegates all of the delegates to county.  That smells fishy to me.  Do the other campaigns care absolutely nothing about getting their deserved delegates after winning a precinct's popular vote?

I suspect massive pre-election polling fraud too.  I'd love to see one of these polls show all of their phone calls on video so we can see for a fact the numbers they report are true.  And along with that show the random selection of the phone numbers they choose to call.  The media polls have to be fraudulent for them to be able to get away with real voter fraud.  

If our side had truly transparent polls showing Ron Paul doing far better than the media's opaque polls, it would be harder for the PTB to pull off voter fraud.  So I think a well-coordinated PTB can arrange simultaneous bogus polls and bogus primary vote results.  

The only thing we the people can do is conduct transparent polls for the world to see showing true preferences with low margin of error.  Any experts in polling science out there?  When Ron Paul's campaign conducts an internal poll, could we get the YouTube?

----------


## presence

*UPDATE*

Ok... I just want to say thank you to the forum for hearing me out.  I need to state that my inclination on this subject has* shifted drastically* as I have been informed that the X scale on the graph* IS NOT relative to "percent of total votes in"*  but rather is "percentile of relative caucus size".  

This changes my hypothesis and my general "wave red flags" attitude  towards the whole issue.  I do think there may be something to  explain... but in no way am I as concerned as I was before.

Thank you again... sorry for wasting your time on false pretenses. I am going to go back and update my initial inclinations on this subject to direct to this  comment.                         

again...

Friends,

I recant my hypothesis, I apologise.  *I had misinterpreted the unlabelled X axis*.  It is NOT percent of votes in over  time but rather percentile of caucus size.  This totally changes my null  hypothesis.

I have the raw data in front of me now.  The data are NOT supportive of my hypothesis.

I will continue to ponder the TRUE meaning of the data, and I will be reviewing the raw data (now in my hands) to do so.

* I DO NOT HOLD TO MY PREVIOUS ASSUMPTIONS.*
THIS DATA DOES RAISE potential FLAGS, but NOT HUGE SCARY RED ONES.

presence

----------


## bcreps85

> *UPDATE*
> 
> Ok... I just want to say thank you to the forum for hearing me out.  I need to state that my inclination on this subject has* shifted drastically* as I have been informed that the X scale on the graph* IS NOT relative to "percent of total votes in"*  but rather is "percentile of relative caucus size".  
> 
> This changes my hypothesis and my general "wave red flags" attitude  towards the whole issue.  I do think there may be something to  explain... but in no way am I as concerned as I was before.
> 
> Thank you again... sorry for wasting your time on false pretenses. I am going to go back and update my initial inclinations on this subject to direct to this  comment. 						
> 
> presence



From looking at the original documents created by the person who started the whole thing on DP, his work is all based on actual numbers.  Some of the people on here are using different methodology and using percentages, as you have described.  Just different ways of analyzing the same data, though I prefer the original way.  Don't really see where you are going with this.

----------


## bcreps85

> ^^^^^^^^
> 
> Now this is for damn sure.  I strongly suspect serious vote fraud is happening.  What disappoints me is how few cases we have seen independently confirming caucus results.  I thought there would be a Ron Paul supporter at every precinct in Iowa snapping a picture of the caucus results and posting them here.  Why didn't this happen?  At least we could see all the cases where the caucus result did in fact equal the officially reported results.  Right now, I can't believe any of the official caucus results and there should be confirming evidence for the vast majority of those caucuses.  I never expected to be provided with proof on primary votes, but our people should have documented more of the caucus results.
> 
> As of now, there is the Las Vegas Late Night precinct caucus and the two Maine county caucuses we had last Saturday that I have any faith in.  The rest of the votes mean nothing to me.  And how do we have 13 voters in an Arapahoe, CO precinct and they all become delegates all of the delegates to county.  That smells fishy to me.  Do the other campaigns care absolutely nothing about getting their deserved delegates after winning a precinct's popular vote?
> 
> I suspect massive pre-election polling fraud too.  I'd love to see one of these polls show all of their phone calls on video so we can see for a fact the numbers they report are true.  And along with that show the random selection of the phone numbers they choose to call.  The media polls have to be fraudulent for them to be able to get away with real voter fraud.  
> 
> If our side had truly transparent polls showing Ron Paul doing far better than the media's opaque polls, it would be harder for the PTB to pull off voter fraud.  So I think a well-coordinated PTB can arrange simultaneous bogus polls and bogus primary vote results.  
> ...


Well, it would be silly to assume that those with the power to report fraudulent results in an election wouldn't also be able to fix the polls in some way...and there are actually plenty of legal ways to fix polls.

1.  Calling landlines.  I'm 26 and don't have a land line...never have since moving out of my parent's house.  This tactic significantly under-reports support for people like Paul who are popular with the younger generations.

2.  Polling "viewers".  Do you watch Fox or CNN?  I sure don't...most Paul supporters I know don't.  Again, just another way to significantly under-report support for a candidate like Paul.

3.  Look at the age of the responders sometime.  I noticed on one that was like a poll of 300 people, 70% were 60+ on one of these a while back.  See number one and number two...

They don't technically need to rig polls or break any laws.  All they have to do is poll the right people in ways that seem legitimate to create a scenario that makes the intended outcome of election fraud plausible.

----------


## bcreps85

> ^^^^^^^^
> 
> Now this is for damn sure.  I strongly suspect serious vote fraud is happening.  What disappoints me is how few cases we have seen independently confirming caucus results.  I thought there would be a Ron Paul supporter at every precinct in Iowa snapping a picture of the caucus results and posting them here.  Why didn't this happen?  At least we could see all the cases where the caucus result did in fact equal the officially reported results.  Right now, I can't believe any of the official caucus results and there should be confirming evidence for the vast majority of those caucuses.  I never expected to be provided with proof on primary votes, but our people should have documented more of the caucus results.
> 
> As of now, there is the Las Vegas Late Night precinct caucus and the two Maine county caucuses we had last Saturday that I have any faith in.  The rest of the votes mean nothing to me.  And how do we have 13 voters in an Arapahoe, CO precinct and they all become delegates all of the delegates to county.  That smells fishy to me.  Do the other campaigns care absolutely nothing about getting their deserved delegates after winning a precinct's popular vote?
> 
> I suspect massive pre-election polling fraud too.  I'd love to see one of these polls show all of their phone calls on video so we can see for a fact the numbers they report are true.  And along with that show the random selection of the phone numbers they choose to call.  The media polls have to be fraudulent for them to be able to get away with real voter fraud.  
> 
> If our side had truly transparent polls showing Ron Paul doing far better than the media's opaque polls, it would be harder for the PTB to pull off voter fraud.  So I think a well-coordinated PTB can arrange simultaneous bogus polls and bogus primary vote results.  
> ...


Well, it would be silly to assume that those with the power to report fraudulent results in an election wouldn't also be able to fix the polls in some way...and there are actually plenty of legal ways to fix polls.

1.  Calling landlines.  I'm 26 and don't have a land line...never have since moving out of my parent's house.  This tactic significantly under-reports support for people like Paul who are popular with the younger generations.

2.  Polling "viewers".  Do you watch Fox or CNN?  I sure don't...most Paul supporters I know don't.  Again, just another way to significantly under-report support for a candidate like Paul.

3.  Look at the age of the responders sometime.  I noticed on one that was like a poll of 300 people, 70% were 60+ on one of these a while back.  See number one and number two...

They don't technically need to rig polls.  All they have to do is poll the right people in ways that seem legitimate to create a scenario that makes the intended outcome of election fraud plausible.  The way they do many of their polls would be similar to us using online polls as a measure for how we will perform...

----------


## bbwarfield

presence:

I think your looking at differences in methodology but the same information overall.

most graphs are showing the percentage of overall votes SORTED by precinct.... the 100% typically show 100% of the vote.... just sorted by precinct size rather than showing it based on time. When based on time this is all explainable easily BUT when we base it on precinct size? This is where it shows the potential fraud. Don't give up... its still correct... just make sure each graph you see is based on the same methods of deriving them 


*All future gaphs!* please please please use the same methodology as the original PDF so we do not have this misunderstanding. If yours VARIES please bold and underline and make sure we know there was a different method of coming up with your graph.

----------


## Mark37snj

*OFFICIAL THREAD UPDATE*

Full steam ahead. 

EDIT: Officially we are steaming ahead on this thread. _presence_ last post with *UPDATE* may give people the wrong idea that he has thread cred and is speaking on behalf of all of our efforts.

----------


## bbwarfield

> *OFFICIAL THREAD UPDATE*
> 
> Full steam ahead.


? you mean "officialy we are steaming ahead" or this is an official thread now? or....... lol.... i guess i am so use to this being a cold cold forum with no videos or emoticon heavy posting..lol

----------


## presence

I am not stating that this issue is now an "non issue".  I am stating that all the work I have done on this issue and all the statements I have made until this point were on false pretenses, false interpretations of data sets, and contain false logic.  By all means it is still an open issue... VOTE FRAUD is in no way supported *by any of the statements I have made to date* however.

The actual null hypothesis proposed is* DRASTICALLY qualitatively** different from the one I was defending.*

4 Things learned:

LABEL YOUR GRAPHS
READ THE FIND PRINT
DON'T ASSUME
WAIT UNTIL YOU HAVE RAW DATA BEFORE DRAWING CONCLUSIONS

I will continue to analyse and interpret the data set and will provide commentary later.  
I do, in my mathematical opinon, at this juncture, 
believe there are means by which data could be skewed in the manner shown in the graphs 
*without indicating VOTE FRAUD.

Namely, larger districts, with higher population densities COULD be skewed towards Romney and small-to-mid sized caucuses may not, in theory, be a good representative sample of such districts.

*presence

----------


## bcreps85

> Namely, larger districts, with higher population densities COULD be skewed towards Romney.


They absolutely could, but that isn't what the original graphs show.  They show Romney ending at Paul's projection point and vice-versa (in other words, a 1:1 flip), while the other two are unaffected by whatever is going on.  Even if Romney was popular in high density areas, and Paul were less popular, this doesn't explain why everyone who would be projected to vote for Paul would flip to Romney 100% of the time and never to the other two candidates.  Demographic data from polls indicate that Paul is not weaker in any area based on population size.  Polling data from four states was averaged together to reach that conclusion.

Taking it even further, any explanation that could explain these things (and there hasn't been one yet) would also have to explain how Romney stole Huckabee's votes in '08 without affecting other candidates in the exact same fashion - considering Huckabee and Paul have nothing in common.

----------


## presence

> _presence_ last post with *UPDATE* may give people the wrong idea that he has thread cred and is speaking on behalf of all of our efforts.


This is not what I intended.  I was updating my own contributions, which were all based on false assumptions.

That said... I do, regretfully, expect to return to this thread as a devil's advocate for the counter cause: 

*The Graphical Results ARE plausible; there is no substantial evidence of fraud. * 

I won't go into further detail until I review the data, read every last post here, and the original at the Daily Paul.

presence

----------


## Mark37snj

*There is substantial evidence of fraud your just refusing to accept them.*

----------


## chris41336

I actually misinterpreted the X-axis on the graphs in this thread as well. I also thought that the x-axes on these graphs were all based on % of total votes.

That being said, that does not change my opinion on the ORIGINAL PDF and I hope to see more. The original PDF was very convincing.

----------


## presence

I'm not refusing anything; that's unfair and unfounded. 

I'm reviewing data thoroughly and I've formed a new hypothesis based upon new understanding of that data.  If my hypothesis proves true or false, through thorough analysis, I'll accept, and report, whatever truisms I find.  With my change in perception of the X axis this issue does indeed become more grey in nature than the one I was firmly advocating for last night.  In my previous falsely construed hypothesis,* with x as a scale of percent of votes in...  the lines, must*, by their very nature,* approach slope m -> 0 as x -> 100%*.  This is not by default true *when x denotes percentile of precinct size; m does not NEED to approach 0*; it could have a positive or negative slope, and that slope could be increasing as x increases.  

presence

----------


## Mark37snj

> I'm not refusing anything; that's unfair and unfounded. 
> 
> I'm reviewing data thoroughly and I've formed a new hypothesis based upon new understanding of that data.  If my hypothesis proves true or false, through thorough analysis, I'll accept, and report, whatever truisms I find.  With my change in perception of the X axis this issue does indeed become more grey in nature than the one I was firmly advocating for last night.  In my previous falsely construed hypothesis,* with x as a scale of percent of votes in...  the lines, must*, by their very nature,* approach slope m -> 0 as x -> 100%*.  This is not by default true *when x denotes percentile of precinct size; m does not NEED to approach 0*; it could have a positive or negative slope, and that slope could be increasing as x increases.  
> 
> presence


Well you have about 15 posts on this thread and you have not posted any of your data. When you do get around to posting them plz be sure to upload your raw data to say Google.docs. If it turns out to be ground breaking or revealing then we are gona need to verify the authenticity of your raw data before we give it the proper credit it would deserve.

----------


## bbwarfield

> Well you have about 15 posts on this thread and you have not posted any of your data. When you do get around to posting them plz be sure to upload your raw data to say Google.docs. If it turns out to be ground breaking or revealing then we are gona need to verify the authenticity of your raw data before we give it the proper credit it would deserve.


I think presence is fine... he was working under a different set of assumptions that caught his interest.... when it turned out we were looking at something else it is not what he was working with. He is *NOT* discouraging us or telling us its stupid. He just isnt going to be as active. Trust me..... this is why we need to be careful..... we tell them "this is the proof!!!" and we fail to explain it or give information that is unimportant. Or even unrelated.... when one of those other things go wrong people tend to shy away from the pursuit.

This is a "door knocer fell of the front door" issue... says nothing of the rest of the house... makes you wonder.... not a good omen.... but it doesnt mean the place is caving in.

We learned...never share visual data without adequate explanation... cause when they figure out they were reading it wrong... they become discouraged

----------


## Mark37snj

> I think presence is fine... he was working under a different set of assumptions that caught his interest.... when it turned out we were looking at something else it is not what he was working with. He is *NOT* discouraging us or telling us its stupid. He just isnt going to be as active. Trust me..... this is why we need to be careful..... we tell them "this is the proof!!!" and we fail to explain it or give information that is unimportant. Or even unrelated.... when one of those other things go wrong people tend to shy away from the pursuit.
> 
> This is a "door knocer fell of the front door" issue... says nothing of the rest of the house... makes you wonder.... not a good omen.... but it doesnt mean the place is caving in.
> 
> We learned...never share visual data without adequate explanation... cause when they figure out they were reading it wrong... they become discouraged





> *The Graphical Results ARE plausible; there is no substantial evidence of fraud. * 
> 
> I won't go into further detail until I review the data, read every last post here, and the original at the Daily Paul.


How can you go from not posting any graphs or data, state that they havn't finished with their own data, state that someone else's data is wrong, not offer any supporting evidence to back up that claim and then definitively state that there is no substantial evidence of fraud?

----------


## bcreps85

> How can you go from not posting any graphs or data, state that they havn't finished with their own data, state that someone else's data is wrong, not offer any supporting evidence to back up that claim and then definitively state that there is no substantial evidence of fraud?


I was confused at first too...I think I figured it out, but I'm not sure.  I think that he had a "side theory" going on other than the one that we have been discussing for the majority of this thread, and has now decided that his theory was incorrect, and posted about it.  Since I don't think many of us were aware of this "side theory", it is causing lots of confusion because people are getting the impression that he's actually talking about the original hypothesis.

I could be wrong...

That being said, it's Wednesday.  I wonder what happened with the original author's meeting...

----------


## Mark37snj

> I was confused at first too...I think I figured it out, but I'm not sure.  I think that he had a "side theory" going on other than the one that we have been discussing for the majority of this thread, and has now decided that his theory was incorrect, and posted about it.  Since I don't think many of us were aware of this "side theory", it is causing lots of confusion because people are getting the impression that he's actually talking about the original hypothesis.
> 
> I could be wrong...
> 
> That being said, it's Wednesday.  I wonder what happened with the original author's meeting...


I do see what your saying. If his graphs are not showing anomolies, they are plausible, and he believes he made a mistake with them and he is going back to the drawing board thats fine. I think he really needs to state more obviously that these graphs he is referring to, which are not posted on this thread leaving eveyone to think he is talking about the graphs already posted here, are his alone and have not been posted to this thread and are a separate effort. My appologies if this is the case.

----------


## bbwarfield

that was how i understood it

----------


## Liberty1789

Hi presence

As you are versed into stats, here is what I would consider a mathematical proof of vote rigging. I apologize to our friends who will get a headache out of the analysis.



Consider ballots as a random variables. Look how fast small precincts become a powerful predictor of Romney's score: a standard deviation of 0.2% as soon as the second decile, 0,1% in the 3rd!

And then? The mathematically impossible happens:

Romney's score jumps by 1%,

10 times the previous standard deviation,

*every decile*

*FOR AN AVERAGE PRECINCT VOTE SIZE UP ONLY A COUPLE OF DOZENS OF VOTES*

Are demographics of 50-vote precincts different from 70-vote precincts? No way.

The impossibly large systematic linear deviation is the mathematical smoking gun.

Can someone debunk this? I cannot even begin to think how.

----------


## The Man

Are you saying that the small deviation in the larger precincts makes them obviously rigged? Very interesting.   


> Hi presence
> 
> As you are versed into stats, here is what I would consider a mathematical proof of vote rigging. I apologize to our friends who will get a headache out of the analysis.
> 
> 
> 
> Consider ballots as a random variables. Look how fast small precincts become a powerful predictor of Romney's score: a standard deviation of 0.2% as soon as the second decile, 0,1% in the 3rd!
> 
> And then? The mathematically impossible happens:
> ...

----------


## The Man

Hello Liberty1789. This is very interesting. Check your inbox. 


> Hi presence
> 
> As you are versed into stats, here is what I would consider a mathematical proof of vote rigging. I apologize to our friends who will get a headache out of the analysis.
> 
> 
> 
> Consider ballots as a random variables. Look how fast small precincts become a powerful predictor of Romney's score: a standard deviation of 0.2% as soon as the second decile, 0,1% in the 3rd!
> 
> And then? The mathematically impossible happens:
> ...

----------


## Liberty1789

I am saying that precincts with tiny population differences of 20 (20 only!) are impossibly systematically different.

----------


## bcreps85

> I am saying that precincts with tiny population differences of 20 (20 only!) are impossibly systematically different.


The chart you posted really helped to see the numbers we are talking here.  So far, everyone has assumed that when we're talking larger and smaller precincts that we have been talking city folk vs country folk.  This chart clearly shows that we are talking a strange difference between locations where 50 and 70 people voted.  We aren't talking country town vs city...we're talking about country town vs country town right down the road...

----------


## Forty Twice

I'm about to show some graphs.  Here are the data used.  I can't figure out text formatting here.  I recommend you copy/paste to Excel.


	McCain - Obama	Total CumVote	Ging CumVote	Paul CumVote	Romn CumVote	Sant CumVote
Greenville 14	-93.7%	17	5	6	3	2
Belle Meade	-90.2%	51	19	14	11	5
Royal Oaks	-75.3%	100	41	29	17	11
Greenville 07	-74.4%	148	58	43	22	19
Greenville 19	-73.1%	250	90	66	61	27
Greenville 29	-69.4%	342	123	78	84	49
Greenville 06	-67.9%	376	133	84	90	58
Greenville 08	-61.6%	505	166	130	126	71
Mt Pleasant	-60.5%	600	213	156	137	82
Donaldson	-57.5%	662	239	171	149	90
Carolina	-56.7%	748	278	187	166	104
Belmont	-43.6%	856	315	223	184	120
Greenville 04	-37.9%	1127	424	284	242	153
Grove	-25.1%	1259	489	312	266	167
Greenville 26	-24.6%	1451	535	373	299	216
Greenville 10	-20.8%	1850	653	433	475	246
Greenville 05	-19.9%	2234	775	510	589	292
Aiken	-13.5%	2324	809	533	601	312
Welcome	-11.4%	2570	917	587	636	356
Woodmont	-10.4%	2893	1065	632	706	409
Mauldin 3	-9.3%	3283	1247	702	782	468
Greenville 25	-4.2%	3577	1363	757	854	510
Reedy Fork	-3.4%	3840	1486	798	896	564
Greenville 24	-2.2%	4211	1611	856	1009	620
Simpsonville 5	-1.1%	4442	1691	895	1057	679
Southside	-0.2%	4923	1873	926	1265	732
Taylors	2.7%	5340	2000	1035	1352	822
Greenbriar	3.5%	5730	2138	1093	1460	899
Monaview	5.9%	5990	2232	1166	1500	945
Tanglewood	6.9%	6352	2392	1247	1552	1011
Ranch Creek	7.3%	6711	2534	1307	1621	1096
Fountain Inn 1	8.0%	7234	2758	1402	1717	1201
Conestee	8.3%	7595	2903	1471	1788	1272
Leawood	10.7%	8158	3130	1564	1936	1361
Trade	11.1%	8513	3288	1637	1987	1430
Greenville 03	12.0%	9092	3486	1765	2158	1481
Chestnut Hills	12.3%	9377	3623	1826	2199	1524
Tyger River	13.0%	9609	3704	1881	2252	1565
Baker Creek	15.6%	9873	3818	1952	2284	1607
Spring Forest	16.7%	10245	3971	2016	2390	1648
Berea	17.0%	10503	4098	2059	2430	1695
Greenville 28	18.9%	10734	4168	2124	2471	1747
Mauldin 1	19.2%	11198	4359	2200	2585	1822
Simpsonville 4	19.2%	11578	4483	2276	2659	1914
Mauldin 6	21.1%	12104	4695	2366	2772	2018
Feaster	21.4%	12402	4806	2415	2863	2061
Greenville 21	21.7%	12787	4921	2479	3030	2089
Lakeview	21.7%	13211	5064	2594	3095	2181
Mauldin 5	23.2%	13694	5251	2676	3211	2267
Stone Valley	23.3%	14177	5439	2766	3298	2379
Moore Creek	23.4%	14578	5615	2825	3375	2466
Standing Springs	24.3%	14952	5779	2892	3437	2545
Simpsonville 2	24.5%	15304	5916	2953	3500	2631
Piedmont	25.3%	15773	6099	3052	3590	2719
Westcliffe	25.4%	16146	6288	3112	3652	2778
Simpsonville 6	25.7%	16633	6487	3185	3760	2881
Maple Creek	25.9%	17002	6627	3272	3823	2958
Mauldin 4	27.0%	17650	6886	3381	3977	3071
Westside	27.0%	18050	7054	3451	4053	3155
Saluda	28.1%	18400	7205	3524	4123	3206
Del Norte	28.8%	19064	7456	3645	4290	3324
Simpsonville 1	29.0%	19594	7675	3740	4386	3432
Raintree	29.3%	20064	7865	3810	4479	3541
Greenville 16	29.4%	20585	8047	3871	4695	3584
Fountain Inn 2	29.9%	20837	8143	3924	4738	3642
Brook Glenn	30.1%	21141	8266	3987	4788	3707
Rocky Creek	30.8%	21571	8472	4035	4922	3745
Travelers Rest 2	31.9%	21904	8601	4101	4986	3818
Rock Hill	32.0%	22547	8831	4196	5181	3932
Mauldin 7	32.5%	23042	9015	4268	5335	4012
Mauldin 2	34.5%	23802	9339	4388	5514	4138
Greenville 17	34.5%	24396	9525	4428	5829	4182
Kilgore Farms	36.3%	24908	9726	4502	5965	4278
Riverside	36.6%	25415	9932	4602	6063	4375
Palmetto	36.7%	25917	10112	4668	6213	4471
Greenville 22	38.0%	26608	10399	4779	6419	4544
Greenville 18	38.2%	27117	10594	4838	6610	4598
Enoree	38.6%	27766	10861	4950	6747	4717
Hillcrest	38.7%	28291	11059	5029	6888	4816
Neely Farms	38.8%	29080	11359	5104	7137	4976
Poinsett	38.9%	29717	11622	5231	7251	5099
Walnut Springs	38.9%	30539	11977	5337	7446	5253
Long Creek	38.9%	30920	12138	5388	7534	5329
Greenville 20	39.1%	31337	12288	5421	7742	5348
Granite Creek	39.1%	31884	12508	5498	7898	5431
Dove Tree	39.2%	32466	12716	5577	8076	5540
Bells Crossing	39.9%	33188	12999	5694	8240	5688
Botany Woods	40.1%	33695	13167	5791	8374	5785
Boiling Springs	40.7%	34377	13434	5882	8555	5917
Castle Rock	40.7%	34995	13676	5994	8659	6065
Eastside	40.9%	35663	13942	6101	8802	6211
Laurel Ridge	41.6%	36264	14231	6178	8913	6331
Travelers Rest 1	41.7%	36862	14472	6271	9035	6458
Woodruff Lakes	42.1%	37607	14747	6376	9231	6623
Verdmont	42.2%	38109	14962	6448	9358	6704
Stonehaven	42.4%	38688	15175	6528	9558	6778
Furman	42.7%	39414	15499	6623	9753	6880
Maridell	42.9%	39874	15684	6735	9819	6969
Suber Mill	43.0%	40545	15947	6820	9979	7125
Timberlake	43.5%	41331	16274	6919	10187	7264
Pelham Falls	43.5%	41739	16437	6959	10325	7325
Canebrake	43.6%	42732	16834	7061	10697	7432
Northwood	44.0%	43408	17122	7170	10839	7561
Sulphur Springs	44.2%	43926	17353	7272	10946	7638
Oakview	44.2%	44812	17714	7371	11213	7791
Edwards Forest	44.2%	45501	17999	7482	11335	7951
Wade Hampton	44.5%	46060	18221	7604	11414	8083
Thornblade	44.5%	46844	18519	7677	11732	8166
Ware Place	44.6%	47357	18745	7775	11818	8267
Avon	45.9%	47839	18948	7851	11899	8384
Sparrows Point	47.0%	48414	19153	7932	12060	8499
Wellington	47.3%	48942	19398	8012	12183	8571
Devenger	47.4%	49721	19706	8094	12428	8701
Greenville 01	48.1%	50290	19892	8178	12587	8826
Sevier	48.2%	51108	20212	8324	12749	9006
Locust Hill	48.3%	51564	20414	8382	12832	9115
Silverleaf	49.0%	52258	20676	8468	13050	9227
Mission	49.5%	53133	21035	8549	13312	9389
River Walk	49.6%	54068	21414	8643	13615	9537
Holly Tree	49.8%	54497	21598	8685	13752	9599
Jennings Mill	49.8%	54967	21768	8746	13919	9664
Sugar Creek	50.1%	55925	22153	8845	14249	9791
Fork Shoals	50.7%	56414	22359	8959	14332	9875
Pebble Creek	50.8%	57139	22644	9068	14531	9999
Graze Branch	51.1%	57635	22847	9116	14667	10100
Fox Chase	51.1%	58233	23126	9195	14778	10220
Pineview	51.1%	58504	23250	9244	14825	10270
Paris Mountain	51.5%	59005	23444	9328	14970	10340
Circle Creek	52.1%	59637	23738	9399	15139	10436
Bridge Fork	52.5%	60240	24005	9458	15313	10527
Simpsonville 3	52.9%	60977	24331	9563	15500	10637
Rolling Green	53.1%	61512	24540	9600	15700	10722
Sycamore	53.2%	62004	24761	9669	15816	10799
Asheton Lakes	54.6%	62968	25118	9758	16192	10932
Dunklin	54.8%	63473	25314	9881	16277	11030
Tubbs Mountain	54.8%	64040	25541	10003	16372	11150
Gowensville	56.8%	64598	25787	10112	16490	11225
Tigerville	57.0%	65354	26104	10221	16684	11352
Oneal	57.4%	66045	26373	10341	16832	11502
Ebenezer	57.7%	66639	26613	10451	16938	11631
Altamont Forest	58.6%	67057	26777	10523	17036	11711
Greenville 23	58.9%	67893	27066	10573	17479	11752
Mountain Creek	58.9%	68780	27435	10713	17701	11898
Sandy Flat	59.3%	69716	27844	10845	17884	12101
Frohawk	59.6%	70263	28092	10909	18022	12193
Slater Marietta	60.5%	70981	28422	11069	18118	12311
Darby Ridge	61.3%	71702	28726	11194	18251	12465
Clear Creek	61.8%	72190	28941	11279	18329	12571
Mountain View	64.6%	72887	29257	11414	18431	12707
Skyland	72.9%	73624	29524	11604	18543	12864
Greenville 27	75.4%	74155	29687	11690	18636	13042

----------


## Mark37snj

> Hello Liberty1789. This is very interesting. Check your inbox.


OH NO, don't you two start holding out on us, PLZ GIVE!!! 

EDIT: I feel like Peanut from the ventrilliquist Jeff Dunham - What are we missing

----------


## Forty Twice

Here is the Comma Separated Version which should easily Copy/Paste into Excel


,McCain - Obama,Total CumVote,Ging CumVote,Paul CumVote,Romn CumVote,Sant CumVote
Greenville 14,-0.936739659,17,5,6,3,2
Belle Meade,-0.902270484,51,19,14,11,5
Royal Oaks,-0.752781211,100,41,29,17,11
Greenville 07,-0.743674367,148,58,43,22,19
Greenville 19,-0.730894309,250,90,66,61,27
Greenville 29,-0.694477086,342,123,78,84,49
Greenville 06,-0.679389313,376,133,84,90,58
Greenville 08,-0.615976901,505,166,130,126,71
Mt Pleasant,-0.604925054,600,213,156,137,82
Donaldson,-0.574955908,662,239,171,149,90
Carolina,-0.567401961,748,278,187,166,104
Belmont,-0.436265709,856,315,223,184,120
Greenville 04,-0.379225062,1127,424,284,242,153
Grove,-0.251302083,1259,489,312,266,167
Greenville 26,-0.245901639,1451,535,373,299,216
Greenville 10,-0.207746479,1850,653,433,475,246
Greenville 05,-0.198511166,2234,775,510,589,292
Aiken,-0.13490364,2324,809,533,601,312
Welcome,-0.113573407,2570,917,587,636,356
Woodmont,-0.103968254,2893,1065,632,706,409
Mauldin 3,-0.093314763,3283,1247,702,782,468
Greenville 25,-0.042189282,3577,1363,757,854,510
Reedy Fork,-0.034347399,3840,1486,798,896,564
Greenville 24,-0.021915584,4211,1611,856,1009,620
Simpsonville 5,-0.01055409,4442,1691,895,1057,679
Southside,-0.002360346,4923,1873,926,1265,732
Taylors,0.02679275,5340,2000,1035,1352,822
Greenbriar,0.034578147,5730,2138,1093,1460,899
Monaview,0.05942623,5990,2232,1166,1500,945
Tanglewood,0.069455406,6352,2392,1247,1552,1011
Ranch Creek,0.073151047,6711,2534,1307,1621,1096
Fountain Inn 1,0.07987988,7234,2758,1402,1717,1201
Conestee,0.08312552,7595,2903,1471,1788,1272
Leawood,0.10685155,8158,3130,1564,1936,1361
Trade,0.110512129,8513,3288,1637,1987,1430
Greenville 03,0.119693807,9092,3486,1765,2158,1481
Chestnut Hills,0.123028391,9377,3623,1826,2199,1524
Tyger River,0.129554629,9609,3704,1881,2252,1565
Baker Creek,0.155977035,9873,3818,1952,2284,1607
Spring Forest,0.166666667,10245,3971,2016,2390,1648
Berea,0.169554455,10503,4098,2059,2430,1695
Greenville 28,0.189045936,10734,4168,2124,2471,1747
Mauldin 1,0.191622103,11198,4359,2200,2585,1822
Simpsonville 4,0.192479857,11578,4483,2276,2659,1914
Mauldin 6,0.211015737,12104,4695,2366,2772,2018
Feaster,0.21388102,12402,4806,2415,2863,2061
Greenville 21,0.216627635,12787,4921,2479,3030,2089
Lakeview,0.217175888,13211,5064,2594,3095,2181
Mauldin 5,0.231734317,13694,5251,2676,3211,2267
Stone Valley,0.233082707,14177,5439,2766,3298,2379
Moore Creek,0.233907925,14578,5615,2825,3375,2466
Standing Springs,0.243469175,14952,5779,2892,3437,2545
Simpsonville 2,0.244510978,15304,5916,2953,3500,2631
Piedmont,0.253443526,15773,6099,3052,3590,2719
Westcliffe,0.253701876,16146,6288,3112,3652,2778
Simpsonville 6,0.25655282,16633,6487,3185,3760,2881
Maple Creek,0.258687259,17002,6627,3272,3823,2958
Mauldin 4,0.269791007,17650,6886,3381,3977,3071
Westside,0.270491803,18050,7054,3451,4053,3155
Saluda,0.28125,18400,7205,3524,4123,3206
Del Norte,0.288123682,19064,7456,3645,4290,3324
Simpsonville 1,0.289711934,19594,7675,3740,4386,3432
Raintree,0.292827004,20064,7865,3810,4479,3541
Greenville 16,0.294449671,20585,8047,3871,4695,3584
Fountain Inn 2,0.298684211,20837,8143,3924,4738,3642
Brook Glenn,0.301061008,21141,8266,3987,4788,3707
Rocky Creek,0.308390023,21571,8472,4035,4922,3745
Travelers Rest 2,0.319401699,21904,8601,4101,4986,3818
Rock Hill,0.319713262,22547,8831,4196,5181,3932
Mauldin 7,0.325219085,23042,9015,4268,5335,4012
Mauldin 2,0.344663494,23802,9339,4388,5514,4138
Greenville 17,0.344860711,24396,9525,4428,5829,4182
Kilgore Farms,0.363279673,24908,9726,4502,5965,4278
Riverside,0.365829641,25415,9932,4602,6063,4375
Palmetto,0.366834171,25917,10112,4668,6213,4471
Greenville 22,0.379856115,26608,10399,4779,6419,4544
Greenville 18,0.382034632,27117,10594,4838,6610,4598
Enoree,0.385734072,27766,10861,4950,6747,4717
Hillcrest,0.387250238,28291,11059,5029,6888,4816
Neely Farms,0.387643852,29080,11359,5104,7137,4976
Poinsett,0.388682055,29717,11622,5231,7251,5099
Walnut Springs,0.388926863,30539,11977,5337,7446,5253
Long Creek,0.388952164,30920,12138,5388,7534,5329
Greenville 20,0.390605686,31337,12288,5421,7742,5348
Granite Creek,0.391195034,31884,12508,5498,7898,5431
Dove Tree,0.391797557,32466,12716,5577,8076,5540
Bells Crossing,0.398618958,33188,12999,5694,8240,5688
Botany Woods,0.400579151,33695,13167,5791,8374,5785
Boiling Springs,0.407101569,34377,13434,5882,8555,5917
Castle Rock,0.407437379,34995,13676,5994,8659,6065
Eastside,0.408519553,35663,13942,6101,8802,6211
Laurel Ridge,0.415565345,36264,14231,6178,8913,6331
Travelers Rest 1,0.416500994,36862,14472,6271,9035,6458
Woodruff Lakes,0.420949902,37607,14747,6376,9231,6623
Verdmont,0.421960087,38109,14962,6448,9358,6704
Stonehaven,0.424295775,38688,15175,6528,9558,6778
Furman,0.427412814,39414,15499,6623,9753,6880
Maridell,0.428571429,39874,15684,6735,9819,6969
Suber Mill,0.429913295,40545,15947,6820,9979,7125
Timberlake,0.434724983,41331,16274,6919,10187,7264
Pelham Falls,0.435006435,41739,16437,6959,10325,7325
Canebrake,0.435942029,42732,16834,7061,10697,7432
Northwood,0.440184049,43408,17122,7170,10839,7561
Sulphur Springs,0.441512753,43926,17353,7272,10946,7638
Oakview,0.441566265,44812,17714,7371,11213,7791
Edwards Forest,0.442490842,45501,17999,7482,11335,7951
Wade Hampton,0.444626743,46060,18221,7604,11414,8083
Thornblade,0.444801027,46844,18519,7677,11732,8166
Ware Place,0.446321526,47357,18745,7775,11818,8267
Avon,0.458951533,47839,18948,7851,11899,8384
Sparrows Point,0.470105365,48414,19153,7932,12060,8499
Wellington,0.473195876,48942,19398,8012,12183,8571
Devenger,0.474097331,49721,19706,8094,12428,8701
Greenville 01,0.48056872,50290,19892,8178,12587,8826
Sevier,0.481504316,51108,20212,8324,12749,9006
Locust Hill,0.483322732,51564,20414,8382,12832,9115
Silverleaf,0.489962825,52258,20676,8468,13050,9227
Mission,0.495406824,53133,21035,8549,13312,9389
River Walk,0.496273292,54068,21414,8643,13615,9537
Holly Tree,0.497708416,54497,21598,8685,13752,9599
Jennings Mill,0.49817296,54967,21768,8746,13919,9664
Sugar Creek,0.500931099,55925,22153,8845,14249,9791
Fork Shoals,0.507274491,56414,22359,8959,14332,9875
Pebble Creek,0.507912585,57139,22644,9068,14531,9999
Graze Branch,0.510628672,57635,22847,9116,14667,10100
Fox Chase,0.510663852,58233,23126,9195,14778,10220
Pineview,0.511363636,58504,23250,9244,14825,10270
Paris Mountain,0.515428571,59005,23444,9328,14970,10340
Circle Creek,0.520628684,59637,23738,9399,15139,10436
Bridge Fork,0.525108165,60240,24005,9458,15313,10527
Simpsonville 3,0.528621908,60977,24331,9563,15500,10637
Rolling Green,0.531283139,61512,24540,9600,15700,10722
Sycamore,0.532451923,62004,24761,9669,15816,10799
Asheton Lakes,0.545516304,62968,25118,9758,16192,10932
Dunklin,0.547979798,63473,25314,9881,16277,11030
Tubbs Mountain,0.548128342,64040,25541,10003,16372,11150
Gowensville,0.56759348,64598,25787,10112,16490,112  25
Tigerville,0.570007651,65354,26104,10221,16684,113  52
Oneal,0.573724387,66045,26373,10341,16832,11502
Ebenezer,0.577078289,66639,26613,10451,16938,11631
Altamont Forest,0.585561497,67057,26777,10523,17036,11711
Greenville 23,0.588880188,67893,27066,10573,17479,11752
Mountain Creek,0.589185393,68780,27435,10713,17701,11898
Sandy Flat,0.593071051,69716,27844,10845,17884,12101
Frohawk,0.596351197,70263,28092,10909,18022,12193
Slater Marietta,0.605328377,70981,28422,11069,18118,12311
Darby Ridge,0.612598425,71702,28726,11194,18251,12465
Clear Creek,0.617551463,72190,28941,11279,18329,12571
Mountain View,0.645977011,72887,29257,11414,18431,12707
Skyland,0.728592163,73624,29524,11604,18543,12864
Greenville 27,0.754057428,74155,29687,11690,18636,13042

----------


## The Man

I know this is asking a lot, but if you could add one more row and divided the "0-10%" into "0-5%" and "5-10%", that would lessen the potential effect of precincts with close to 0% turnout. Please let me know I am misinterpreting; when I first began this I did a similar analysis but found that the really low turnout distorted or skewed the percentages.


> Hello Liberty1789. This is very interesting. Check your inbox.

----------


## Forty Twice

Here is a nice picture.  Precincts were sorted from least to most Republican according the % McCain - % Obama in 2008.  Then x-axis is the Total Cumulative Vote for Paul, Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum.  I left out other candidates and absentee votes.  Y-axis is the Candidate's Cumulative Vote.  

After 1451 total votes at Greenville26, the 15th most Democratic precinct, Paul leads Romney by 25.7 to 20.6%.  We could choose this as the end point and extrapolate to end.  Paul would still have 25.7% and Romney would still have 20.6%.

----------


## Mark37snj

In case you missed it the Forum is saying this may have been Ron Paul's best debate performance ever.

----------


## Forty Twice

Now after 1850 votes, the horrid Greenville 10, Romney goes ahead of Paul by 25.7 to 23.4%.

----------


## The Man

Calm down mark. Remember I'm just a low-life electrical engineer. I was merely communicating to Liberty1789 that I want to make sure that the precincts that are almost 0% turnout are not skewing his data. I'm sure he is more qualified than me, but I initially looked at grouping by voter turnout percentage and the data was distorted due to the large variance in the extremely low turnout precincts. Example: In Precincts where, say, 6 people showed up, you are going to get a large variance in percentage of vote received versus in larger vote total precincts which yields a larger standard deviation. 


> OH NO, don't you two start holding out on us, PLZ GIVE!!! 
> 
> EDIT: I feel like Peanut from the ventrilliquist Jeff Dunham - What are we missing

----------


## Mark37snj

> Calm down mark. Remember I'm just a low-life electrical engineer. I was merely communicating to Liberty1789 that I want to make sure that the precincts that are almost 0% turnout are not skewing his data. I'm sure he is more qualified than me, but I initially looked at grouping by voter turnout percentage and the data was distorted due to the large variance in the extremely low turnout precincts. Example: In Precincts where, say, 6 people showed up, you are going to get a large variance in percentage of vote received versus in larger vote total precincts which yields a larger standard deviation.


Your doing a great job. I'm just having a little fun entertaining myself, don't mind me.

----------


## The Man

Forty Twice is building maybe the most impressive debunk I have seen to date. Pay Attention.


> Your doing a great job. I'm just having a little fun entertaining myself, don't mind me.

----------


## Forty Twice

Here at 4923 Total Votes (Southside which was another bad precinct).  Romney at 25.7% and Paul at 18.7%.

----------


## The Man

Hey Forty Twice- I know where you are going with this and I like it- maybe the best debunk I have seen. Now how do the "Most Democratic" precincts of 2008 correlate with the lowest # of voters in 2012? I know you would assume that they correlate pretty closely, with most democratic=smallest turnout and most Republican=largest turnout


> Now after 1850 votes, the horrid Greenville 10, Romney goes ahead of Paul by 25.7 to 23.4%.

----------


## Mark37snj

The charts look nice, but this is data from the 2008 election and your comparing the 2012 primary to it and we know that SC was using electronic voting machines in 2008. So are you saying this is evidence of anomolies back in 2008? Or are you saying that what we are seeing in 2012 is the same as 2008 so nothing is going on?

----------


## bcreps85

Best debunk attempt I've seen so far, but I am not sure it addresses the consistency of the 1:1 correlation, or how Huckabee also had this effect in '08...I don't recall him having any Indy/Democratic pull.  Also, why do all of the votes go to Romney because the areas are more "Republican", and not split up with the other two?

----------


## Forty Twice

After all votes are in, I don't see the 1:1 swap of votes from Paul to Romney.  Why?  That's still beyond the grasp of this chemical engineer's feeble mind.

You guys can take it from here.  Time for a brew.

----------


## Mark37snj

What would happen if this was sorted and graphed from most republican to most democratic precincts? But in the end its still 2008 data that was obtained using electronic voting machines which has already been shown to possibly have the algorithym anomolies in SC in regards to Huckabee.

EDIT: I like the angle you got going here. Your using the 2008 data as a control for the 2012 data. The problem is your control must be a pure source of data. It has already been shown the strong possiblitiy that SC 2008 data is corrupt. If the contol is not unbiased then the study in bunk. If you really want to establish a pure control, in regards to electronic voting machines, then you are gona need to obtain a pure source of data from SC before they used electronic voting machines. With the graphs you have just presented it would make a very convincing argument either way depending on what the pre-2008 (no electronic voting machines) source data would show.

----------


## The Man

Forty Twice are you going to post the entire 70k votes. I'm still trying to conclude what this means. As a matter of fact, I would have expected RP to even get a little farther ahead in the Democratic Precincts, since we know RP is definitely stronger with DEMS. Honestly, I'm not really convinced either way. Please give us your analysis and argument if you would please.

Update- Looks like Forty Twice is heading for the Refrigerator- or local Pub. Let me give my quick opinion. I would have expected, because the Republican precinct vs. Democrat Precinct argument is the most used debunking argument along with Rural/ Urban argument, that Ron Paul would get way out ahead of Romney and hold on to his lead way past the 12,000 votes, which is where Romney passes Paul in my graph. Someone please give me a counter argument on this.

----------


## Forty Twice

> The charts look nice, but this is data from the 2008 election and your comparing the 2012 primary to it and we know that SC was using electronic voting machines in 2008. So are you saying this is evidence of anomolies back in 2008? Or are you saying that what we are seeing in 2012 is the same as 2008 so nothing is going on?


All of the data you see in this set of graphs is 2012 Republican Primary Votes in Greenville, SC.  However, the ordering of the precincts uses 2008 McCain vs Obama data for these same precincts.  The OP ordered the precincts from lowest to highest number of votes cast.  Originally, I thought he meant ordered from smallest to largest precinct, but it was from least to most votes cast.  The precinct data also included the number of registered voters in the precincts, which would have been a better indicator of precinct size.  I noticed that the precincts with the lowest vote totals were not in particularly small precincts.  These precincts with few votes cast had typical # Registered voters, so that meant they really had low turnout.  I made some graphs relating candidate votes vs precinct turnout and saw the Ron Paul did better in low turnout precincts.  

Now why would turnout be low?  My first thought was that # Registered Voters referred to # of Republican Voters but I read something on the S Carolina election website stating these were all registered voters.  Knowing this, it made sense that low turnout was likely in heavily Democratic precincts.  So, basically the OPs small precincts were really the heavily Democratic precincts.  

OK, so I needed a measurement of Democrat-ness/Republican-ness of a precinct.  That's where the 2008 McCain vs Obama data come in.  I figure a heavily Democratic precinct would show Obama leading by a large amount and vice versa.  So, for each precinct, I calculated McCain's % in 2008 - Obama's %.  In some charts I called this the McCain Lead.  It is simply % Vote for McCain - % Vote for Obama in 2008 Presidential election.  

In my charts tonight, I ordered the precincts from Lowest McCain Lead (Most Democratic) to Highest McCain Lead (Most Republican).  Then I calculated cumulative vote totals for Total Vote and Candidates' Votes after being placed in this order.  These charts are similar to OPs charts except for the way the precincts were ordered.

I hope this explains my methodology which I agree is not obvious and I didn't really explain it so clearly along the way.

----------


## Forty Twice

> Hey Forty Twice- I know where you are going with this and I like it- maybe the best debunk I have seen. Now how do the "Most Democratic" precincts of 2008 correlate with the lowest # of voters in 2012? I know you would assume that they correlate pretty closely, with most democratic=smallest turnout and most Republican=largest turnout


I'm not exactly sure what you mean.  This chart is evidence that "most democratic = smallest turnout" and vice versa.  It certainly casts doubt on OPs original assumption that precinct size should not show any bias.

No pub tonight nor many nights being a middle aged married guy who could easily pass for a Romney delegate.  But have Keg-R-Rator in garage.

----------


## bbwarfield

Okay, im seeing the numbers here.... Im agreeing this could be what we are seeing.... just a few things before I say that this is it and nothing else

This is still a primary for these parties.... general election it is another story.... 

Wouldnt the best data for declaring a "democrat county" be using the primary data? how many voted in the democratic primary and Republican primaries in 2008 vs. 2012? I know alot of Romney and Huckabee supporters who ended up just not voting cause of mccain being such a disappointment... and im from greenville

not cause I want to cause tons of extra work... but cause this is using apples to oranges to me... both fruits but very different

same as comparing primaries and caucuses.... these things have no relation.

I think you did a good job with figuring out the correlation... but I think youd need a better picture of what makes a democrat county other than the general election. 2008 would be a place to start. Also its just hard to believe that small precints tend to be democrat precincts (i know SC is a republican state... but why would dems prefer to live in the country? why do they not crossover the same amount across the board? is there really a ceiling of dems in the state?

----------


## cjm

> But have Keg-R-Rator in garage.


Nice.  _You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Forty Twice again._

----------


## The Man

I would have expected, based on the Mitt- Republican vs Paul- Democrat argument, that Paul would really soar way ahead of Romney and stay ahead well past the 12,000 vote mark, which is where he overtook Paul in my graph showing X Axis (votes smallest precinct to largest) vs votes received. There is definitely a strong correlation though.

----------


## bbwarfield

i think you posted while i was typing... very good analysis Forty Twice.... love to see you wrong : ) but very good work. 

I still think somethings going on... but I do think this explains SOME shift.... weve always said demographics had something to do with it... but I dont think its the whole enchalada

We will see.. Im sure some of us are coming up with ways of debunking this as well..... but right or wrong.... this is a great bit of work and very interesting

----------


## Mark37snj

> All of the data you see in this set of graphs is 2012 Republican Primary Votes in Greenville, SC.  However, the ordering of the precincts uses 2008 McCain vs Obama data for these same precincts.  The OP ordered the precincts from lowest to highest number of votes cast.  Originally, I thought he meant ordered from smallest to largest precinct, but it was from least to most votes cast.  The precinct data also included the number of registered voters in the precincts, which would have been a better indicator of precinct size.  *I noticed that the precincts with the lowest vote totals were not in particularly small precincts.  These precincts with few votes cast had typical # Registered voters, so that meant they really had low turnout.*  I made some graphs relating candidate votes vs precinct turnout and saw the Ron Paul did better in low turnout precincts.  
> 
> *Now why would turnout be low?*  My first thought was that # Registered Voters referred to # of Republican Voters but I read something on the S Carolina election website stating these were all registered voters.  Knowing this, it made sense that low turnout was likely in heavily Democratic precincts.  So, basically the OPs small precincts were really the heavily Democratic precincts.


There is still no evidence of this low turnout, just an opinion. This supposed low voter turnout for Ron Paul is exactly what we are talking about with votes going from Paul to Romney. There is no evidence of what the turnout in these precincts were. The deeper qustion here is whether, if there were votes being taken from Paul and going to Romeny, whether those votes were being taken from one precincts total, switched canidate, and added to another precincts total. This would give the appearence of low voter turnout for Paul and overall in that precinct but in actuality it was normal turnout. Also I would not make a direct correlation of low turnout because a precinct is more heavily democratic. 1000 registered Republican voters in a heavily Republican region should have the same turnout as 1000 Republican registered voters in a heavily Democratic region.

EDIT: I agree that if the total # of registered voters was for all parties then it would not be a true representation of precinct size for a GOP primary.

----------


## The Man

Undoubtedly there is a correlation. This is good. But it appears to me that Romney's and Paul's respective percentages correlate more strongly with "# precinct voters" as opposed to "Republican/ Democrat" precinct classification. Please check me on this. I left another post to this effect, "I would have expected, based on the Mitt- Republican vs Paul- Democrat argument, that Paul would really soar way ahead of Romney and stay ahead well past the 12,000 vote mark, which is where he overtook Paul in my graph showing X Axis (votes smallest precinct to largest) vs votes received. The reason you don't see the anomalies is that the manipulators computer program doesn't a crap about Dem/ Republican; It only pays attention to the number of votes that can be stolen. Maybe you could do a projection at 5200 votes and compare to the reported end vote totals? I remember another post many pages ago where someone concluded something like "81% of the difference in vote percentage differential of RP/ MR directly correlates to number of voters in the precincts." This supports exactly what I have found. I believe what you see here is possibly a slice of the other 19%, which could be legitimate. 


> I'm not exactly sure what you mean.  This chart is evidence that "most democratic = smallest turnout" and vice versa.  It certainly casts doubt on OPs original assumption that precinct size should not show any bias.
> 
> No pub tonight nor many nights being a middle aged married guy who could easily pass for a Romney delegate.  But have Keg-R-Rator in garage.

----------


## bcreps85

It holds the most water as an attempt to debunk so far, but...

1.  Using data from a primary...are we confident enough that people follow the same patterns in a GE than a primary?  I'm not.

2.  If we are that comfortable, then why in '08 did Huckabee have votes "siphoned" by Romney?  I don't recall him having the kind of appeal that Paul does in that regard.

3.  Ok, so Romney gets a push in heavily "republican" areas, and Paul gets a drain.  Why are the other two completely unaffected?

----------


## Forty Twice

> What your graph proves is that we've been lied to. I would have expected, based on the Mitt- Republican vs Paul- Democrat argument, that Paul would really soar way ahead of Romney and stay ahead well past the 12,000 vote mark, which is where he overtook Paul in my graph showing X Axis (votes smallest precinct to largest) vs votes received. Put another way, I don't see that the anomalies I have pointed out were caused by the Democratic/ Republican precinct argument. Honestly, it looks totally based on precinct size to me- just like in New Hampshire and Iowa. Hmmmmm. I am begging for a counter argument. My position is that the control group data is probably rigged as well, so this may mean nothing. But it definitely doen not debunk the theory: "Romney is receiving Paul's votes in relation to the number of votes cast at the precinct."


I understand and also would have expected more bounce from Democratic precincts.  Sort of wondering if I made a mistake somewhere, but I don't think so.  On the chart showing McCain Lead vs Turnout, there are only 15 "Democratic" precincts.  They have a negative "McCain - Obama" values.  Since they are small or have very low turnout, we go through those first 15 precincts using up only 1451 out of 70,000 votes.  They precincts Obama won take up only 3% or so of the x-axis on the cumulative vote chart going out to 70,000.  It's at that 1451 to 1850 vote mark where Romney overtakes Paul.  Paul led after most most of those early precincts and never caught up to Romney after the 1850 vote mark.  The effect is there, but it finishes really quickly.

----------


## The Man

There is no doubt that the highest turnout precincts are the most Republican, which is a no-brainer. So you have definitely established that, according to the 2008 Presidential preference in Greenville County, the highest turnout precincts in Greenville County are definitely the most Republican. The most Republican- leaning precincts, according to the 2012 SC Primary results in Greenville County, are definitely more heavily Romney. I would have to say that this Republican/ Democrat precinct is a big a factor.

----------


## The Man

This is great work Forty Twice! I think we are at a critical juncture in this: Which correlation is higher: that between RP and MR's vote percentages and the degree of Republican-ness, or that between RP and MR's percentages and the number of voters in the precincts? The fact that Republican-ness closely matches precinct size makes it difficult to determine the answer. Do you agree with me? I mean, it appears we are at the pinnacle of this study. I do not have the 2008 data. Can you produce this?

----------


## The Man

Bcreps85, I am in no way saying that the Rep/ Dem precinct thing is causing all of this- just to be clear. More to the point, it still appears more to me that the whole vote percentage of Paul and Romney correlate almost completely with # of votes. In laymans terms, when you order the precincts smallest to largest like I have, the slope of Paul consistently decreases and the slop of Romney consistently increases (the exception is the actual crossover manipulation where the vote was grossly distorted in order to position Romney up to Paul's line position)! This is not true with the DEM-REP based graph above. Of course, the 2008 McCain/ Obama race is certainly not the Bible of Republican-ness, but it's a strong indicator surely. It's a definite factor that, in my mind, Forty Twice proves.

----------


## Forty Twice

Just to check, I made charts sorting the precincts by total vote.  This should match OP's Google Docs chart.  Here, the 1:1 vote swapping is visible again.  Why this method of sorting makes it so visible is pretty weird.

First chart is to ~15,000 votes in Greenville and second is for all votes.

----------


## Forty Twice

Another way to sort the data is to start with precincts where Paul won by the most and progress towards his worst precincts.  This sorting method will show the most extreme flipping effect.  So different sorting methods can make the flipping effect appear more or less significant.

----------


## Mark37snj

Now this is intersting. What is going on with Gingrich in the top graph at about 3K votes? He looks to have a hinge point.

EDIT: Can you put two slopes on that graph for Gingrich? One for say 1-2500 and the other for say 3K to final total. Maybe its just late and my eyes are playing tricks on me.

----------


## The Man

One other observation to Forty Twice's revealing work: Ron Paul even appears to get a "bump" in the most Republican precincts of all- the last 10,000 votes. I have a prediction: if you do the correlations as I have described, you will find a higher correlation to #of precinct voters, not Republican-ness. This looks, in layman's terms, to be the case from the overall shape of your graph. There simply is no reason that the raw number of voters that votes at each precinct should favor any particular candidate, which is one of my ground rules in determining the integrity of an election. I have to say, this is great stuff! It's late. I'm signing off.

----------


## The Man

I contend that the reason the anomaly is so obvious when arranging from small to large precinct is that the manipulating program algorithmically arranges in this exact order before making the decision as to which precincts to transfer votes. Maybe someone else has another explanation. One other point that is inescapable: each candidate's slope is extremely consistent relative to the size of the precinct, much more so than if you arrange them by Republican-ness. Note that RP's slope consistently decreases, MR's consistently increases. Please explain that to me! 
     The fact that RP's slope increases in the most Republican precincts at the end Kills me!!!! Do you know what this could potentially mean? Is the whole "Mitt Romney does better in Republican precincts than Ron Paul" thing a smoke screen to get us to accept the vote flipping in the largest precincts? If we find that Ron Paul does better in the most Republican precincts consistently in most counties, I say yes! First, we need Forty Twice to create the two correlations. The same comparison should be performed all over based on the 2008 Presidential election. This is huge




> Just to check, I made charts sorting the precincts by total vote.  This should match OP's Google Docs chart.  Here, the 1:1 vote swapping is visible again.  Why this method of sorting makes it so visible is pretty weird.
> 
> First chart is to ~15,000 votes in Greenville and second is for all votes.

----------


## Liberty1789

Great angle, Forty Twice. Gets your head scratching, which is what we want.

I believe that the refutation is as follow:

Correlation coeff between Paul share of vote and Turnout:
Greenville, Open Primary -0.66%
Palm Beach, Closed Primary -0.06%

So it is totally true that non-Republican voters create a massive negative correlation between Paul's score and turnout.

BUT the phenomenon that we are seeing is identically visible in Closed and Open Primary, which would just be impossible if partisanship was a factor.

So we can move on. Partisanship cannot be the cause.

I would like to add a point. All the charts that I have posted indicate as well that the absolute number of votes cast in the precint is not the factor. What matters is the RANK of the precinct population-wise in the County/State. And that is crucially different.

----------


## The Man

Hello Liberty 1789. Any chance you are up for a telephone conversation? We are at the pinnacle the way I see it!

----------


## The Man

I don't mean to question your findings, but I can tell you in Greenville County that RP AND MR's % are not dependent on the total number of people in the precinct, but rather the number of actual voters. I just re-arranged the data according to number of registered voters per precinct, and the 4 graphs are jagged lines with the same general slope from left to right. Please elaborate. What am I missing?


> Great angle, Forty Twice. Gets your head scratching, which is what we want.
> 
> I believe that the refutation is as follow:
> 
> Correlation coeff between Paul share of vote and Turnout:
> Greenville, Open Primary -0.66%
> Palm Beach, Closed Primary -0.06%
> 
> So it is totally true that non-Republican voters create a massive negative correlation between Paul's score and turnout.
> ...

----------


## Liberty1789

> I don't mean to question your findings, but I can tell you in Greenville County that RP AND MR's % are not dependent on the total number of people in the precinct, but rather the number of actual voters. I just re-arranged the data according to number of registered voters per precinct, and the 4 graphs are jagged lines with the same general slope from left to right. Please elaborate. What am I missing?


What Forty Twice describes is true: partisanship will impact Open Primary precincts, will negatively correlate to turnout and as turnout correlates to absolute number of votes cast, partisanship will correlate with the phenomenon that we describe. This is correct. But correlation is no proof of causation. It can be only coincidence. And we know that there is no causation here because what we search to describe happens identically in closed primaries (NV, FL), where partisanship cannot be at play.

So when looking at a SC county, we now know that Paul will do poorly as precincts grow in size. Forty Twice has convinced me. If Paul's unavoidable loss is fairly shared amongst the others, all is fine. If only Romney wins out, hmm, another "causation" is at work then. I don't have the SC data yet to tell.

----------


## affa

> This is not what I intended.  I was updating my own contributions, which were all based on false assumptions.
> 
> That said... I do, regretfully, expect to return to this thread as a devil's advocate for the counter cause: 
> 
> *The Graphical Results ARE plausible; there is no substantial evidence of fraud. * 
> 
> I won't go into further detail until I review the data, read every last post here, and the original at the Daily Paul.
> 
> presence


so, let me get this straight.  first you post here repeatedly with an obvious lack of understanding of what we're all saying, then UPDATE the thread that you realize you didn't understand anything, and now, before even reviewing data, warn us in advance you're going to come back and 'expect to' refute voter fraud.

yeah, you're a real big help.

----------


## affa

> Is the whole "Mitt Romney does better in Republican precincts than Ron Paul" thing a smoke screen to get us to accept the vote flipping in the largest precincts?


This is exactly what I have been saying.  

A chart can easily 'hide' truth in assumptions;  for example, if we're told a graph goes from 'Democrat' to 'Republican' districts, and see Ron Paul's line tailing off, we go 'oh, he's less liked by Republicans'.  That fits the media's presentation of him, so we swallow it... and it suddenly becomes easier to ignore than Romney is the only beneficiary.  Why is this?  Why is it easier to accept that more people would be accepting of Romney's flip flopping than Paul's strict Constitutionalism?   What if the vote IS flipped? Isn't that the point of this?  What if the media narrative is wholly incorrect, and people are rejecting Romney wholesale?

One of the best parts about your original documents is that you showed what results looked like 'unflipped', and I think that's particularly important.  To that end, I'd really like to see Greenville's charts 'unflipped' at the suspected hinge point.  Do we suddenly find predictable results for Romney and Paul, like we currently do for Gingrich and Santorum?

It makes sense for any vote flipper to play into the narrative.   That is, you can't vote flip Gingrich and Vermin Supreme without raising red flags -- it's too obvious.   Rather, you siphon where it is believable within the narrative being spun.    And if that's being done, the way you catch them is with the statistically improbable vote flipping we're seeing.  

I really like Forty Twice's new charts; they're significantly improved over his first round.  But I still have the same issues with them -- they still have some of the same flaws already discussed.  Do they provide a more plausible reason?  Only if you're willing to accept that Romney is always the sole beneficiary.   And that doesn't hold water to me; heck, I'd have a hard time believing he'd be the majority benefactor, let alone the sole one.   But what I 'think' and what 'is' are two different things.  While I might 'think' him being the majority benefactor is unlikely, I can say with certainty he couldn't be the sole benefactor, again and again, state after state.

----------


## affa

> So when looking at a SC county, we now know that Paul will do poorly as precincts grow in size. Forty Twice has convinced me. If Paul's unavoidable loss is fairly shared amongst the others, all is fine. If only Romney wins out, hmm, another "causation" is at work then. I don't have the SC data yet to tell.


I want to be doubly clear on this, and then I'll shut up about it.  If it truly is vote flipping, then we need to be very, very careful not to allow corrupted data to influence our thinking because it might seem 'plausible' if presented a certain way with certain preconceptions in play.   That's a mistake through and through.  

You can't use the corrupt data to draw conclusions about voter activity and then use those conclusions to in turn 'prove' the data is fine.  That is, you can't use vote flipped numbers to draw the conclusion that Romney does better in Republican precincts, and then use that 'knowledge' to validate Romney doing better in Republican precincts.    

It must be about the numbers, the statistics, without the media filter.  And to that end, the second half of your paragraph has it right -- Romney can not be the sole beneficiary, again and again, yet he is.

----------


## Liberty1789

Do not fret, affa: Open Primaries are trickier because Forty Twice convincingly proved that Paul's vote share is negatively influenced by precinct size, but we do not really care. The mathematical proof is not in Paul's share, it is in the impossibly systematic rise in Romney's share of vote. If the vote flip is stupid enough to feed only from Paul, then The Man's original work will prove all there is to prove 

Having another force applied to Paul won't affect Romney's systematic deviation. That deviation in Iowa is 3 standard deviations from one decile to the next, 7 times in a row, all in the same direction, all equally spaced to boot! The probability of moving once by 3 standard deviation is 0.3%. So 7 times 3 st dv...

----------


## affa

> Do not fret, affa: Open Primaries are trickier because Forty Twice convincingly proved that Paul's vote share is negatively influenced by precinct size, but we do not really care.


Ok. I guess my question then, is that if there IS vote flipping going on, then isn't Forty Twice using corrupted data for this 'proof'?  Or am I misunderstanding Forty Twice's chart?

----------


## S.Shorland

There was a lot of confusion on these boards as to which primaries/caucuses were open and which were closed.

----------


## Liberty1789

but 73% of the population...

Look for the telltale sign: Romney's share suddenly climbs in a straight line. Paul sole provider of votes in NV, apparently.



See how undoctored counties exhibit flat lines fast, even with low population?

More to debunk, I'm afraid...

----------


## wetroof

it seemed like nevada was all hand counted though. because they recounted both washoe and clark, meaning paper ballots. so we can exclude voting swapping algorithms as responsible for the trend. at least it seems less likely now.

----------


## Adam West

Those graphs are very revealing. They only risk "flipping" in the high turn-out Counties. I must say I've thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread. I feel like I might be watching a little bit of history un-folding here. You guys are like Detectives. Keep up the fine investigative work!

----------


## Hospitaller

Bump back to the front page.

This thread is lacking the usual crowd that says "we lost fair and square, get over it". Finally we get our hands on something tangible and solid.

----------


## Maestro232

Bumpty bump.

----------


## The Man

I want to be a clear on what I believe. We are at a juncture where we need to conference. We need to understand each other's observations more clearly. It's obvious that there's some intelligence and talent represented on this thread. I exhausted every method relevant to see the manipulation before I made a decision to post the report. Forty Twice and Liberty1789, you have raised the bar with your research. The following are what are screaming to me the loudest:
1. Using the 2008 Presidential Primary as a measure of "Republican-ness", I was shocked at how well Ron Paul performed in the most Republican precincts in Greenville County. *There is definitely correlation between Republican-ness and RP-MR's %. However, this correlation doesn't hold a candle to RP-MR's% correlation to the raw # of voters in the precinct!!!!!!!!  * 
        Going back to my original report to rule#7: The vote percentage received for a particular candidate, in general, should not vary significantly from low vote total precincts to higher vote total precincts. Each candidate’s vote will obviously vary between precincts. But there is no direct relationship between total votes cast at a precinct versus vote percentage received by a particular candidate.
        In my opinion, the *only*  reason we see such a correlation between Republican-ness and RP-MR's% is because the number of voters that turned out on January 11th 2012 is naturally going to correlate with how Republican a particular precinct is. The fact that Greenville's precincts all have the relative same number of registered voters would make this relationship even stronger. With the exception of 5 precincts, all of them are between 1000 and 2300 registered voters. *My conclusion at the present time is 100% clear: The correlation between the number of precinct voters and Romney's and Paul's respective received votes percentage can mean only one thing- total algorithmic manipulation!!!!!!!    *  I could give anyone 10 reasons right now why this is an absolute based on all of the data presented so far!

----------


## The Man

I did a demographic study in Anderson County to learn the effect of Rural/ Urban on RP/MR's vote%. I found that there was indeed a 3% advantage that Mitt Romney gains when a Precinct is "Urban" vs "Rural". However, *I found that Paul loses 5% in larger precincts versus precincts with less than 277 voters. Here's the kicker: He loses 5% in the Rural precincts, and he loses 5% in the Urban precincts!!!*[/B][/B] I am not claiming to be an expert on this subject, but I did live there for 22 years. I used population density as a major determining factor, as well as personal knowledge of the area.

I found that the demographic study did NOT support a simple switch between Romney and Paul's vote totals in the larger precincts. It appears to be a simple "every second, third, or fourth Ron Paul vote goes to Mitt Romney". By the way the RP-MR vote- siphoning begins at approximately 5000 votes in all 3 of these counties using my method of arranging precincts from smallest to largest in these counties: Anderson, Greenville, Spartanburg, and arguably all of the largest counties in SC.  

I would not even attempt to tie in the hand-counted States/ Counties/ precincts with the total electronic vote as far as correlations. Obviously, the human element will create theft that is inconsistent. These GOP counters are taking days and even weeks before they can skew enough votes to favor Romney and shut down Paul. I'm sure that they, too, are finding more opportunity to steal votes in the larger count precincts. But Why bother with that? I mean that manipulation is overt... caught red-handed.

For anyone who has the 2008 presidential election data, I would like to see the same graph that Forty Twice created in Greenville for Anderson, Spartanburg, Richland, Lexington, Beaufort, Charleston, Aiken, etc. Then I'd like to see the same graph, Republican-ness vs. RP-MR's %, for the largest counties in the SC and compare that to The graph of Voters per precinct vs. RP-MR's %. I'd also like to see more graphs of the 2008 Presidential Primary Projected totals versus Actual totals. If one of you could direct me to the page where the 2008 SCGOP Primary data is, I'll do it myself.

----------


## chri5opher

//

----------


## bbwarfield

EDIT: this article should be read by anyone working with the "voter turnout %" issue. It says some of the exact data we were looking at. But you would have to assume Paul wins the black vote to assume democrat crossover according to this article
http://www.greenvilleonline.com/arti...epublican-race

I didnt want to bring this up.... but here is why Greenville Obama vs. McCain was not the best way to decide Republican vs. Democrat precincts. I know that we have a message that is very pro minority...but we dont really expect to get the minority vote cause at the time everyone was talking about the newsletters. I find it hard to believe that crossover democrats were the reason when some of these were 92% minority districts. Demographics played into some of these things like I mentioned. But take that into account you need to make a shift for the obama minority vote. They may be heavily democrat districts.... but they are also heavily minority districts that had no desire to see a Paul presidency... certainly not enough to vote in a republican primary. Is this THE answer? no.... but its a large consideration that must be taken into account. Since the current numbers are not icluding these numbers in Greenville where the minority vote is a huge demographic.... i think its difficult to call the data in greenville. Union county has one minority district i know of... anderson I am not sure but my experience down there is that there are very few compared to Greenville wich still has precincts wich are segregated.

----------


## foxtrotterz

I am an engineer, but some of this is beyond my understanding of studying graphs in spread sheets and telling it to define equations based on spans of data. The only thing I can add that I would be interested in seeing is, can we look at any other strong 3-4 man races from 20-30 years ago or more that we think the data would be unmanipulated and see how it plots out? I guess I have never seen these kind of numbers graphed out at all, so I am not sure what to compare them too. Maybe this is portrayed through the graphs that have already been generated based on counties that we feel don't have any funny business going on, but I wonder how these numbers look for elections decades ago before electronic voting machines even entered the picture.

----------


## bbwarfield

> I am an engineer, but some of this is beyond my understanding of studying graphs in spread sheets and telling it to define equations based on spans of data. The only thing I can add that I would be interested in seeing is, can we look at any other strong 3-4 man races from 20-30 years ago or more that we think the data would be unmanipulated and see how it plots out? I guess I have never seen these kind of numbers graphed out at all, so I am not sure what to compare them too. Maybe this is portrayed through the graphs that have already been generated based on counties that we feel don't have any funny business going on, but I wonder how these numbers look for elections decades ago before electronic voting machines even entered the picture.


Unfortunately..... Probably not. Precinct level data for these elections are not going to be found online...best I can tell..... So someone would have to actually go to there states secretary of states office and ask for the data.... Which more than likely is in paper form and not electronic. Worse they may not even have primaries do to them being partisan politics. So then you would have to find the state GOP office which even if they have them may not give them to you since they are not  a government agency and would not need to disclose such information. Then you have a problem of primary straw votes may not have had anything to do with an election at the time and may have been destroyed once announced........ I would have loved this kind of data... But I have a fear it no longer exists and if it did no one would give it to people trying to prove fraud

----------


## foxtrotterz

good point

----------


## Liberty1789

> can we look at any other strong 3-4 man races from 20-30 years ago or more that we think the data would be unmanipulated and see how it plots out? I guess I have never seen these kind of numbers graphed out at all, so I am not sure what to compare them too.


Totally agreed. Will try when done with SC. It could expose some weird auto-correlations that could be missed in the current analysis.

----------


## Paul Fan

> I didnt want to bring this up.... but here is why Greenville Obama vs. McCain was not the best way to decide Republican vs. Democrat precincts. I know that we have a message that is very pro minority...but we dont really expect to get the minority vote cause at the time everyone was talking about the newsletters. I find it hard to believe that crossover democrats were the reason when some of these were 92% minority districts. Demographics played into some of these things like I mentioned. But take that into account you need to make a shift for the obama minority vote. They may be heavily democrat districts.... but they are also heavily minority districts that had no desire to see a Paul presidency... certainly not enough to vote in a republican primary. Is this THE answer? no.... but its a large consideration that must be taken into account. Since the current numbers are not icluding these numbers in Greenville where the minority vote is a huge demographic.... i think its difficult to call the data in greenville. Union county has one minority district i know of... anderson I am not sure but my experience down there is that there are very few compared to Greenville wich still has precincts wich are segregated.


Here are some charts relating to minority demographics in various South Carolina counties. http://fairplan.u31.infinology.net/s..._40_Precincts/

----------


## Mark37snj

> it seemed like nevada was all hand counted though. because they recounted both washoe and clark, meaning paper ballots. so we can exclude voting swapping algorithms as responsible for the trend. at least it seems less likely now.


http://healthfreedom2012.com/HFblog/...ael-sctyl-soe/

All votes whether they are paper ballots or electronic ballots are tabulated at a central location and some are subjected to manipulation.

Quote from the article:




> Here is how it works. The votes are counted in electronic machines or via hand ballots. The totals are uploaded to Scytls/SOEs servers. The data is collected and sorted in the offshore servers in Barcelona.  Secretive agents then sort the data at-will through pre-established programs based on exit polls. The exit polls themselves are usually fabricated. The media then gets the first overview of the results. Neither local officials nor the public have access to it. Notes Bev Harris of www.BlackBoxVoting.org, As local election results funnel through SOEs serverstypically before they reach the public elsewherethose who run the computer servers for SOE essentially get first look at results and the ability to immediately and privately examine vote details throughout the USA.
> 
> The SOE division serves to take in the election results. The final counting is done by Scytls servers. Yet, that is a company that is so small that the secretary confirms, Yes, its just me and him and after saying that refuses to answer the phone.

----------


## bbwarfield

I don't think there were any precincts in Nevada that used machine countable ballots either..... But I'm pretty sure this company also has no contracts in Nevada

----------


## wetroof

> All votes whether they are paper ballots or electronic ballots are tabulated at a central location and some are subjected to manipulation.


hmm... I just think it is very hard to do IF precinct captains are locally tabulating the caucus results before entering them. Maybe ifprecincts hand off their paper votes to the GOP without counting, it's possible. but that's not how a normal Caucus is run. people want to here the results I would think.

----------


## bbwarfield

i will say this..... in the county were vegas is... they were centrally counted.. i dont think it was electronic.... but they were counted in those "recounts" centrally ...machine counted? i dont think they were... but counted by people who could massage the number? deffinitely

----------


## Mark37snj

> I contend that the reason the anomaly is so obvious when arranging from small to large precinct is that the manipulating program algorithmically arranges in this exact order before making the decision as to which precincts to transfer votes. Maybe someone else has another explanation. One other point that is inescapable: each candidate's slope is extremely consistent relative to the size of the precinct, much more so than if you arrange them by Republican-ness. Note that RP's slope consistently decreases, MR's consistently increases. Please explain that to me! 
> *The fact that RP's slope increases in the most Republican precincts at the end Kills me*!!!! Do you know what this could potentially mean? Is the whole "Mitt Romney does better in Republican precincts than Ron Paul" thing a smoke screen to get us to accept the vote flipping in the largest precincts? If we find that Ron Paul does better in the most Republican precincts consistently in most counties, I say yes! First, we need Forty Twice to create the two correlations. The same comparison should be performed all over based on the 2008 Presidential election. This is huge





> I want to be doubly clear on this, and then I'll shut up about it.  If it truly is vote flipping, then we need to be very, very careful not to allow corrupted data to influence our thinking because it might seem 'plausible' if presented a certain way with certain preconceptions in play.   That's a mistake through and through.  
> 
> *You can't use the corrupt data to draw conclusions about voter activity and then use those conclusions to in turn 'prove' the data is fine*.  That is, you can't use vote flipped numbers to draw the conclusion that Romney does better in Republican precincts, and then use that 'knowledge' to validate Romney doing better in Republican precincts.    
> 
> It must be about the numbers, the statistics, without the media filter.  And to that end, the second half of your paragraph has it right -- Romney can not be the sole beneficiary, again and again, yet he is.


I absolutely agree that we can't use corrupted data. However, while talking to The Man something interesting popped up. The 2008 data was collected on electronic voting machines. That data I would consider to be unreliable and corrupt. But The Man points out that even though the numbers are skewed it is still telling as he noted in his post above in bold. Whats causing it? Well I pointed out that it appears the 2008 data was able to skew say 80% of the 2012 data, but it is the 20% that he is noticing which may account for the  increase in Ron Paul's slope in the most Republicaness precincts at the end. So your whole argument below, which is fantastic by the way, fits perfectly into this narrative.




> This is exactly what I have been saying.  
> 
> A chart can easily 'hide' truth in assumptions;  for example, if we're told a graph goes from 'Democrat' to 'Republican' districts, and see Ron Paul's line tailing off, we go 'oh, he's less liked by Republicans'.  That fits the media's presentation of him, so we swallow it... and it suddenly becomes easier to ignore than Romney is the only beneficiary.  Why is this?  Why is it easier to accept that more people would be accepting of Romney's flip flopping than Paul's strict Constitutionalism?   What if the vote IS flipped? Isn't that the point of this?  What if the media narrative is wholly incorrect, and people are rejecting Romney wholesale?
> 
> One of the best parts about your original documents is that you showed what results looked like 'unflipped', and I think that's particularly important.  To that end, I'd really like to see Greenville's charts 'unflipped' at the suspected hinge point.  Do we suddenly find predictable results for Romney and Paul, like we currently do for Gingrich and Santorum?
> 
> It makes sense for any vote flipper to play into the narrative.   That is, you can't vote flip Gingrich and Vermin Supreme without raising red flags -- it's too obvious.   Rather, you siphon where it is believable within the narrative being spun.    And if that's being done, the way you catch them is with the statistically improbable vote flipping we're seeing.  
> 
> I really like Forty Twice's new charts; they're significantly improved over his first round.  But I still have the same issues with them -- they still have some of the same flaws already discussed.  Do they provide a more plausible reason?  Only if you're willing to accept that Romney is always the sole beneficiary.   And that doesn't hold water to me; heck, I'd have a hard time believing he'd be the majority benefactor, let alone the sole one.   But what I 'think' and what 'is' are two different things.  While I might 'think' him being the majority benefactor is unlikely, I can say with certainty he couldn't be the sole benefactor, again and again, state after state.


IF we can get our hands on some pre-electronic voting machines vote data...

----------


## bcreps85

> hmm... I just think it is very hard to do IF precinct captains are locally tabulating the caucus results before entering them. Maybe ifprecincts hand off their paper votes to the GOP without counting, it's possible. but that's not how a normal Caucus is run. people want to here the results I would think.


Well, keep in mind that during the Maine caucuses, precinct leaders were told to keep the final vote counts SECRET.  With a precinct chair that supported Romney, what do you think the chances are of him correcting any mistakes in the tabulation down the road when he sees that they favored his candidate?

----------


## Mark37snj

> hmm... I just think it is very hard to do IF precinct captains are locally tabulating the caucus results before entering them. Maybe ifprecincts hand off their paper votes to the GOP without counting, it's possible. but that's not how a normal Caucus is run. people want to here the results I would think.


The votes being tabulated at the precinct/caucus locations is not the point. ALL votes once tallied at their respective polling places are tabulated at ONE place. And it appears that place may not even be in this country.

----------


## affa

> Well I pointed out that it appears the 2008 data was able to skew say 80% of the 2012 data, but it is the 20% that he is noticing which may account for the  increase in Ron Paul's slope in the most Republicaness precincts at the end. So your whole argument below, which is fantastic by the way, fits perfectly into this narrative.


A few posts of mine back, where I was discussing Forty Twice's first charts (the scattershot ones) I briefly mentioned this -- specifically, I was pointing out points near the 75% mark where Ron Paul did surprisingly well, and Romney did surprisingly poorly.  These charts were sorted by supposed Republican-ness.    There were other examples, which we both pointed at, which showed massively out of whack highs in Romney's vote totals matched by out of whack valleys in Ron Paul's votes.

I find both of these symmetries quite fascinating, but especially the ones where Ron Paul does particularly well (in line with early predictive results, as per Santorum and Gingrich).  My gut tells me these precincts are where vote flipping did not occur for one reason or another -- perhaps simply because they fell slightly before the 'hinge point', or perhaps because the machines weren't hacked (assuming the flip happens at the local level and not at the tabulation level).   It's hard to tell exactly why, since Forty Twice's charts don't indicate precinct size.

Ultimately, my point (and I believe The Man's point, as well) is that these examples of Ron Paul doing quite well in Republican areas are in fact, further evidence something incredibly fishy is going on.   Well, to be fair, I'm absolutely convinced this is voter fraud, and all that's left is determining a way to present it irrefutably - specifically, to people that may be wired to automatically dismiss fraud and will only spend so much time trying to understand charts.   That's why it's great to go through debunking potential debunks, so that we can be sure everything is taken into account.  

But to my mind, the real challenge isn't just proving fraud, but doing so in a compelling, convincing way that is easy to digest and will spread virally -- supported by tons of secondary charts and examples for those willing to read past the synopsis.

I agree with those posters here who have mentioned they feel like they're in the midst of a... detective story, if you will.  A real life Da Vinci code, grass roots, crowd sourced whodunit that is unraveling the shroud of a shadow government, thread by thread.

----------


## The Man

OK. So we need to hear more arguments to debunk this vote manipulation. I'd like to see more counties where Republican-ness is graphed vs RP-MR%.

----------


## Mark37snj

*UPDATE* - Since no one posted a reason not to contact Revolution Pac regarding this information I attempted to do so. I could not get through to their phone, I did however send them a mail describing the situaition with all relavent links.

----------


## bbwarfield

keep in mind this article

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/arti...epublican-race

republicanism cannot be taken from an obama vs. anyone cause of his strenght among the african american deomgraphic. Republicans that are part of this group either sat out or voted for obama *for the majority*

IF you want to follow that line... look at Kerry vs. Bush (still not a primary but it probably has better numbers) but remember... the further you go back the more these numbers become fuzzy cause over time people move... born... all the stuff that changes demographics.

I do not disagree that this could be the answer... simple democratic county vs. republican..... but I think its alot simpler than that. I am against collectivism... but the fact is.... just as Religous Right, the uber wealthy, the hispanic,black, asian minorities.... they are all powerful voting blocks that do vote more as a block. 92% of registered voters were black in one of these precincts with low voter turnout and high obama voting.... less than 1% of ALL voters were African American in the republican primary. these precincts according to the article so non existent black vote some of the time. So..... how do we go forward looking at these numbers? 

Once again.... im a methodology person... not statistics.... the article i found goes to prove the methodology that it wasnt democratic precincts but minority ones

----------


## bbwarfield

> *UPDATE* - Since no one posted a reason not to contact Revolution Pac regarding this information I attempted to do so. I could not get through to their phone, I did however send them a mail describing the situaition with all relavent links.


we stated a reason to.... we dont have all the information together yet.... at the moment its "free" labor.... i would rather start spending money when it needs to be verified... not when its just kicking tires

----------


## Mark37snj

> we stated a reason to.... we dont have all the information together yet.... at the moment its "free" labor.... i would rather start spending money when it needs to be verified... not when its just kicking tires


Who stated that reason as a reason not to contact Rev-Pac? At the present moment we don't have any tires to kick. The Man is asking for more debunking info because we wan outa piddies to debunk and the concensus from our resident stats team is that they are confident that an electronic voting machine algorithym is responsible for the anomolies we are seeing so there is no reason not to move foward. Besides the Revolution Pac is very busy and may take them awhile to investigate this matter if they even decide to do so.

----------


## bbwarfield

I have yet to see a consensus to be honest.... I dont want to put words in other peoples mouths... but I've seen people who have admitted they were reading stats wrong adn changeing there overall view on the subject... one person proving that there was another explanation that NO ONE has debunked fully (although I've given a reason that the current stats invovlving democrat areas need to be rebased around a different data set) 

I know some people are discussing these things of the forums.... so there may be consensus out there... but I am not seeing it on here

We do need a game plan (one that was suggested a few pages ago) but I think it is premature to start sending out data till we have taken care of AT LEAST this current theory of Dem vs. Rep areas. If we dont find it now... someone will find it later... and they may not be as willing to debunk it.....

IF we want to be taken seriously we need to look at all the *legitimate* theories other people will come up with. Cause if it gets out and they debunk on something that we could have already proven wrong it will be harder for them to take a second look then the first look. We may loose the one person who will be the one to expose it by scaring them off with poorly vetted theories

----------


## Mark37snj

> I have yet to see a consensus to be honest.... I dont want to put words in other peoples mouths... *but I've seen people who have admitted they were reading stats wrong adn changeing there overall view on the subject*... one person proving that there was another explanation that NO ONE has debunked fully (although I've given a reason that the current stats invovlving democrat areas need to be rebased around a different data set) 
> 
> *I know some people are discussing these things of the forums.... so there may be consensus out there... but I am not seeing it on here*We do need a game plan (one that was suggested a few pages ago) but I think it is premature to start sending out data till we have taken care of AT LEAST this current theory of Dem vs. Rep areas. If we dont find it now... someone will find it later... and they may not be as willing to debunk it.....
> 
> IF we want to be taken seriously we need to look at all the *legitimate* theories other people will come up with. Cause if it gets out and they debunk on something that we could have already proven wrong it will be harder for them to take a second look then the first look. We may loose the one person who will be the one to expose it by scaring them off with poorly vetted theories


I think you are confusing Concensus with_ Everyone who posts on this thread_ *vs* _Those who are really contributing to this thread and have the knowledge to make an informed decision_.

EDIT: And again I posted if anyone had a legitimate reason to NOT contact Rev-Pac they needed to say so. No one did. Sure people were talking about what else can be done but no one stated to not contect Rev-Pac because of X, Y, and Z. And even then it would have to be discussed amongst the thread creds to reach a concensus. That never happened.

----------


## Mark37snj

> one person proving that there was another explanation that NO ONE has debunked fully (although I've given a reason that the current stats invovlving democrat areas need to be rebased around a different data set. 
> 
> We do need a game plan (one that was suggested a few pages ago) but I think it is premature to start sending out data till we have taken care of AT LEAST this current theory of Dem vs. Rep areas. If we dont find it now... someone will find it later... and they may not be as willing to debunk it.....


If this is the theory I think it is, then it has been debunked because it was based on 2008 data that was obtained using electronic voting machines and therefore is unreliable/contaminated/corrupt data.

EDIT: I know our stats teams is investigating it further because the original poster opened up a new line of investigation. So far this new path of investigation has actually provided more evidence of shenanigens and new ways to prove the existence of an algorithym which they are currently persuing.

----------


## bbwarfield

The theory was not debunked based on 2008 numbers... Cause it deals with a tangential point to do with demographics..... I think it is flawed because its confusing two demographics..... It's methodology has been questioned.... But the proof remains that these smaller districts were smaller because of voter turnout.... And this must be explained long before its debunked. 

I think we all agree that vote flipping took place.... And the numbers suggest it.... But we still have far from proofen it. Twice now two theories have merged demographic information into the overall data (in my opinion) incorrectly..... 

I want this released as soon as our ducks are in a row.... The problem is our ducks are being mixed with all other manner of barn yard fowl. Till they are sorted out I think we need to sort that out. 

We already had one person lambasted on a statistics website for including irrelevant data and making people not even look at the real issues...... I'm advocating not doing this again and bringing more shame on our house

Revpac will be helpful and feelers probably should start going out.... But id rather we hold on and get the man to share the data and be the point person as he has the best grasp on all the arguments

----------


## Adam West

"The Man" asked for more data a couple of pages back. Anyone able to help him out?

----------


## Mark37snj

> The theory was not debunked based on 2008 numbers... Cause it deals with a tangential point to do with demographics..... I think it is flawed because its confusing two demographics..... It's methodology has been questioned....* But the proof remains that these smaller districts were smaller because of voter turnout*.... And this must be explained long before its debunked.


NO, I does not. If, for 2012 data, the algorithym is taking votes from a district from Paul and giving it to Romney in a different (Higher turnout) district, then that district that had votes taken from it will appear to have a lower voter turnout according to the data. It has a lower turnout not because people did not show up but *because votes were taken from it.*

EDIT: We have barely scratched the surface of 2008 data which means any other study, regardless of tangetial or what nots, will be skewed/biased/unrealiable/corrupt. ALL work based on corrupt data is corrupt, you can't avoid it unless the data has been corrected. And having barely scratched the surface on 2008, how can you make the claim of whats fact and whats not.

----------


## bbwarfield

http://uselectionatlas.org/BOTTOM/store_data.php sells election data (not sure who complied it) but if THe man said these would help him I'd would personally contribute to a chip-if he set one up

----------


## Adam West

> http://uselectionatlas.org/BOTTOM/store_data.php sells election data (not sure who complied it) but if THe man said these would help him I'd would personally contribute to a chip-if he set one up


I'll pitch in if it is useable material.

----------


## bbwarfield

> NO, I does not. If the algorithym is taking votes from a district from Paul and giving it to Romney in a different (Higher turnout) district, then that district that had votes taken from it will appear to have a lower voter turnout according to the data. It has a lower turnout not because people did not show up but *because votes were taken from it.*


 there is ZERO proof that votes were taken from one precinct and given to another in SC.... in fact it would have been noticed by every single precinct captain (some of wich believe it or not are paul supporters) The vote put out by the machine at a precinct must REPEAT *must* the number of votes *at that precinct* .... i have spoken to one of the people who ran a polling place.... they are not allowed to release the vote if there are more votes than people who came in the door. No one whose actually crunching South Carolina has suggested a vote shift between precincts. 
The vote NUMBER is accurate.... who they actually voted for is in question. No one would be stupid enough to lower a turnout number because the poll workers are required to check the total votes against the total voters..... theres a human element here that stops them from making shifts between precincts....absontee ballots are the only one you can cause of them being counted as a whole not in there respective precints

----------


## bbwarfield

http://www.electiondataservices.com/...d=17&Itemid=12 might this be better?  we probably need to find out who has the best data as there are alot of sites that sell data..... ugg.... but if THE MAN wants to start a chipin trust me ill give

----------


## Mark37snj

> there is ZERO proof that votes were taken from one precinct and given to another in SC....


 What the do think this ENTIRE thread is about? 

EDIT: Votes being manipulated. How/when/where/who we are still determining, so you stating that low vote totals are definitively from low turnout and not from manipulation without any proff (the only possilbe proof is original raw numbers and the algorithym and I doubt they are gona give us them) is nothing more then an opinion.

----------


## bbwarfield

This thread is about an algorithm that tells the machines to FLIP votes from one candidate to another when a *precinct reaches a certain size* thats why below a certain number they are unaffected.... cause you could catch it if lets say 10 people vote and they all knew eachother and it went for someone none of you voted for.  

The flipping isnt moving votes around... its changeing candidate a to candidate b when theres enough votes in a single precinct that no one could verify there own vote anymore.

----------


## Forty Twice

It's pretty neat to be working with such a diverse group of concerned people on something so important as this.  I know we are each doing our best to understand what's happening and to hopefully find truth.  I wouldn't recommend handing this off to any paid consultants.  I trust this group more than any paid consultants.  We can crunch numbers pretty well and communicate our ideas.  However, we seem to lack election expertise.  The campaign must have some experts who could jump in here and give some anonymous guidance.  I have to think similar things have been observed before.  If I'm wasting my time, I want to know sooner rather than later.

And as for my thoughts, I cannot explain the Greenville, SC 1:1 swap when sorted by Votes per precinct.  However, I do see that there are many ways to sort precinct votes with some ways appearing more regular than others.  The Greenville swap could be coincidence.  I can neither claim nor deny fraud right now.  

Clark and Washoe Counties in Nevada look very suspicious to me.  Of course, you could sort the precincts differently and tell a completely different story.

Sorting by # of votes cast per precinct has an uncanny way of consistently favoring Romney at Paul's expense.  Why that happens is beyond me.

If I were in charge of the conspiracy that's mis-representing the votes, why would I use any detectable technique such as flipping votes 1 for 1 in precincts that have more than 250 votes?  Heck, I'd just decide what I want the vote to be a few days before the election and configure the machines to spit out my desired vote count.  I think they have the leeway to do whatever they want with your vote between the casting and the TV announcing.  So never proving fraud by failing to detect it statistically doesn't rule out the existence of fraud.  This is where we may be wasting our time.

What if we cherry picked a few precincts that look suspicious?  Precincts where Romney's vote was far higher then my scatter charts predict while Paul's votes were far lower?  Then the campaign may want to invest in having some people walk door to door asking who each person voted for.  If there is a consistent mis-match in Paul's favor, then that would prove it for me.

----------


## Adam West

> http://www.electiondataservices.com/...d=17&Itemid=12 might this be better?  we probably need to find out who has the best data as there are alot of sites that sell data..... ugg.... but if THE MAN wants to start a chipin trust me ill give


This is out of my scope of expertise'. All I know is this insightful work must continue. By whatever means, let's target the resources required to get the job done.

----------


## Mark37snj

> This thread is about an algorithm that tells the machines to FLIP votes from one candidate to another when a *precinct reaches a certain size* thats why below a certain number they are unaffected.... cause you could catch it if lets say 10 people vote and they all knew eachother and it went for someone none of you voted for.  
> 
> The flipping isnt moving votes around... its changeing candidate a to candidate b when theres enough votes in a single precinct that no one could verify there own vote anymore.


I didn't realize you completly figured out this algorithym. PLZ post the code for us so we can all have a look at it. Your posts are reminding me of those who were saying to ignore Iowa because there was nothing going on there. Don't look over here, look over there. Your making statements that are not facts and acting as if they have been proven. And at best you only offer opinions as proof.

----------


## bbwarfield

We are trying to catch vote manipulation..... which is very hard and requires alot of data

Vote manufacturing is very easy to catch... and moving votes between precincts is easier to catch than manipulation within precincts.... moving between precincts in a primary is equal to moving them between states in a general...... 

I think it was an honest mistake Mark37snj.... but it goes back to my argument of methodology... if we get something wrong when we are starting out... it blooms until its caught on say... page 67 of a thread.... and you will lose people out of frustration more than being wrong. 

This is also why i am not too happy about iowa and nevada being brought in..... vote manufacture is more of an issue in those states and vote manipulation...

----------


## Mark37snj

> We are trying to catch vote manipulation..... which is very hard and requires alot of data
> 
> *Vote manufacturing is very easy to catch... and moving votes between precincts is easier to catch than manipulation within precincts.... moving between precincts in a primary is equal to moving them between states in a general......* 
> I think it was an honest mistake Mark37snj.... but it goes back to my argument of methodology... if we get something wrong when we are starting out... it blooms until its caught on say... page 67 of a thread.... and you will lose people out of frustration more than being wrong. 
> 
> This is also why i am not too happy about iowa and nevada being brought in..... vote manufacture is more of an issue in those states and vote manipulation...


You are forgetting one very important point that was established early on in this thread. Remember where they noticed that it was not just a 1:1 flipper at the very end of the vote totals but appears to also be adding extra votes as well? Well, where were those votes coming from?

EDIT for Bold: That was then, this is now. With computers controlling the show and algorithyms to use what was difficult and obvious becomes easy and virtually undetectable.

----------


## Adam West

I'm relatively new to these boards. Is there a member who is knowledgeable about the mechanizations of the primary/caucus electoral system - or somebody who knows somebody who is?

----------


## Adam West

If this individual can be found, he/she could aid the statisticians in this quest.

----------


## bbwarfield

> I didn't realize you completly figured out this algorithym. PLZ post the code for us so we can all have a look at it. Your posts are reminding me of those who were saying to ignore Iowa because there was nothing going on there. Don't look over here, look over there. Your making statements that are not facts and acting as if they have been proven. And at best you only offer opinions as proof.


? im haveing a few wtf moments here..... This is what was laid out in the original PDF. What have i said that wasnt a fact that i claimed was one? 

Fact: you cant move votes between precincts on this level without a precinct captain saying his head count doesnt match the numbers of votes cast
Fact: a caucus and a primary are completely different
Fact: legitimate disagreement have occured
Fact: legitimate information has been gathered to help facilitate an answer to those disagreements
Fact: information such as demographics does not need to be put into graph form to prove or disprove

I've read every post since page one.... I believe fraud occurred.... I believe some people may be good with numbers but are using poor methods to draw conclusions

I am trying to help by steering us away from data that is suspect to data that is more credible. This is a group effort.... im not discouraging anyone from looking at every possibility.... but when I see a possibility that runs us down the wrong path I am trying to point it out. 

My Credentials? Researcher for two years at a university archives department. Primary job was to find information for peoples doctoral thesis's.... if I gave them bad information... then they couldnt defend there thesis and would not get there doctorates.... My opinions are based on the fact I am use to looking at information and making sure it is accurate and incontrovertible before being used... it was my job for two years

----------


## bbwarfield

> You are forgetting one very important point that was established early on in this thread. Remember where they noticed that it was not just a 1:1 flipper at the very end of the vote totals but appears to also be adding extra votes as well? Well, where were those votes coming from?
> 
> EDIT for Bold: That was then, this is now. With computers controlling the show and algorithyms to use what was difficult and obvious becomes easy and virtually undetectable.


I do remember... mostly in caucus states... WHICH HAVE NO BEARING ON A PRIMARY...... votes were only flipped in SC.... another reason that iowa and nevada should not be brought up in this discussion.... primaries and caucuses are completely different.... theres a reason the MSN doesnt do polls or exit polling on most caucus states.... they are unpredictable.... a point of fact ive made numerous times on this thread

----------


## Mark37snj

> I do remember... mostly in caucus states... WHICH HAVE NO BEARING ON A PRIMARY...... votes were only flipped in SC.... another reason that iowa and nevada should not be brought up in this discussion.... primaries and caucuses are completely different.... theres a reason the MSN doesnt do polls or exit polling on most caucus states.... they are unpredictable.... a point of fact ive made numerous times on this thread


Both Primary AND Caucus votes are being tabulated by the same people.




> it seemed like nevada was all hand counted though. because they recounted both washoe and clark, meaning paper ballots. so we can exclude voting swapping algorithms as responsible for the trend. at least it seems less likely now.





> http://healthfreedom2012.com/HFblog/...ael-sctyl-soe/
> 
> All votes whether they are paper ballots or electronic ballots are tabulated at a central location and some are subjected to manipulation.
> 
> Quote from the article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


EDIT: Your looking at the voting in a MICROcosm, your not taking into accout the big picture which is affecting all these elections. You can't look at it one precinct at a time.

EDIT 2.0: We can't even say for certain if the manipulation is taking place at the individual voting machines where they are used or at the central location. It appears most of the shenanigans is taking place at the large precincts but its obvious now becuase that is where all the votes are being dumped. But we do not know yet where all the votes are coming from.

----------


## bbwarfield

> Both Primary AND Caucus votes are being tabulated by the same people.
> 
> 
> 
> http://healthfreedom2012.com/HFblog/...ael-sctyl-soe/
> 
> All votes whether they are paper ballots or electronic ballots are tabulated at a central location and some are subjected to manipulation.
> 
> Quote from the article:


once again.... only clark county and washoe were done centrally in nevada...as part of the recount process.... and were still for the most part hand written ballots....  If youve been to a caucus you would know that they cant be run through a machine cause they are hand written not just hand cast in the vast majority of them.... thats why you heard on TV one of them read of as "ron paul smiley face" (if someone got the clip thats great) 

the quote at the end is referring to sc and places that use Scytl's technology only once again..... cause all ballots are "machine readable"... machines cant count hand written ballots or simple check mark ballots.... think scantron tests in college vs. true or false tests where you circle the answer..... From what ive read "the man" has only been tallying primary states. He may have added them later... but originally he was looking at places with electronic voter machines (florida, new hampshire, south carolina) were in play

Methodology..... Methodology.... Methodology

----------


## The Man

You know that my theory in the beginning caused me to arrange the precincts in the order relative to # of votes. Look at the Iowa graph, Look at Greenville, Anderson, Spartanburg, Hillsborough County NH, Charleston County, etc. Not one suspicious "event" where any candidate benefits except Mitt! Newt won SC without any suspicious events.  No other order correlates with consistently increasing Mitt% or consistently decreasing Paul% as well as smallest to largest precinct. 

Forty Twice, you and Liberty1789 seem to have the most statistical knowledge on this thread (Speak up if I am unfairly excluding you). I would like to see more analysis using the 2008 GOP Primary. I have an idea- please give me feedback:
Let's assume for the moment that RP's vote was insignificant in 2008 to the point where the totals we see are true/ untampered with. I'd like to see if RP'S 2008 vote% in Greenville/ Anderson/ Spartanburg Counties follows the same trend as it did in 2012. One of you already posted the bar graphs from Anderson County in 2008 showing RP's projected total versus the actual- and it was dead nuts, which supports my original claims. I'd like to see the graph of Republican-ness vs. RP'S vote% for Anderson 2008. One can certainly argue that this is a flawed procedure, but why don't we compare RP's % graphs in 2008 with 2012. What we are looking for is the behavior with respect to itself a) using precinct# votes on the X-axis and b)Republican-ness on the X-Axis. I wouldn't be surprised if we learn something significant from this. I understand that the "experts" will shoot holes in this, but this data adds a whole new way to analyze. 





> It's pretty neat to be working with such a diverse group of concerned people on something so important as this.  I know we are each doing our best to understand what's happening and to hopefully find truth.  I wouldn't recommend handing this off to any paid consultants.  I trust this group more than any paid consultants.  We can crunch numbers pretty well and communicate our ideas.  However, we seem to lack election expertise.  The campaign must have some experts who could jump in here and give some anonymous guidance.  I have to think similar things have been observed before.  If I'm wasting my time, I want to know sooner rather than later.
> 
> And as for my thoughts, I cannot explain the Greenville, SC 1:1 swap when sorted by Votes per precinct.  However, I do see that there are many ways to sort precinct votes with some ways appearing more regular than others.  The Greenville swap could be coincidence.  I can neither claim nor deny fraud right now.  
> 
> Clark and Washoe Counties in Nevada look very suspicious to me.  Of course, you could sort the precincts differently and tell a completely different story.
> 
> Sorting by # of votes cast per precinct has an uncanny way of consistently favoring Romney at Paul's expense.  Why that happens is beyond me.
> 
> If I were in charge of the conspiracy that's mis-representing the votes, why would I use any detectable technique such as flipping votes 1 for 1 in precincts that have more than 250 votes?  Heck, I'd just decide what I want the vote to be a few days before the election and configure the machines to spit out my desired vote count.  I think they have the leeway to do whatever they want with your vote between the casting and the TV announcing.  So never proving fraud by failing to detect it statistically doesn't rule out the existence of fraud.  This is where we may be wasting our time.
> ...

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

Here's my take on it all.

The fact there is something being detected, is all the proof I need to know that some type of fraud is happening.

Even if we haven't identified it _yet_, I believe there is a strong enough case to get the campaign, campaign lawyers, and whoever else is necessary on this case.

----------


## Mark37snj

Well I wish you well in your Methodology analysis of future election anomolies bbwarfield. Im gona focus on getting this information into the hands of people who can help save this country before its too late. We ARE running out of time and I don't think we have the time to keep going down these endless Hypothetical roads nor do I think it will ever be successful in reaching a final conclusion. That is why we need to get this in the hands of a dedicated stat company so we can do more then dabate Methodology.

----------


## bbwarfield

> EDIT: Your looking at the voting in a MICROcosm, your not taking into accout the big picture which is affecting all these elections. You can't look at it one precinct at a time.
> 
> EDIT 2.0: We can't even say for certain if the manipulation is taking place at the individual voting machines where they are used or at the central location. It appears most of the shenanigans is taking place at the large precincts but its obvious now becuase that is where all the votes are being dumped. But we do not know yet where all the votes are coming from.


this whole thing is about the micros of the precincts.... THE WHOLE THING! 

You cant dump votes cause the precinct captain has to reconcile the vote to the amount of voters that physically walked through the door........... other wise they have to answer "where did these mysterious votes come from? ".... that isnt happening... ive talked to a precinct captain in a larger precinct in sc... he was a paul supporter... it didnt happen

----------


## bbwarfield

> Well I wish you well in your Methodology analysis of future election anomolies bbwarfield. Im gona focus on getting this information into the hands of people who can help save this country before its too late. We ARE running out of time and I don't think we have the time to keep going down these endless Hypothetical roads nor do I think it will ever be successful in reaching a final conclusion. That is why we need to get this in the hands of a dedicated stat company so we can do more then dabate Methodology.


statistics is methodology.... other wise its throwing numbers against the wall and seeing what sticks and counting those

----------


## Forty Twice

> once again.... only clark county and washoe were done centrally in nevada...as part of the recount process.... and were still for the most part hand written ballots....


So all of Nevada was hand-written vote, not machine vote.  Why is there no independent documentation, video/audio from a caucus-goer that we can observe which corroborates or conflicts with any of the official tallies?  Were the results never announced within the precinct hall before being reported to central HQ?  Has anyone seen an independently reported vote tally for any Washoe or Clark precinct?  If the vote-flipping truly occurred in those counties, an independent report from inside the caucus room for any precinct should have Paul and Romney flipped compared to official results for that precinct.

----------


## bbwarfield

> Every data set has a story, and if statistics are used properly, they do a good job of uncovering and reporting that story. Statistics that are improperly used can tell a deifferent story. or only part of it, so* knowing how to make good decisions about the information you're given*  is *very important*


-Statistics for dummies...opening statement on "number-crunching basics"

methodology=knowing how to make good decisions about the information you're given

Im reading two books on statistics right now... using my day off so I can help actually crunch some numbers.... but the FACT remains.... just having graphs that tell a story will never be enough.... we have to have graphs that tell the story with good methodology so people cant destroy them when they find a flaw in our methods. There not gonna find flaws in our numbers..... they cant... 1+1=2 .... but they can in our methods (you assume that 1 is static... if you rounded the number it can be .5 or 1.4 and 1.4+1.4= 2.8 .... therefore you are wrong... rounded 1+1=3) and that example was taught in my philosophy and computer classes in college... to prove two different things.... assume nothing..... and make sure your methods are good

----------


## Mark37snj

> this whole thing is about the micros of the precincts.... THE WHOLE THING! 
> 
> You cant dump votes cause the precinct captain has to reconcile the vote to the amount of voters that physically walked through the door


After watching the Maine debockle I have no faith in the competence and honesty of Precinct Captains or any other election official.

So if this is only about the micros of the pricincts then we should ignore and accept that nothing can happen to these pricinct numbers once the pricincts are finished with them? Everything that affects/touches/controls the micros of the precincts votes must be examined.

----------


## bbwarfield

> So all of Nevada was hand-written vote, not machine vote.  Why is there no independent documentation, video/audio from a caucus-goer that we can observe which corroborates or conflicts with any of the official tallies?  Were the results never announced within the precinct hall before being reported to central HQ?  Has anyone seen an independently reported vote tally for any Washoe or Clark precinct?  If the vote-flipping truly occurred in those counties, an independent report from inside the caucus room for any precinct should have Paul and Romney flipped compared to official results for that precinct.


Edit: watch the vote tried to... and in some cases succeeded .... but the problem is observer bias .... where we won... our number may have been right cause people were excited we won.... the others were "roughly right" ... adn some people never reported at all cause Paul didnt do well and they didnt feel like reporting it.

we saw it once in iowa.... and it went viral and was the cause of Santorums win.... it was human error... but it proved to me that it would be very hard to prove fraud in a caucus with statistics..... you need to catch them red handed.... maine you saw it.... people said "you have completely bogus number" but then the changed all the numbers so much and told people not to peek at the numbers.... it was all bungled and they just lucked out its so hard to catch what really happened cause they told people not to count.

----------


## Mark37snj

> statistics is methodology.... other wise its throwing numbers against the wall and seeing what sticks and counting those


I would rather have a professional statistics company throw those numbers against the wall in a professional setting with high level resourses with a stated purpose and finish line then to watch the hypotheticals being debated here endlessly regardless of how good the Methodology is.

----------


## bbwarfield

> After watching the Maine debockle I have no faith in the competence and honesty of Precinct Captains or any other election official.
> 
> So if this is only about the micros of the pricincts then we should ignore and accept that nothing can happen to these pricinct numbers once the pricincts are finished with them? Everything that affects/touches/controls the micros of the precincts votes must be examined.


we are examining them.... thats why the flips were found in higher precinct counts.... there attempt to not get caught was what may lead to them being caugth

if they had flipped ALL romney paul ballots state wide... they would be caught in a small precinct were the people could say "hey... paul got no votes and i voted for him" so they were smart enough to only employ the algorithm over a certain total... but they couldnt play with the semi verifiable small precincts in this case..... which is why you see the flip in the chart. This couldnt exist if theyd done 1:1 flipping across the board.... there play was thinking no one would bother  running real analysis in the one way that showed it "smallest precincts to largest" cause the bottom 15% is the tue vote... which they never thought we would see cause no graphs are put together that way in standard analysis of the election

----------


## bbwarfield

> I would rather have a professional statistics company throw those numbers against the wall in a professional setting with high level resourses with a stated purpose and finish line then to watch the hypotheticals being debated here endlessly regardless of how good the Methodology is.


yes... so would I... but whats happeing is some people on the boards are throwing there numbers one way and counting what sticks... others are counting what fell on the ground.... and yet others are counting everything before you threw them and then subtracting the difference of what fell and whats sticking...

you gotta decide at some point what numbers your looking at or you end up looking at nothing but a bunch of meaningless graphs

----------


## bbwarfield

I don't know if this makes a difference... But I'm realizing that credentials seem to be necessary to point out an opinion....

I was a political science major in college.... So when I suppose when that's my credential for demographics analysis and for how caucuses and primaries differ... Since the rules of the game were my area of academic study. Now can I play with the engineers and other number crunchers?

----------


## Mark37snj

I do research for pharmaceutical/bio-industrial/medical research compaines. Although I think the only requirement necessary to comment on this thread is the First Amendment. After that, how much people listen to you depends on how much sense you are making. 

Just an FYI, me and bbwarfield have sorted out our misunderstading. This thread is just too damn technical and easy to get lost in a forest of facts. On that note, if our stat team could tell us wether SC had 1:1 flipping + adding, like what we saw in the earlier states or it was just 1:1, it would be much appreciated.

----------


## The Man

I've just finished a 1 hour conversation with a impressive professional statistical analyst. He lives in SC and may look at this initially because of his personal interest. He read the report and we discussed a lot. He definitely indicated that the 2008 Primary with Ron Paul and Mitt Romney data could be very important. I told him that we want to look at 1) Statistical/ mathematical and 2)Demographical. He has taught at more than one university with more than 20 years experience. He's seems like a vey nice person as well.

----------


## Mark37snj

MOAR BRAINS...

EDIT: can you elaborate more, what about the 2008 data being compromised?


South Carolina vote info:  http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/SC-R.phtml 
http://www.state.sc.us/cgi-bin/scsec...icd-011908f.pl

----------


## The Man

Can anyone post the link where the 2008 SC Primary data is posted? I cannot locate. I saw the data for Greenville County, but I need the link. I will reinforce what I said earlier: Sounds like we need to compare the behavior of RP and MR's % in 2008 to 2012 in several counties and send the spreadsheets to our new friend, provided we determine them to have worth. Where's all the Excel Gurus?

----------


## Liberty1789

Just a point en passant. About orders of magnitude.

The vote flip in Clark County implies an average *4* vote flip per precinct (the most populous) from Paul to Romney. How many precinct chairmen will pick their phone for a 4 vote innocent mistake/clerical error?

----------


## bbwarfield

http://www.enr-scvotes.org/SC/Greenw...n/vt_data.html

this may seem like a conspiracy...but....

the over all sites for the primary no longer exist... we will have to find each county independently through goolge searching..... if you notice anylink to 2008 that is not at the county level is defaulted to the current 2012

so here is greenwood.... http://www.enr-scvotes.org/SC/Greenw...n/vt_data.html
 happy hunting for more

edit..... okay... its getting weird... but i cannot find any of the presidential primary numbers throught this site on sc

http://www.enr-scvotes.org/SC/4186/7...ct-county.html

leads to just the general primary... but it looks like they planned at no one looking at the presidential again cause you just cant get to it.... maybe if you play around with the numbers in the link you can find some... i found the greenwood numbers by transposing some numbers... but its not going to easy

----------


## The Man

OK. I am gonna spend the rest of the evening building spreadsheets for'08 unless someone has laready downloaded into spreadsheets


> http://www.enr-scvotes.org/SC/Greenw...n/vt_data.html
> 
> this may seem like a conspiracy...but....
> 
> the over all sites for the primary no longer exist... we will have to find each county independently through goolge searching..... if you notice anylink to 2008 that is not at the county level is defaulted to the current 2012
> 
> so here is greenwood.... http://www.enr-scvotes.org/SC/Greenw...n/vt_data.html
>  happy hunting for more

----------


## Mark37snj

> http://www.enr-scvotes.org/SC/36831/...ct-county.html
> 
> Just a point en passant. About orders of magnitude.
> 
> The vote flip in Clark County implies an average *4* vote flip per precinct (the most populous) from Paul to Romney. How many precinct chairmen will pick their phone for a 4 vote innocent mistake/clerical error?


http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/NV-R




> Saturday 4 February 2012: Republican Party Precinct Caucuses meet. Each Precinct Caucus casts votes for Presidential candidates and chooses the precinct's delegates to the County Conventions. There are 1,835 caucuses (the party published the 1,835 number before the caucuses but the certifed vote showed 1,800 caucuses).





> Estimation of 446 precincts infected. 1,700 votes. How can you capture a 4 vote deviation? Well, because it is an impossibly systematic linear deviation...


~446 high populous precincts, so we have ~446 X 4 = *1700* votes switched from Paul to Romney in Clark County.

2012 Nevada Results

1st)  Mitt Romney......16,486  50.01%
2nd) Newt Gingrich....*6,956 * 21.10%
3rd)  Ron Paul............*6,175 * 18.73%
4th)  Rick Santorum.....3,277    9.94%
No Vote........................69    0.21%

----------


## bbwarfield

http://www.scvotes.org/statistics/voter_history

here is a semi helpful tool that show the numbers based on what info you want as far as voter turnout in SC.... still searching for the "no one would wanna see those again so dont bother leaving up the page to help find them" primary numbers

----------


## bbwarfield

ive got um.... ive got um....!!!!!! watch this spot while i type out the ridiculous instructions.... or find a quicker way
UPDATE:*This is now a complete file of all counties*.... 2008 primaries excel file.... i put all the info from the below site onto one master excel... enjoy http://dl.dropbox.com/u/63863033/scprecinctsall2008.xls

edit:
http://www.state.sc.us/cgi-bin/scsec/r108pf
click on the county and it will give you the by precinct breakdown...... its rediculous how many hoops you gotta jump through to find this page

2nd edit...

now theyve turned of direct linkin to that page.... these people are ridiculous.... http://www.state.sc.us/cgi-bin/scsec...isw-011908f.pl and click on county...... i swear if it happens again im gonna call up the secretary of state

----------


## Liberty1789

Estimation of 446 precincts infected. 1,700 votes. How can you capture a 4 vote deviation? Well, because it is an impossibly systematic linear deviation...

----------


## Mark37snj

> Estimation of 446 precincts infected. 1,700 votes. How can you capture a 4 vote deviation? Well, because it is an impossibly systematic linear deviation...


BOSS

----------


## mosquitobite

> ive got um.... ive got um....!!!!!! watch this spot while i type out the ridiculous instructions.... or find a quicker way
> 
> 
> edit:
> http://www.state.sc.us/cgi-bin/scsec/r108pf
> click on the county and it will give you the by precinct breakdown...... its rediculous how many hoops you gotta jump through to find this page


lurker 

Link does not work.

----------


## bbwarfield

> lurker 
> 
> Link does not work.


i edited it while you were posting  they actually disconnected it so you have to go to the page before....AFTER i posted the link http://www.state.sc.us/cgi-bin/scsec...isw-011908f.pl and click on county totals...... goes to the same place

----------


## bbwarfield

UPDATE:*This is now a complete file of all counties* this is all  of 2008's counties by precinct in one excel file... each tab is its own county.... have fun number crunchers ; )

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/63863033/scprecinctsall2008.xls

----------


## affa

> but I've seen people who have admitted they were reading stats wrong adn changeing there overall view on the subject... 
> 
> SNIP
> (from later message):
> 
> We already had one person lambasted on a statistics website for including irrelevant data and making people not even look at the real issues...... I'm advocating not doing this again and bringing more shame on our house


To be fair, that was all the same user.  Who then 'UPDATED' the entire thread with more misinformation.  

So we have one person that completely misread charts, then went wild and started posting incorrect assumptions on a stat board, and then decided the fact they misunderstood everything is proof it didn't happen... well...  let's just say I have a low tolerance for such shenanigans. 

That person going off the reservation should not affect the timeline of the people actually doing the work here.

----------


## bbwarfield

Yes.... i admit to be fair it was the same person
I apologize if i made it sound like it was multiple people (i said people in the first one wich really was the wrong word).... it was one person who proved my point in two ways. 


moving on..... here are some of the counties so far.... im updateing the document live.... so be patient
each county has its own tab

UPDATE:*This is now a complete file of all counties*

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/63863033/scprecinctsall2008.xls

is this helpful?

----------


## jjockers

Here's a fun tool that anyone can use to drilldown into the Iowa results by GOP Strength (2008 GOP %), size of precinct, and/or county.  

*It'd be easy to add additional fields, if the data is available.  It'd also be easy to update with other state's info, if the data is available.*  Send/show me the data, and I'll add it to the file.

Excel file: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/63868969/RPF...ysis_dist.xlsm

Snapshot after some counties, tiers, and strengths are selected:

----------


## affa

Re: 'debunking debunks'... I have yet to hear a single debunk that even attempts to explain why Romney is the only benefactor.  Any debunk that doesn't touch that is no debunk at all, but simply stretching for a 'plausible' explanation for why Ron Paul didn't meet his statistical predictive expectation.   These 'debunks' always play off preconceptions and assumptions based on what appears to be corrupt data (for example, that Ron Paul has a support ceiling, or his voters are lazy, or 'Republicans' don't like him)... but never address the Romney factor.  In fact, it appears to be very likely that this research is proving all these preconceptions are false.   He doesn't have a ceiling.  We are voting.  And Republicans DO like him... alot.  

Romney being the sole beneficiary is THE issue we need to focus on to prevent and deflect initial skepticism and debunk attempts.  

Don't get me wrong - I love Liberty's/The Man's/etc charts and tables and think they're extremely influential in showing and describing the manipulation.    But it's important to recognize that any potential 'debunks' to their work are neutered when Romney being the sole benefactor is taken into consideration.  Certainly, The Man's original document covered this to some degree, and many of have said time and time again that any precinct in which Ron Paul has some [mythical, cough] support ceiling which throws off statistically promised voters like kryptonite would see all other candidates getting votes, not just Romney.  

But we need to hammer this into the head of any reader of any future report. Perhaps we need to say the same thing, from the other angle. 

*Put it this way:  any precinct that is so incredibly Romney-centric that every last vote pulled from Ron Paul would unerringly go to Romney is a precinct in which Romney is so popular that he'd be pulling votes from all other candidates across the board, not just Ron Paul.*

There is no way around this, and no one has even tried to offer one yet for us to debunk.  It doesn't matter if the precinct is Democrat, Republican, Mormon, Church of Bob, high altitude, low altitude, urban, suburban, or made entirely of cheese.   No demographic oddity turns every voter statistically promised to Ron Paul (and only Ron Paul) into a Romney (and only Romney) voter.   

And even if our charts are completely wrong (which I don't believe), and there is no 'statistical promise' based on precinct totals, it still is impossible that we'd see this 1:1 anomaly with Paul/Romney over and over and over again.  Because even if lightening struck, and this randomly happened in one precinct somewhere in the US, it would be a fluke, a statistical miracle, not something we see repeated everywhere.

My point is that it's not so much that we need to 'debunk debunks', but rather, that we need to make the impossibility of Romney being the sole benefactor in all cases so clear in any presentation of charts and data that readers understand it, because it crushes potential debunks in their infancy.   It's damning. It's the smoking gun of smoking guns.


-------

re: Mark37snj / bbwarfield  discussion, and overall action timeline

I agree with both of you on different points.   bb, I agree with you that vote flipping is most likely happening within precincts, and not across precincts, for basically the same reasons you state.  Liberty's recent postings on how small, yet significant, these tallies are is also very interesting.   Mark - I definitely agree with you that we can't wait forever before we get pros on this and, even more importantly, break the story.  We have an election to win, and we can't do that if this is truly fraud.

I mean, seriously - it looks like we not only have beaten Romney in several states, but have come in first and second quite a bit.  That's massive.  Even if no fraud occurred from here on out, that alone shifts the narrative enough to change the final outcome significantly.  How much more money would have been donated?  How much lost momentum?   How many times do we hear that we simply 'don't come out to vote'?  What if that's all a lie, as it looks to be?

This isn't something we need to get out there in 2013.  We need to get this out yesterday... and while I understand that we can't do that, we also can't wait even a couple months.

----------


## bbwarfield

Id like to see it by super tuesday.... but we only have this weekend to do it folks!  whatever we do probably wont affect super tuesday... but once it happens? then we have all things we are looking for lined up and we go out saying "who cares about super tuesday? all of them were rigged and here are the reasons why" then we have a chance to change the whole narrative going into the rest of the race "texas? the guy from your state has had the whole election stolen from him... you gonna stand for that?" 

you name it.... this gives us the ace up our sleave... I would love it out before super tuesday but I doubt it will be. We gotta keep together and keep pushing... im still working on the 2008 excel master file....... so  back to work... just checkin in

----------


## Mark37snj

I may have missed this somewhere in the thread so I will ask it now. Did we determine where those extra votes were coming from in addition to the 1:1 flip we saw earlier in this thread. If we did, ok I will forget about it. It's just that it's still out there and I have not seen it explained so I don't want to exclude the only possible source left for those votes, low voter precincts. bbwarfield noted that there was no mention of adding going on in SC and I posted to ask for some clarity on that. I also agree with everything else you wrote. Romney is the key to this.

----------


## affa

> I may have missed this somewhere in the thread so I will ask it now. Did we determine where those extra votes were coming from in addition to the 1:1 flip we saw earlier in this thread. If we did, ok I will forget about it. It's just that it's still out there and I have not seen it explained so I don't want to exclude the only possible source left for those votes, low voter precincts. bbwarfield noted that there was no mention of adding going on in SC and I posted to ask for some clarity on that. I also agree with everything else you wrote. Romney is the key to this.


which charts?  i thought the 'boost' in a couple charts was at the very end, so would be only happening in high turnout precincts, since that's how the charts are laid out. but this is from memory.

----------


## Mark37snj

> which charts?  i thought the 'boost' in a couple charts was at the very end, so would be only happening in high turnout precincts, since that's how the charts are laid out. but this is from memory.


I will go dig up the posts. It was at the end of the vote totals but it did not appear that the votes taken from the other canidates was enough to explain how much Romney climbed there at the end.

----------


## bbwarfield

Also check wich county... there was one county with two UBER rich precincts that apparently were in love with romney any how

----------


## Mark37snj

> It's like Mitt's points are reactionary and corrective.  It seems to be *adding* votes to Mitt in some counties (*not just flipping*) because there is no mirrored RP data point in the bottom half of the graph.  Maybe they flipped it, then took votes away from RP and added them to Mitt.





> Romney gets the most votes from Ron Paul at the highest votes totals. Those extra vote totals are added to Romneys highest vote totals, basically takes a chunk from Ron's highest values and adding them to Romenys highest values. The appearence would have Romneys points at the very top but Ron's would be dropped down from his highest to average. I don't think it would be enough to drop them down to low values for Paul so therefore it would not appear to be a mirrored effect.
> 
> EDIT: The higher Ron's votes are the more Romney takes at these higher levels. If Ron's votes from a particular precinct show that he does not have very high totals (% wise compared to the total votes at that precinct), then the machines don't take as much, but when he does get very high totals (% wise compared to total votes at that precinct) the machine takes more. Ron's data point drops to average and Romneys hits the stratesphere.





> But wouldn't we see it on the original charts? Im not finding it unless its so small you can't see it graphically.





> i think the flipping is enough to focus on till we have more information *(but i do believe the adding is going on as well)*


 



> Look at page 5 of the original document posted.  The *"flip"* is very clear.  It shows that from early projections that could be made based on roughly 20% of the vote (way more than you actually need to project a winner), Romney always finishes where Paul's projection would land and Paul always finishes where Romney's projection lands.  That is the "flip".  The other two candidates, however, always land VERY close to their projection based on the same amount of votes...
> 
> This pattern shows up in lots of places during this election.  It also shows up in some '08 numbers that were run, except Huckabee was the one who seemed to be getting votes "stolen".  Romney has been the beneficiary in every one I've seen.  Only two candidates are ever affected, which is the key component that writes off so many of the would-be explanations...





> *I saw the flip, Im looking for the addition on top of the flip. (Flip + Adding)
> *Sorry, forgot to highlight what I was asking about
> 
> EDIT: *On figure 3 on Part 2 Greenville I think I do see the possibility of adding going on. It really gets pronounced at the very end. It does not look like the numbers he pulls from Paul is enough to explain it.
> *EDIT 2.0: Shouldn't each of these lines be generating an equation to describe them? It we get equations for all of Romney's lines we should be able to tell what the equation is being used. We will probably need Paul's too.





> why are you viewing this as a 'residual bug'?   there's nothing to lead to that conclusion - it's possible, certainly, but if anything less likely than something tailored for each election.   
> 
> ------
> 
> regarding the algorithm - don't we already know it? it looks to be simple vote flipping in large precincts:
> 
> if ((total+precinct+tally)) > X then 
>    temp = RPvote;
>    RPvote = MRvote;
> ...





> Originally Posted by Liberty1789
> 
> 
> Iowa 2012 magic... (based on original vote count)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Theory:
> ...


I threw this one below in here to give it one more look.




> 1.  That flattening is from a large portion of precincts that have exactly 968 Registered Voters.  That is very wierd, I agree.  The overlay is the slight gradual increase in one "968 Pop." precinct to the next.





> It is really strange that there are that many precincts with the exact same number and now from the graph we see that as soon as the numbers are being tallied the votes distribution starts to change noticibly and also the votes distribution ends when those precincts have ended. FASCINATING. Even more fascinating is the fact that these precincts appear to not be high turnout rich areas that would give Romney the boost he appears to be getting from them. And thanks for the graphs and analysis, its an impressive amount of quality work.


This is what I found so far on the adding. Im stopping here, my eyes are going crosseyed scanning this entire thread for more.

----------


## Mark37snj

> I'm seeing something really strange here. Greenville County:
> 
> Precinct: Greenville 14.....Registered Voters - 1728.....Ballots Cast -  17.....Voter Turnout - 0.98%
> Precinct: Greenville 01.....Registered Voters - 1579.....Ballots Cast - 573....Voter Turnout - 36.29%
> 
> Is anyone else seeing stuff like this?
> 
> There are 12 precincts with 6% or less Voter Turnout, while every other precinct averages between 20-35%


I also made this observation way way back yonder but it didn't get any traction. Any thoughts? Anyone familiar with this precinct have any idea of what happened there?

EDIT: Could these be the low turnout precincts where votes were taken from Paul, and maybe others, and given to Romney?

----------


## The Man

It's normal- Mainly democrat and Afro-American.


> I also made this observation way way back yonder but it didn't get any traction. Any thoughts? Anyone familiar with this precinct have any idea of what happened there?
> 
> EDIT: Could these be the low turnout precincts where votes were taken from Paul, and maybe others, and given to Romney?

----------


## wetroof

time for some New Hampshire data. second largest county: Rockingham ~60,000 votes. 2008 and 2012 compared. On x axis is cumulative vote ordered by precinct size ascending . On y axis is candidates share of cumulative vote by percent. this is the way many have been showing the data. 
2008

bysize08 by wetroof1, on Flickr

2012

bysize12 by wetroof1, on Flickr

Romney does better the larger the precinct. I'm not drawing conclusions.

edit: 42 precincts in this county.

----------


## Liberty1789

Cool to see. No convincing evidence of vote flip in either.

Do you have a link for 2008 NH primary results?

----------


## affa

> Romney does better the larger the precinct. I'm not drawing conclusions.
> 
> edit: 42 precincts in this county.


a couple notes:

a) "Romney does better the larger the precinct."  could be better stated:  Romney [remains the only candidate that] does better the larger the precinct.

b) 2008 could be corrupted/fraudulent data as well.

c) if Romney had flatlined around 33-34%, and McCain in the low 40s, the only candidate that could be easily siphoned from to give Romney the win would be... McCain.  I'm not saying this is clear cut (See point e) but it's possible.

d) Ron Paul stays pretty constant with precinct size, as to be expected.

e) McCain's flip with Romney could be explained off easily since they seem to be the only two 'players' in this race, which makes it more likely we'd see 1:1, as if we were watching a 2 man race.   

f) If 'bigger' meant more Republican, as some have suggested, then this shows us in NH at least (assuming uncorrupted results), Romney and McCain aren't viewed similarly at all and thus we shouldn't use 2008 data for McCain as a proxy for Romney. 

But yea, overall, nothing conclusive.

----------


## wetroof

here is the data I used:
2012: http://www.sos.nh.gov/presprim2012/RepSummaryPres.htm
2008 http://www.sos.nh.gov/presprim2008/rpressum.htm
the links for individual county data are at the bottom of the page. 

it takes a little bit of messing around to get it into excel. 

I'm going to take look at the largest county and probably post a graph or two. the other counties are small and not worth the effort.

----------


## bbwarfield

there would be a difference between 2008 and 2012.... increase in electronic voting precincts. Keep this in mind.... New Hampshire has some electronic and some hand counted. Dennis Kuccinich tried to get a recount on this cause of obvious changes between the two in democratic primaries that year. The reason given? "Obama does bettre in Rural NH and Clinton does better in the cities"

----------


## Mark37snj

> 





> time for some New Hampshire data. second largest county: Rockingham ~60,000 votes. 2008 and 2012 compared. On x axis is cumulative vote ordered by precinct size ascending . On y axis is candidates share of cumulative vote by percent. this is the way many have been showing the data. 
> 2008
> 
> bysize08 by wetroof1, on Flickr
> 
> 2012
> 
> bysize12 by wetroof1, on Flickr
> 
> ...





> *d) Ron Paul stays pretty constant with precinct size, as to be expected.*


So it appears we have some Ron Paul data (2008) that may not have been altered. I think a good comparison to run would be Standard Deviations of those who do not have votes being siphoned off of them and comparing it to them when they do have votes siphoned off of them. You can create a comparison between individual canidates and as well as a cumulative group.

----------


## The Man

I found Rockingham to be untampered with. Romney legitimately does well. 


> time for some New Hampshire data. second largest county: Rockingham ~60,000 votes. 2008 and 2012 compared. On x axis is cumulative vote ordered by precinct size ascending . On y axis is candidates share of cumulative vote by percent. this is the way many have been showing the data. 
> 2008
> 
> bysize08 by wetroof1, on Flickr
> 
> 2012
> 
> bysize12 by wetroof1, on Flickr
> 
> ...

----------


## bbwarfield

> In December, 2005, for demonstration purposes, Mr. Harri Hursti, a recognized computer security expert, successfully modified the pre-election vote tally of individual candidates on the memory card of a Premier Accuvote® - OS optical-scan ballot-counting tabulator utilizing the 1.94w firmware, thereby changing the outcome of a Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida mock election. The change to the pre-election vote tally instructed the tabulator to reduce the beginning vote count of one candidate to a negative number and the beginning vote count of the opposing candidate to a positive number of equal value. This manipulation maintained an opening vote count of zero for that contest on the zero tape that must be produced at the beginning of each election. No evidence could be found of the manipulation.


This is from a commission by new hampshire secretary of state.... Pointing out some fraud can't be found easily.... Cause some people are smart enough to hide them

----------


## bbwarfield

http://www.sos.nh.gov/voting%20machines.htm 

Here is the official list of who usese the voting tabulation machines in NH....Rochester town uses it in it's 6 precincts.... But I will try and determine the overall use in The county..... These are municipalities that use them... The remainder of a county would be hand counted

So in Cheshire county the town of Dublin for example would be hand counted but keene used electronic tabulation in 5 of its precincts.....

----------


## Mark37snj

> This is from a commission by new hampshire secretary of state.... Pointing out some fraud can't be found easily.... Cause some people are smart enough to hide them


 With these electronic voting machines they can alter the results a hundred different ways on site and a hundred more different ways at the Central Tabulation Center. But *the statistics of impossibility is the new radar you can't outrun*. 

EDIT: I'm adding this to my sig

----------


## Liberty1789

There is a gentle climb in Romney's score in Rockingham though, as innocuous as it looks, and I see it in the next large counties as well, which bothers me. So low intensity vote flipping could be there, but be visually discreet. I'll investigate.

Almost done with SC, results soon.

----------


## Liberty1789

Summary of story so far...

As ever X-axis cumulative votes cast sorted by ascending order of precinct vote tally, Y-axis candidate cumulative share of votes



Always flip to Romney

IA : from Paul, Perry, Bachmann. (Looks like a hinge at 80%. Romney gains accelerate to 15% of votes, from all allowing the victory).
NH: from Paul, Huntsmann
NV: from Paul. (Looks like a hinge at 80%. Romney goes flat, Paul bleeding as ever, now to Gingrich's benefit, securing his silver medal! Ain't that fun?)
ME: from Paul, Gingrich

Now the South Carolina treasure trove. Half a million voters, 47 counties. Perfect for forensic analysis.

Bear with me, there is a lot to say.



Santorum provides the perfect untouched dead flat benchmark, doesn't he?

Ok, so, the vote flip conveniently turned to the new threat: Newt...

----------


## Liberty1789

Let's start with a small hommage to The Man and his moment of genius. He has shown that in Anderson, SC and Greenville, SC, there is an apparent 1-to-1 vote flip between Romney and Paul. It is spectacular because the result is that Romney and Paul actual swap their final score!

Here are the 2 counties using my representation. It is totally mathematically equivalent to The Man's original work. The very same data from another angle.



On those chart, a 1-to-1 vote flip which ends up as a final score swap is very easy to detect. You want to see a cross between 2 candidates, and final candidates' scores at 100% equal to what they are on the left part of the chart. In Anderson, Romney scores at 100% is Paul's at 10%, and vice versa.

Notice as well that what The Man's plotted rightly as the fit-to-trend scores of Gingrich and Santorum become simply dead flat line on those charts. And boy, are they dead flat! "Natural", to be expected/predicted flatlines...

Now do those 1-to-1+final score swap crosses happen a lot? No. A quick perusal reveals another one in Greenwood and that's about it. Out of 47 counties. So flipping votes is the goal, complete score swap looks like a collateral, unintended coincidence.

----------


## Mark37snj

AWSOME work again as usual. I have one question, in Anderson SC after Paul and Romney swap positions, Paul continues to drop while Romney flatlines. Gingrich and Santorum are also flatlined. So where are the votes from Paul going? It's as if the algorithym, knowing what the final overall vote total is, and having locked in all the other canidates, has a known # of votes to allocate and then it figures out Paul's final slope, his end spot, so the overall vote totals add up. Romney gets flatlined, after he passes Paul, when there is only enough votes left to give Paul a negative slope so he cannot possibly pass Romney.

EDIT: If you were to look at this from the state level then once they have everything set at the state level the individual precincts are then fed this scenario/settings and they individually end up where they do. But if this _State Level First_ scenario was the case then wouldn't there be a correlation between Ron Paul's final state level slope and his pricincts final slopes across all the affected pricincts, possibly given/correcting for vote %.

----------


## Liberty1789

Now the most important part of SC for me (except confirming that the vote eating algorithm would turn agressively to Gingrich) was: how populated will be the flatline counties. This is crucial.

What is the largest county with positively no symptoms of vote flipping?

State
County
Votes Cast
as % of state vote

Iowa
Sioux
2,072
4%

New Hampshire
Coos
4,632
2%

Nevada
Douglas
2,023
7%

South Carolina
Pickens
17,787
3%





18,000 votes? No Romney climb???

Before SC, all counties with a high population exhibit a statistically significant linear Romney climb.

Why not Pickens and many other SC 5,000-10,000 vote counties?

*Because the algorithm's trigger is not base on precinct population.
It is based on precinct vote tally as % of county vote tally.*

If relevent PERCENTAGE WISE, then the county is flipped.

This puts an end to all demographic dependency  and speculation. Demographics/socio-economic variables cannot be causative factors. The vote flip is fully explain with % of total votes cast and nothing else is necessary.

When I say fully, for our statistician friends, I mean that a simple:

_Romney climb C= a x % of total votes cast + b_

gives me R-squared of 98-99%% by the bucket.

It means that it explains 98-99% of the variance in Romney's score! That is why we feel entitle to say : crude algorithm!!

The switch on/off points are clearly visible on most charts.

Now as a reward for your kind patience with me, chart galore incoming!

----------


## Liberty1789

No vote flip

----------


## Liberty1789



----------


## Liberty1789



----------


## Liberty1789



----------


## Liberty1789

And now...

I know that you cannot wait to see them: the vote flipper on! Pretty brutal at times. Destroys Gingrich or Paul, depending on counties

----------


## Danan

Now that is dedication! =D

Keep up the good work!

----------


## Liberty1789

More vote magic.



And that's it.

Debunk ?

----------


## chri5opher

//

----------


## The Man

Liberty1789, I have 35 Counties in spreadhseets if that would help.
Edit: Looks like you don't need no stinkin spreadsheets!!

----------


## Adam West

Unrefutable Genius! Congratulations guys, you did it.

----------


## affa

> Debunk ?


lol.  good luck with that, people.  

ps - Richland = OMG

----------


## chapchap70

With this so called "alliance" happening, does anyone think the media will claim that part of the agreement was for Paul to "give up" some of his votes to Romney so Romney can win and Paul gets the VP spot?

----------


## Mark37snj

I keep calling Revolution Pac but I can't get through. I get sent right to their voice mail which tells me it is full and to try back later.   I did send the info to them the other day in the mail on their website but I have not gotten a confirmation email back from them telling me they got it, if they even bother to do that.

----------


## affa

> i'm speechless. amazing work, Liberty.
> 
> what do we do now?


In no particular order:

1) Create readable, accessible report with quick synopsis,explanation, counter to debunk attempts (especially focuses on Romney being only benefactor).  If The Man's report was the fuse, this report needs to be the dynamite.

2) Website.   Website must contain:  
    a) easy links to raw data, with further links to source for this data. (that is, stored locally w/ links to original)
    b) charts, charts, and more charts by state/county/precinct
    c) more discussion and debunk rebuttals; the stuff that didn't fit in the report, basically.
    d) 'unflipped results' -- that is... what are the REAL results?
    e) etc, etc. it's a website, so we're not as limited as a report
    f) website must look professional and not homemade.

3) go pro.   we need people looking at this, pronto.   I'm not sure if this should happen before or after the 'report'.  will will likely need funding from chipin, rev-pac... people here can't stop though.  this  is not something to hand off and forget about; it's too important for that.

4) contact likely allies, like black box voting.

5) go public.   there is a chance this will snowball.  even if the media is working against paul, the fact that this hits gingrich is huge.   a journalist breaking this story (once fully vetted by pros, etc) could conceivably win a Pulitzer.   that is a huge incentive to go rogue.

6) go viral.   we need charts like Richland with just enough verbiage to describe the problem.   Catchy viral headline.  Link to website.  'Find out more'.   Graphic design of message needs to be neat and tidy, yet transfer enough information to get people to go to website to learn more.   Youtube vid explaining the vote fraud step by step.

again, these aren't totally in order, and some overlap.  but it's a rough draft of what needs to be done, in my opinion.

With the exception of generally outing this story to the general public, I think the three most important things are:
1) Romney is sole benefactor
2) Gingrich has been attacked as well
3) The actual, unflipped results

----------


## affa

> With this so called "alliance" happening, does anyone think the media will claim that part of the agreement was for Paul to "give up" some of his votes to Romney so Romney can win and Paul gets the VP spot?


lol. no.  Paul is consistent and trustworthy.  That dog don't fly.

----------


## Liberty1789

Just emailed very briefly a few numbers to a good old friend of mine. Actuary by profession, strong statistician. Went from "why do you waste your time..." to "there is an extremely pronounced anomaly here" in just a few minutes. Made me laugh.

----------


## Mark37snj

> In no particular order:
> 
> 1) Create readable, accessible report with quick synopsis,explanation, counter to debunk attempts (especially focuses on Romney being only benefactor).  If The Man's report was the fuse, this report needs to be the dynamite.
> 
> 2) Website.   Website must contain:  
>     a) easy links to raw data, with further links to source for this data. (that is, stored locally w/ links to original)
>     b) charts, charts, and more charts by state/county/precinct
>     c) more discussion and debunk rebuttals; the stuff that didn't fit in the report, basically.
>     d) 'unflipped results' -- that is... what are the REAL results?
> ...


Good Stuff affa!!! Why do I get the feeling you have been working on this for awhile. 

Well there is alot of stuff there so we could start by people stating that they have got skills for a particular task and would like to offer their services.

EDIT: Offhand 1C, 4 and 5 I can volunteer to participate in. And 3 in regards to Chip-In and continuing to try to contact Rev-Pac.

----------


## affa

i have just bought a domain name i think would be excellent.  keeping it on the downlow for now, but will tell principle players here if interested (pm me).  if you guys like it, it's for the cause.

----------


## Danan

You're right affa, this is Pulitzer-material.

Why do I have to think about a certain guy with the name Ben Swann right know?^^
He was a great help in the past and already reported on the Maine anormalities. This here is far bigger.

This seriously has to go to some professional statisticians as soon as you guys are ready with summing-up everything.

It was mentioned a few times that Kucinich complained about similar problems during his campaign. Given that and also the fact that he and Ron Paul seem to like each other - maybe he should get contacted too once a summarizing report is created. A broader base is always an advantage.

----------


## Mark37snj

> You're right affa, this is Pulitzer-material.
> 
> Why do I have to think about a certain guy with the name Ben Swann right know?^^
> He was a great help in the past and already reported on the Maine anormalities. This here is far bigger.
> 
> This seriously has to go to some professional statisticians as soon as you guys are ready with summing-up everything.
> 
> It was mentioned a few times that Kucinich complained about similar problems during his campaign. Given that and also the fact that he and Ron Paul seem to like each other - maybe he should get contacted too once a summarizing report is created. A broader base is always an advantage.


Well this is where we are gona need to be very careful. There are political considertions that we can't make, only Paul,  in regards to bringing Kucinich in on this. I'm not gona overstep my bounds here cause I believe that this kind of move has potentially big unintended political consequences and only the campaign should make that call. Also, if we get a Pac involved here then I don't think we can get the campaign involved as well. The Pac and the Campaign cannot colloborate at all, so duel funding is a no no. Sure the campaign can talk about it but it can't help us with this if the Pac is involved.

EDIT: I would definately like to hear more discussion regarding Ben Swann. It was brought up before and I'm not sure of what the pros and cons of that path were.

----------


## bbwarfield

http://www.sos.nh.gov/presprim2012/RepSummaryPres.htm
these are the numbers for New Hampshire Primary
http://www.sos.nh.gov/voting%20machines.htm
These are the precintct (municipalites as they call them since most are towns and only large cities have multiple precincts) that use electronic tabulation (machine readable voting)

If you look at towns that do not use the the machines... they have Ron Paul neck and neck with huntsman and romney.... towns that did? romney pulls off suprising lead totals. Yes Romney won fair and square in a few towns... but not by margins you see in places were the electronic tabulators were used.

----------


## affa

> EDIT: I would definately like to hear more discussion regarding Ben Swann. It was brought up before and I'm not sure of what the pros and cons of that path were.


we can't pick a journalist, they can only pick this story.

we're on a public discussion board right now, on a forum known to the media, with the most dynamic and popular thread in ages. (short of flash in the pan debate night threads).

----------


## bbwarfield

https://doe.dos.state.fl.us/voting-s...y_01-27-12.pdf

when going through Florida (which im sure is on someone heres agenda) the above PDF shows wich counties used what systems for what..... notice different machines use different central tabulation places (scytel is the one used in all of south carolina and some of florida) in order to continue to perpetrate the fraud into Florida you may notice differences between the counties in part cause the machines may or may not all be rigged.. if they are all rigged they may be rigged differently.... but I have a feeling you will see a pattern emerge in scytel counties that matches south carolina more than anything else.

Edit: scytel is the counties under the vendor name ES&S

----------


## Danan

> Well this is where we are gona need to be very careful. There are political considertions that we can't make, only Paul,  in regards to bringing Kucinich in on this. I'm not gona overstep my bounds here cause I believe that this kind of move has potentially big unintended political consequences and only the campaign should make that call. Also, if we get a Pac involved here then I don't think we can get the campaign involved as well. The Pac and the Campaign cannot colloborate at all, so duel funding is a no no. Sure the campaign can talk about it but it can't help us with this if the Pac is involved.
> 
> EDIT: I would definately like to hear more discussion regarding Ben Swann. It was brought up before and I'm not sure of what the pros and cons of that path were.


You're right. I didn't want to provoke an overreaction by anyone. That's why I will obviously not take any actions that could hurt this cause by myself and I would urge everyone to do it neither. Everything should at least be discussed here before it will be done.

I just tried to make suggestions to discuss them here at this place - where it belongs to as of now, imho.

----------


## Mark37snj

> we can't pick a journalist, they can only pick this story.
> 
> we're on a public discussion board right now, on a forum known to the media, with the most dynamic and popular thread in ages. (short of flash in the pan debate night threads).


Well Ron Paul Forums have never picked them in a positive way, but in a negative way for communicating our displeasure regarding their latest hit piece...oh yeaaaaaaah

----------


## chri5opher

//

----------


## Danan

> we can't pick a journalist, they can only pick this story.
> 
> we're on a public discussion board right now, on a forum known to the media, with the most dynamic and popular thread in ages. (short of flash in the pan debate night threads).


Well the guy is not a "fan" or member of the campaign. He has just proven himself to be a very good investigative journalist. I didn't suggest to "hire" a journalist for this cause or anything like that. But there a few diffrent ways to continue with this stuff as of know. One would be to summ-up everything we have, hire a few stasticians and spread everything we have to good journalists (like thy guy i mentioned) and other political figures that could be interested (like the other guy I mentioned).

Onother possible strategy would be to try to complete the whole story in-house. But that would need serious help from the campaign or a PAC (btw before you contact a PAC about this stuff: consider that the campaign and the PACs are not allowed to work on the same subject, so consider this too).

But I do agree that we have to be very careful at this point. If you think that deleting the names would help anything at this point I would edit my post.

Edit: But I guess this whole stuff is to complex for me right know, especially since I haven't read every single post in this thread. I'm confident you can handle this without me. =)

----------


## Mark37snj

It may not be necessary to contact anyone cause like affa said, They are watching us...   Either way, we still have other tasks to take care of but I don't think we will ignore preparing to contact the media because were assuming they will take care of it. We can prepare and if necessary contact them when ready if they don't make the first move.

----------


## bbwarfield

The campaign cannot work with a pac... this is true.

If the campaign releases it... it looks like they are just throwing fecal matter around like monkeys

If a pac releases it... the campaign can reference the information.... but they are not stained with the idea of a sore loser bringing the temple down on there own heads

----------


## Danan

> The campaign cannot work with a pac... this is true.
> 
> If the campaign releases it... it looks like they are just throwing fecal matter around like monkeys
> 
> If a pac releases it... the campaign can reference the information.... but they are not stained with the idea of a sore loser bringing the temple down on there own heads


Yeah that's true. Haven't thought of this.

----------


## cjm

> I am trying to help by steering us away from data that is suspect to data that is more credible. This is a group effort.... im not discouraging anyone from looking at every possibility.... but when I see a possibility that runs us down the wrong path I am trying to point it out.





> Methodology..... Methodology.... Methodology


I pointed out in posts #404 and #418 that the projections may be incorrect due to the samples used and that the margin of error on the projection may be a lot higher when using the proper formula.  Then again, those projections and MOEs may be no different than what they are now.  I don't know.  

Statistical methods depend on random sampling and the precincts used for the projections are decidedly non-random.  I know that the theory of fraud in high turnout precincts means that they have to be excluded from the sample, but I haven't yet seen a convincing justification that says selecting all the low turnout precincts is a good method for projecting vote totals.

----------


## The Man

Hey CJM I asked an exit poller to tell me how accurate an exit poll would be if only polling the smallest precincts and he responded:
"the z value or standard deviation would be larger which would mean that instead of a 5 percent margin of error, you would have a 7 or maybe 8 percent MoE. In any exit poll a good number is around 400. When a national poll is taken most agencies use around 1000 as the base number. Even though 1000 is a fraction of the population, the data is considered representative of the group statistically. But do not be fooled by numbers. A 5% margin of error, in no way means that the final number will be five percent higher or lower. What the MoE really states is that if another poll was taken that 95% of the time the results would be within 3 standard deviations of the original. The large polling agencies will never explain this to the public, just as we probably will never explain it to the public, because it is confusing and takes years of study to truly understand how to create a survey and questions with validity and reliability. In South Carolina, I have heard reports that our numbers - the ones we feel were manipulated- are actually pretty close to another firms findings." 
I'm just the messenger.

----------


## wetroof

> I know that the theory of fraud in high turnout precincts means that they have to be excluded from the sample, but I haven't yet seen a convincing justification that says selecting all the low turnout precincts is a good method for projecting vote totals.


It's not. we know a correlation exists between precinct size and vote distribution in SC, in other states. ordering the cumulative vote by precinct size helps to show the correlation. If there was not a correlation the graph should be basically flat, and not have a consistent upward or downward trend. If you want to project out vote totals from limited data, we have learned you will not do very well if the data is from small precincts.

----------


## Lord Xar

Based on the findings, has the vote flipping caused Ron Paul any "placed finishes"? Curious if without it, would he have won or 2nd placed any states?

Second, with a few contests coming up, then super tuesday - perhaps it might be a good idea to get this info out there to forstall any shennanigans that might be planned... ie.. drawing attention to it now, will perhaps prevent it... Or maybe they will just create a more robust algorithm.

thoughts.

----------


## The Man

Check your vote total on Greenville County. It should be around 73k votes. I still give you an "A+" because you mentioned my name.


> Let's start with a small hommage to The Man and his moment of genius. He has shown that in Anderson, SC and Greenville, SC, there is an apparent 1-to-1 vote flip between Romney and Paul. It is spectacular because the result is that Romney and Paul actual swap their final score!
> 
> Here are the 2 counties using my representation. It is totally mathematically equivalent to The Man's original work. The very same data from another angle.
> 
> 
> 
> On those chart, a 1-to-1 vote flip which ends up as a final score swap is very easy to detect. You want to see a cross between 2 candidates, and final candidates' scores at 100% equal to what they are on the left part of the chart. In Anderson, Romney scores at 100% is Paul's at 10%, and vice versa.
> 
> Notice as well that what The Man's plotted rightly as the fit-to-trend scores of Gingrich and Santorum become simply dead flat line on those charts. And boy, are they dead flat! "Natural", to be expected/predicted flatlines...
> ...

----------


## wetroof

some more data, if anyone wants to see 
and, thanks for the thoughts affa. It's just interesting to see 08 data. could potentially build a better argument for voter-fraud. if that is what is occurring. 

hillsborough

NHhills08-12 by wetroof1, on Flickr

rockingham

NHrock08-12 by wetroof1, on Flickr

----------


## Mark37snj

> Based on the findings, has the vote flipping caused Ron Paul any "placed finishes"? Curious if without it, would he have won or 2nd placed any states?





> 


From what they have analysed so far this is what it looks like it cost us:

Iowa - tough call, but it would have been between Paul and Santorum for 1st with Romeny a very distant 3rd, cost Paul atleast one placing
NH - I'm gona abstain
Maine - cost us 1st
Nevada - cost us 2nd
SC - no change, but I'm not gona bet the farm on that


EDIT: I still don't like what I'm seeing at low vote totals, some perculiar patterns there

----------


## bbwarfield

whether it cost us a position or not is irrelevant.... what has doug weed been saying?

"these primaries and caucuses have been moved up for the benefit of romney.... the south is all proportional so romney can get a chunk of the delegate count"

We lose delegates whether or not we lost position.... 2nd by 100 votes is no delegate count change.... but 2nd by 5 or 6 thousand? we all think we have this super secret delegate strategy with caucuses..... romneys got a super secret delegate plan with primaries.... up the percentage of his votes and lower the others.... hell get more delegates or stifle the leads of the others

----------


## Mark37snj

> whether it cost us a position or not is irrelevant.... what has doug weed been saying?
> 
> "these primaries and caucuses have been moved up for the benefit of romney.... the south is all proportional so romney can get a chunk of the delegate count"
> 
> We lose delegates whether or not we lost position.... 2nd by 100 votes is no delegate count change.... but 2nd by 5 or 6 thousand? we all think we have this super secret delegate strategy with caucuses..... romneys got a super secret delegate plan with primaries.... up the percentage of his votes and lower the others.... hell get more delegates or stifle the leads of the others


Thats as far as the Campaigns official strategy goes. Politics is Perception. What was the cost in the Perception catagory for Paul? Momentum, Votes, Donations... We might even have locked this thing up by now. No one can know all the possibilities of what could have happened if there was no rigging but we do know that if the election was not rigged then Paul would be in better shape Perception wise, momentum wise, votes wise, and donations wise. At the very least it would have been a more favorable playing field. But we are just acessing what was stolen from Paul, what we could have gained. Just because Paul's strategy is a delegate strategy does not mean we shouldn't care about this theft and its impact on the campaign. I firmly believe the delegate strategy is a winning strategy but I also believe that you get eveything else you can because its makes the official strategy more likely to succeed.

I see your point of the primary rescheduling will counter our delegate strategy, but if we can make it to the second round of delegate voting then our strategy will be in a much stronger position then Romney's. We just need to make sure he does not get enough delegates to win it in the first round which is why we need all the positive perception we can get.

----------


## cjm

> Hey CJM I asked an exit poller to tell me how accurate an exit poll would be if only polling the smallest precincts and he responded:
> "the z value or standard deviation would be larger which would mean that instead of a 5 percent margin of error, you would have a 7 or maybe 8 percent MoE. In any exit poll a good number is around 400. When a national poll is taken most agencies use around 1000 as the base number. Even though 1000 is a fraction of the population, the data is considered representative of the group statistically. But do not be fooled by numbers. A 5% margin of error, in no way means that the final number will be five percent higher or lower. What the MoE really states is that if another poll was taken that 95% of the time the results would be within 3 standard deviations of the original. The large polling agencies will never explain this to the public, just as we probably will never explain it to the public, because it is confusing and takes years of study to truly understand how to create a survey and questions with validity and reliability. In South Carolina, I have heard reports that our numbers - the ones we feel were manipulated- are actually pretty close to another firms findings." 
> I'm just the messenger.


Hmmm.  It almost sounds like the exit pollster you know is saying that exit polls don't predict anything, the margin of error just indicates the level of repeatability in the results of the sample.  If that were the case, exit polling would be worthless.  I suspect this person just quickly dashed off a response and didn't proofread.  Exit polls _should_ be able to predict outcomes, otherwise they are pretty useless.  An exit poll with a confidence level of 95% and margin of error of 5% says that the final result _should_ be within 5% of the polled result 95% of the time.  This allows for the unexpected outcome like a 20% difference in the expected result 5% of the time.  I've seen a few statements about some of these charts being "impossible" but "improbable" is a better word to use.  We should be able to calculate the probability of what we're seeing in the many charts that you guys have put together.  What are the odds of this happening?  is it 1 in 5?  or 1 in a billion?  The calculated odds make a big difference in the persuasiveness of the argument.

Also note that the exit poller states, "instead of a 5 percent margin of error, you would have a 7 or maybe 8 percent MoE."  This really should be written as, "_if_ you have a 5 percent MOE....."  If you start with a 10% MOE, then you're looking at a 14% or maybe 16% MOE by cherry picking your precincts?  Many of these "flips" or "criss-crosses" can fall within a 16% MOE and prove to be statistically "expected."  The real MOE will vary from county to county since the MOE for cluster sampling depends on the variability within the cluster and variability between clusters.

From Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University




> Cluster sampling: The formula for the margin of error in an estimate derived via cluster sampling is quite complex. In essence, the formula uses the within-cluster variability amongst individuals, and the between-cluster variability, to estimate how much additional variability exists in the clusters from which data was not collected. Still, the approach of using historical data or data from a pilot study to determine the number of clusters from which to collect data, and how much data to collect from within each selected cluster, parallels the approach used in stratified sampling.


Here's another piece on cluster sampling that suggests our flips/criss-crosses may be within the margin of error.

Take these chart for example:



If the sample size required to get a 3% MOE is at the 50% mark in total votes, then these charts simply highlight that the county exhibits great between-cluster variability and the final results are within the MOE for the sample size since they start to flatline at that 50% mark.

Now then, please don't get me wrong.  When I see charts that are not flatlining after hitting the 90% or 95% mark, instinctively I know something is wrong.  But as bbwarfield has been saying, we need to dot our i's and cross our t's with regard to the methodology and calculate our odds.  Each of these apparently freak occurrences _can_ happen.  We can't say they're impossible.  But we have to do the math and state that the likelihood of these results are 1 in (whatever).   That's when we have a story.

Forgive me for saying "this needs to be done" without contributing to that myself.  I live in a Super Tuesday State and it's been a busy week here.

----------


## Mark37snj

> Now then, please don't get me wrong.  When I see charts that are not flatlining after hitting the 90% or 95% mark, instinctively I know something is wrong.  But as bbwarfield has been saying, we need to dot our i's and cross our t's with regard to the methodology and calculate our odds.  Each of these apparently freak occurrences _can_ happen.  We can't say they're impossible.  But we have to do the math and state that the likelihood of these results are 1 in (whatever).   That's when we have a story.
> 
> Forgive me for saying "this needs to be done" without contributing to that myself.  I live in a Super Tuesday State and it's been a busy week here.


Nick picking Methodology is fine and all but we are past the point of needing to prove fraud, it has been proven. There has already been statistical smoking guns produced in this thread where Methodology is not an issue. Those freaks of occurrences that your saying can happen may have happened, and we may very well find them here and there, but they will not change the proven evidence we have already because those instances of freak occurrences have been proven to be impossible. They are beyond the realm of statistical possibility. And the kind of statistical methodology that some here are asking for, is quite frankly, beyond the capability of this Forum, atleast for it being finished before the 2016 election because I'm sure as soon as one methodology analysis is over another will pop up and say this must be done because it HAS to be done right. We already have instances where the math was done and it was proved that those election results were impossible. Now if your concerned that using the word impossible is not warrented then maybe our stats team will indulge you by putting a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 which is the same as saying they are impossible, especially when when you calculate the odds of multiple 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 occuring in the same election.

----------


## cjm

> Now if your concerned that using the word impossible is not warrented then maybe our stats team will indulge you by putting a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 which is the same as saying they are impossible, especially when when you calculate the odds of multiple 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 occuring in the same election.


Yes please.  Show me the work.  Thanks.

----------


## Mark37snj

Start here http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...South-Carolina  A Little late nite humor.

----------


## cjm

> Start here http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...South-Carolina  A Little late nite humor.


Humor acknowledged, but with all due respect, the science of statistics doesn't prove conclusions by simply asserting those conclusions repeatedly.  Also, it's not "nit picking methodology" to point out that accepted methodology was not followed.  I'm not saying that the conclusions are wrong here, but since alternate, non-standard methodologies were used, they need to be justified.  Once justified, the probability of the observed results needs to be calculated so that we can scientifically evaluate the results of these primaries and caucuses.

----------


## Liberty1789

> Check your vote total on Greenville County. It should be around 73k votes. I still give you an "A+" because you mentioned my name.


You are right. Great job!

My spreadsheet total and the number actually used in the graph are the same: 73,055. I add the number of votes in titles manually (so tedious...) and I blew this one for some reason: 8,005 is the votes total of Greenwood. Apologies. I'll edit the uploaded graphs ASAP.



Passionate collaborative Work. Unbeatable!

----------


## Mark37snj

> Humor acknowledged, but with all due respect, the science of statistics doesn't prove conclusions by simply asserting those conclusions repeatedly.  Also, it's not "nit picking methodology" to point out that accepted methodology was not followed.  I'm not saying that the conclusions are wrong here, but since alternate, non-standard methodologies were used, they need to be justified.  Once justified, the probability of the observed results needs to be calculated so that we can scientifically evaluate the results of these primaries and caucuses.


Im sure that may be the case for the specific example your talking about but a blanket statement like that is not doing any justice to the results that did follow proper methodology. Heck they even went back over some data and chaged the methodology and the results still produced the same conclusion. And I'm sure the stats team have the statistical results to warrent their conclusions.

----------


## cjm

> Im sure that may be the case for the specific example your talking about but a blanket statement like that is not doing any justice to the results that did follow proper methodology. Heck they even went back over some data and chaged the methodology and the results still produced the same conclusion. And I'm sure the stats team have the statistical results to warrent their conclusions.


Again, here's an assertion, but no concrete numbers.  I'm not trying to be difficult here, believe it or not, I'm trying to help by making sure the assertions _do_ have statistical backing.  So, if proper methodology has been followed, can anyone here provide me with one example that shows:

1)  A projected result using the formulas for cluster sampling.
2)  An actual result that falls outside of the MOE for the projected result.
3)  The calculated probability that this would happen

I have seen several charts that have been sorted by precinct turnout and show no flat-lining even at the 90% mark and I am in complete agreement that this doesn't appear to be natural.  But nothing has been statistically proven until the math has been performed.

----------


## Liberty1789

> Hey CJM I asked an exit poller to tell me how accurate an exit poll would be if only polling the smallest precincts and he responded:
> "the z value or standard deviation would be larger which would mean that instead of a 5 percent margin of error, you would have a 7 or maybe 8 percent MoE. In any exit poll a good number is around 400. When a national poll is taken most agencies use around 1000 as the base number. Even though 1000 is a fraction of the population, the data is considered representative of the group statistically. But do not be fooled by numbers. A 5% margin of error, in no way means that the final number will be five percent higher or lower. What the MoE really states is that if another poll was taken that 95% of the time the results would be within 3 standard deviations of the original. The large polling agencies will never explain this to the public, just as we probably will never explain it to the public, because it is confusing and takes years of study to truly understand how to create a survey and questions with validity and reliability. In South Carolina, I have heard reports that our numbers - the ones we feel were manipulated- are actually pretty close to another firms findings." 
> I'm just the messenger.


Great feedback. Thanks.

I am fully aware of this and on top of those maths. However, we are not talking 1 poll! Each precinct is one poll. So in Iowa, I have in the smallest decile (0-10% of votes), we are looking at 270 polls. In the second decile 216 polls, in the 3rd 157.

On the other hand, remember that I am note talking average score of precinct in this analysis. I am looking at the cumulative average score of precincts. So I am not looking at the standard deviation of Poll 1,Poll 2, Poll 3... but at the standard deviation of Poll 1, Average Poll 1 and Poll 2, Average Poll 1, Poll 2, Poll 3..., which is massively lower.

I'll publish more on this shortly. Please please forward it to your friend then. A statistician will jump out of his skin when he sees it.

----------


## Liberty1789

cjm says:

_I pointed out in posts #404 and #418 that the projections may be incorrect due to the samples used and that the margin of error on the projection may be a lot higher when using the proper formula. Then again, those projections and MOEs may be no different than what they are now. I don't know. 

Statistical methods depend on random sampling and the precincts used for the projections are decidedly non-random. I know that the theory of fraud in high turnout precincts means that they have to be excluded from the sample, but I haven't yet seen a convincing justification that says selecting all the low turnout precincts is a good method for projecting vote totals._ 

Very fair comment, cjm. No objection to that.

My analysis and the jaw-dropping math anomaly stands entirely if you excludes all small, volatile precinct from the data. It is robust to small precinct exclusion. The impossibly systematic climb in Romney's score is very visible in highly populated-only precincts.

----------


## Paul Fan

> Yes please.  Show me the work.  Thanks.


Actually, I'd like to see this too. I also think more of those standard deviation charts might be helpful. The picture graphs are eye-catching and provocative, but to be convincing to others I suggest adding more proof that this couldn't happen either 'by chance' or due to the small-vote precincts being a skewed sample.

----------


## Mark37snj

> Again, here's an assertion, but no concrete numbers.  I'm not trying to be difficult here, believe it or not, I'm trying to help by making sure the assertions _do_ have statistical backing.  So, if proper methodology has been followed, can anyone here provide me with one example that shows:
> 
> 1)  A projected result using the formulas for cluster sampling.
> 2)  An actual result that falls outside of the MOE for the projected result.
> 3)  The calculated probability that this would happen
> 
> I have seen several charts that have been sorted by precinct turnout and show no flat-lining even at the 90% mark and I am in complete agreement that this doesn't appear to be natural.  But nothing has been statistically proven until the math has been performed.


Well I'm sure those criteria you list will provide reliable results. However, I want to point out that the 3 criteria you outlined are in no way the only measuring sticks to prove results are reliable. Your criteria centers on making conclusions from projected results from sampling and comparing it to actual data. There are many types of data, many types of statistical analysis, and many different purposes for methods. Many results stated so far used other methods that are just as applicable, if not more applicable in certain circumstances, then the criteria you have outlined. So if data was not analysed by the 3 criteria you outlined that in no way instantly invalidates the results. In regards to the math being performed so data and conclusions are proven, have you asked the people putting up the data if they did the math? I have seen many posts where they did post the math.

----------


## Paul Fan

> Great feedback. Thanks.
> 
> I am fully aware of this and on top of those maths However, we are not talking 1 poll! Each precinct is one poll. So in Iowa, I have in the smallest decile (0-10% of votes), we are looking at 270 polls. In the second decile 216 polls, in the 3rd 157.
> 
> On the other hand, remember that I am note talking average score of precinct in this analysis. I am looking at the cumulative average score of precincts. So I am not looking at the standard deviation of Poll 1,Poll 2, Poll 3... but at the standard deviation of Poll 1, Average Poll 1 and Poll 2, Average Poll 1, Poll 2, Poll 3..., which is massively lower.
> 
> I'll publish more on this shortly. Please please forward it to your friend then. A statistician will jump out of his skin when he sees it.


Yes, this makes sense. More about this please!

----------


## Mark37snj

Yes, and for Gods sake give them some numbers, some impossible huge numbers.

----------


## Liberty1789

> Hmmm.  It almost sounds like the exit pollster you know is saying that exit polls don't predict anything, the margin of error just indicates the level of repeatability in the results of the sample.  If that were the case, exit polling would be worthless.  I suspect this person just quickly dashed off a response and didn't proofread.  Exit polls _should_ be able to predict outcomes, otherwise they are pretty useless.  An exit poll with a confidence level of 95% and margin of error of 5% says that the final result _should_ be within 5% of the polled result 95% of the time.  This allows for the unexpected outcome like a 20% difference in the expected result 5% of the time.  I've seen a few statements about some of these charts being "impossible" but "improbable" is a better word to use.  We should be able to calculate the probability of what we're seeing in the many charts that you guys have put together.  What are the odds of this happening?  is it 1 in 5?  or 1 in a billion?  The calculated odds make a big difference in the persuasiveness of the argument.
> 
> Also note that the exit poller states, "instead of a 5 percent margin of error, you would have a 7 or maybe 8 percent MoE."  This really should be written as, "_if_ you have a 5 percent MOE....."  If you start with a 10% MOE, then you're looking at a 14% or maybe 16% MOE by cherry picking your precincts?  Many of these "flips" or "criss-crosses" can fall within a 16% MOE and prove to be statistically "expected."  The real MOE will vary from county to county since the MOE for cluster sampling depends on the variability within the cluster and variability between clusters.
> 
> From Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another piece on cluster sampling that suggests our flips/criss-crosses may be within the margin of error.
> ...


Cluster maths! Absolutely spot on comment. Many thanks. This needs to be addressed. We need to talk clusters!

Through precinct ballots, I am collecting 100s or 1000s of "clusters". Through the cumulative % of vote tally, I keep adding new ones. Clusters' standard deviation calculus is complex, but one thing I know is: if you keep adding clusters, the estimate of your population's score improves all the time.

Romney's st dev goes normally down into the first 10% -30% of polls (here = precincts) but then it goes up, as his percentage-of-votes score goes up in steady increment! Impossibly steady increments! Remember the Iowa table: precincts of 59 people score 1% below precincts of 93 people who score 1% below precincts of 116 people who score 1% below those of 144. What??????????????????????????????????????????????  ??????????

More on this shortly. It will be crucial to pro statistician.

----------


## Liberty1789

This is what you need to forward to your math/statistician teacher/friend. This is the mathematically impossible to the mathematical brain.

This is where we need feedback fast.



More evidence along those lines soon.

*Debunk! Debunk! Debunk!*

----------


## Paul Fan

> This is what you need to forward to your math/statistician teacher/friend. This is the mathematically impossible to the mathematical brain.
> 
> This is where we need feedback fast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence along those lines soon.


Yes. This is very clear. What do RP's numbrs do? Do they deviate just as Romney's do?

----------


## Liberty1789

This is not a zero-sum game: election is a 100%-sum game, so yes Paul "complements" Romney.

100% sum game creates dependency between candidates scores by the way ("The variables are not independent."), and might be source of debunking: apparent vote flipping is normal in a 2 candidates' race. What about a 4 candidates' race? Complex question. Could be very important.

----------


## Paul Fan

> This is not a zero-sum game: election is a 100%-sum game, so yes Paul "complements" Romney.
> 
> 100% sum game creates dependency between candidates scores by the way ("The variables are not independent."), and might be source of debunking: apparent vote flipping is normal in a 2 candidates' race. What about a 4 candidates' race? Complex question. Could be very important.


The graphs show that Paul only deviates sometimes, while Romney deviates more often (because he also takes from the others sometimes). To highlight that Romney is the beneficiary, perhaps it might be helpful to create an overall 'number' of times that Romney deviates compared with the others? That might make a catchy opener for the report: eg, 'why does Romney deviate (and always do better) more than any other?'

----------


## affa

Away from main computer for a bit...

Anyone up for converting Liberty's charts for SC into a map of South Carolina?

Each county should show:

1) one color if flipped, another if unflipped (based on liberty's division of charts)
2) # of votes
3) if flipped, 'benefactor=Romney', 'victim=xxxxxx' (Paul/Gingrich)

since Liberty has pointed out the flipping occurs not because of strict precinct size, but rather, size as percent of country, it would be very interesting to see, visually, if any neighboring regions of similar size show flipping on and off, or different victims.

----------


## Liberty1789

Ok. How do we seriously, professionally tell when votes where flipped or not? What is a natural staight line and one doctored with?

Just staring at graphs is not so convincing. Fair enough.

It's gonna be tricky for those without stat training. The others will see quickly why I start to speak of absolute mathematical proof of vote rigging.

Here are the Republican Primary results for Palm Beach. Loads of voters and precincts. Perfect. Look at the charts:



In 2008, something extraordinary goes on.

McCain's score goes dead flat very early. This is what one should expect. You cumulate so many votes so quickly that you can reliably project Mc Cain's final score at 100% with the score at 10%. Good.

Now look at the rest of the pack.

Romney climbs CONSTANTLY at the sole expense of the 3 others.

How constantly? That is what the table below the chart explains. Even though all the candidates' lines look identically straight to the naked eye from 50% cumulative onwards, they are totally different mathematical animals to the analytical microscope.

The variation in the cumulative % (X-axis) explains 97-98% of the variation in the score of Giulani, Huckabee, Paul and Romney (it is what the R-squared number means). Those 4 lines are identically straight. Amazingly straight. *Algorithmetically smoothed.* McCain's line is not at all like them. McCain was just left alone.

F factor and t-stat are sophisticated statistical indicators giving the probability of this happening by chance. The higher the value, the lower the chance of simply random correlation. F and t are HUGE, leaving no room whatsoever for chance.

Now 2012.

Well, the vote flipper was pissed. All candidates were bled for Romney this time around. Landslide time. No mercy...

Go viral with your math friends and let us now.

*This looks utterly undebunkable to the best of my judgement*, but that might not be saying much.

Raw data used from here: http://www.pbcelections.org/Elections.aspx?type=past

----------


## The Man

I have asked an independent statistical analyst, to whom most of this spreadsheeted data has been sent, to look at this thread. I encourage all of you to spread this to any qualified analyst as well. Liberty1789, The more persons that "know" this, the better.  


> cjm says:
> 
> _I pointed out in posts #404 and #418 that the projections may be incorrect due to the samples used and that the margin of error on the projection may be a lot higher when using the proper formula. Then again, those projections and MOEs may be no different than what they are now. I don't know. 
> 
> Statistical methods depend on random sampling and the precincts used for the projections are decidedly non-random. I know that the theory of fraud in high turnout precincts means that they have to be excluded from the sample, but I haven't yet seen a convincing justification that says selecting all the low turnout precincts is a good method for projecting vote totals._ 
> 
> Very fair comment, cjm. No objection to that.
> 
> My analysis and the jaw-dropping math anomaly stands entirely if you excludes all small, volatile precinct from the data. It is robust to small precinct exclusion. The impossibly systematic climb in Romney's score is very visible in highly populated-only precincts.

----------


## Barrex

Good job:
My debunk:
-Again Ron Pauls crazy conspiracy theorists.
-Bigger percints are in large towns where people are more pro Mitt... so it is only natural that there he does better...among richer and more educated people.
-CNN exit polls show that Mitt does well with rich and more dens populated areas...

THIS:

*Debunk! Debunk! Debunk!*

Debunking is our priority now!!!


Also: Do you remember that guy who testified that he made computer program to steal votes? Maybe someone could contact him and get some info?

----------


## bbwarfield

http://verifiedvoting.org/verifier please please please... Take note of the simple demographic of electronic vs. hand balloting

Iowa, Nevada are caucuses and the biggest difference is you can't manipulate hand written paper ballots during the counting process (washoe and Clark numbers were recounted separately an here numbers are suspect) Iowa had counties go missing...there numbers are suspect 

I'm not trying to say fraud didn't take place in these locations.... But the flipping algorithm wouldn't be he cause.... 

Remember the live televised caucus counting? That's what it looks like at a precinct count.... Three counters and the campaign observers.... The larger the precinct in Iowa the less likely the fraud cause there are observers for more campaigns...not just a Paul Romney santorum.... But over a certain number youd have volunteers for perry huntsman Bachman maybe even paw lent and Herman Caine....

Iowa is a dead end in proving this type of fraud cause it's a pre frauded system in caucus states.... That straw poll doesn't decide one delegate in a caucus state.... And it just happens we know that this time around and circumvented the usual fraud of the caucus delegates system ( its not really a fraud cause it's an open process... But most people voting in the caucus straw polls have no idea there candidate gets no delegates based on there vote)
Iowa may prove its own type of fraud.... But it will never ever ever do one iota of good proving *Manipulation of electronic voting through a flipping algorithm* cause no one voted electronically...... It's like surveying the south pole for proof Santa clause doesn't live in the north pole...... You'll find a lot of great information..... But none o it relevant...... Let's search the north pole... Places were electronic voting took place.....

If you continue to work on Iowa.... Be clear what you looking at.... Talking about Iowa and sc in the same breath muddles the numbers and makes them tainted...... Please label when your switching between two very very different types of voting. I was a political science major in college... If you need help understanding how the elections are different on these areas pm me and I will explain how they are different

----------


## Liberty1789

*Copy, paste Iowa table / PalmBeach charts.

Email, twitter, FB, printout, rush to the math teacher of your kids, the stat dept of your university. Whatever.

It is possible that nothing more important has ever taken place in this forum. Come on guys.

For the love of America.*

----------


## The Man

In almost every "significant County", the graph of total votes vs. votes each candidate looks like a second order positive parabola for Romney and a negative parabola for the victim of vote theft. The most jaw-dropping example I have seen is the graph someone posted of the entire state of Iowa, Total votes vs. Votes each candidate. Thursday night, I was able to see the 2008 data from the SC Primary for the very first time. Whereas this "parabola effect" is prevalent in nearly every "significant" county in the 2012 Primary, it was nowhere to be found in the 2008!!!!! This was the holy grail of proof to me. I had planned on posting the results after the analyst down here looked at it. Liberty 1789, do you agree with me when I say that we should fully analyze these 2008 vs 2012 results to easily prove this "parabola" effect?
Edit: This "parabola effect" can easily be created in the Electronic Voting Machine firmware/ software. The algorithm would be something like "at total vote count 200, every 2nd RP vote = MR vote." Because there are multiple machines at most precincts (at least here in SC), this "giving every other vote of Paul's to Romney" would engage in precincts that have a single EVM at vote #200 but would not engage in precincts with multiple vote machines until a higher number. I have theorized that this is what we are seeing. Please give me your thoughts everyone.   


> Ok. How do we seriously, professionally tell when votes where flipped or not? What is a natural staight line and one doctored with?
> 
> Just staring at graphs is not so convincing. Fair enough.
> 
> It's gonna be tricky for those without stat training. The others will see quickly why I start to speak of absolute mathematical proof of vote rigging.
> 
> Here are the Republican Primary results for Palm Beach. Loads of voters and precincts. Perfect. Look at the charts:
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## bbwarfield

this is the problem with mixing south carolina and iowa numbers

Pictures like this make people think penguins natural enemy is the polar bear.... but Polar Bears live in the NORTH polar regions and penguins live in the SOUTH polar regions.... they never meet naturally

Iowa is hand written ballot caucus state..... South Carolina is electronic voting primary state.....

Do polar bears have animals they like to eat? yes..... do penguins have things that like to eat them? yes........ they are just not each other

EDIT: You are painting a picture with statistics... when people see it... you want it to be clear and irrefutable.... if the picture shows correlation between two things of a very different nature.... the average person will not notice. But someone who knows the difference between the two types of data... aka a professional election number cruncher...... will dismiss the whole thing as quickly as a bioligist would reject this cartoon.... theyll never get past the fact you mixed a polar bear and a penguin in the wild..... even if it was for the point of humor..... someone like me who studied political science... wont forgive mixing caucus data and primary data... even if its for the point of proving fraud

but a picture that includes the two is something that belongs in the Far Side comics..... not in statistical analysis

----------


## bbwarfield

here is a more convincing photo of polar bears and penguins! 

notice this is not a hand drawn picture.... but photographic proof the polar bear is a sneaky bastard!!!!!! 

(clearly a photoshop job.... but just because two pictures of real things are merged together so does two statystical pictures of real fraud being merged together make the entire thing LESS believable)

not trying to derail the discussion.... but pull the train back into the station for repairs

We need to keep the data seperate.... investigate both... but never draw conclusions between the two

----------


## jjockers

> This is what you need to forward to your math/statistician teacher/friend. This is the mathematically impossible to the mathematical brain.
> 
> This is where we need feedback fast.
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence along those lines soon.
> 
> *Debunk! Debunk! Debunk!*


As others have said, this is not necessarily impossible.  All that one would need to show is that the demographics/voter tendencies/campaign activities by Precinct size should give rise to this phenomenon.

Possible Examples:
Romney campaigned harder and spent more in large precincts
Romney team brought people to the voting booths in larger precincts
People in larger precincts naturally favor Romney (more rich, less socially conservative, etc)

While those three examples don't prove anything, I think the burden of proof is on us.  They can just claim examples like those above and provide some general figures (likes $ spent in precinct, income levels, etc).

It'd be straightforward to add fields such as average income to the interactive file below, but we'd need the data.  I'd also like to add more state information (currently just 59k votes from the IOWA caucus).

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/63868969/RPF...ysis_dist.xlsm

----------


## The Man

Hey Jjockers I believe that the Iowa graph must be off by a scale factor of two. Check me on this, but I believe there were 120k voters in Iowa.

----------


## bbwarfield

> As others have said, this is not necessarily impossible.  All that one would need to show is that the demographics/voter tendencies/campaign activities by Precinct size should give rise to this phenomenon.
> 
> Possible Examples:
> Romney campaigned harder and spent more in large precincts
> Romney team brought people to the voting booths in larger precincts
> People in larger precincts naturally favor Romney (more rich, less socially conservative, etc)
> 
> While those three examples don't prove anything, I think the burden of proof is on us.  They can just claim examples like those above and provide some general figures (likes $ spent in precinct, income levels, etc).
> 
> ...


Exactly..... Iowa has a disproportionate amount of demographic (as in targeted voter GOTV, robo calling, direct mailings) changes (romney spoke to the largest precinct in the state for example) 

South Carolina had this but no where to that degree. Was there quite a bit? yes.... but nothing similar

----------


## cjm

> Ok. How do we seriously, professionally tell when votes where flipped or not? What is a natural staight line and one doctored with?
> 
> Just staring at graphs is not so convincing. Fair enough.
> 
> It's gonna be tricky for those without stat training.


I don't have any significant stat training, and yes, it was tricky, but I think your perseverance paid off.  Thanks for this explanation, I think I get it now.

In the original Anderson County document, there seems to have been two arguments for fraud:  (a) the uniformity of the "swap" -- what The Man was calling the parabola effect, and (b) the fact that Romney's total ended up where Paul's should have been and vice versa.  Not being versed in the high level statistical methods, it was easier for me to grasp the idea of projected totals and results not ending up where they should have been.  The subsequent discussions about R-squares seemed to me, again as non-stat guy, to be an attempt to reinforce the projections without addressing the reliability of non-random sample selection.  It now seems to me that the two arguments are independent of each other.  For those that have been saying this all along, my apologies.  It's been a busy week and this has been a fast moving and highly technical thread.

If I may summarize in my own words, maybe you can confirm that I get it.

We don't care about projected totals (ends), we care about the nature of the plotted line itself (means).  The plot lines can be on different frequencies, but they should appear as white noise.  What the R-squares and t-stats are saying is that the signal itself is non-random.

I'm sure this is technically inaccurate, but is this pretty much what's going on?

----------


## jjockers

> Hey Jjockers I believe that the Iowa graph must be off by a scale factor of two. Check me on this, but I believe there were 120k voters in Iowa.


Correct, though the graphed data is % votes so shouldn't be off by a scale factor.  The data I have only has 59k votes (http://bradblog.com/Docs/IowaCaucus2...2_0738pmPT.csv).  Do you have access to more data?

----------


## bbwarfield

try counting iowa ballots in a machine? this is an image taken DURING a caucus during the count



south carolina ballot


yo cant tabulate Iowas by electronic tabulation. Other wise Ron Paul would not have gotten the first ballot cause u would need to OCR scan the dang thing.

If we want to prove ELECTRONIC VOTING MANIPULATION we need to target our search and not broaden it

And to show you what a machine tabulatable hand ballot looks like



This is an Oklahoma ballot.... BUT for those of you have seen this picture before it is labeled as one form the iowa caucuses.... these were not used.... but the picture looks nice so some media outlets used this image rather than one from iowa

Each county had its choice of how it wanted to present the ballot..... but no images of machine ballots exist 



New Hampshire had a mix of electronic and standard
here is a electronic tabulation ballot

----------


## Liberty1789

I have 59,088 votes in Iowa.

59 vote precinct demographics cannot differ significantly from 75 vote precincts demographics.

----------


## jjockers

> yo cant tabulate Iowas by electronic tabulation. Other wise Ron Paul would not have gotten the first ballot cause u would need to OCR scan the dang thing.
> 
> If we want to prove ELECTRONIC VOTING MANIPULATION we need to target our search and not broaden it


Except we're not proving electronic voting manipulation yet.  There is a phenomenon that we're trying to understand.  Fraud is just 1 potential explanation.  We should be careful not to limit the analysis on that which some hope to be the explanation.

The 'flipping' seems to occur in caucus and primary states, so electronic voting manipulation is not likely to fully explain the issue.

----------


## bbwarfield

> Except we're not proving electronic voting manipulation yet.  There is a phenomenon that we're trying to understand.  Fraud is just 1 potential explanation.  We should be careful not to limit the analysis on that which some hope to be the explanation.
> 
> The 'flipping' seems to occur in caucus and primary states, so electronic voting manipulation is not likely to fully explain the issue.


And I fully agree with that. 

I just want it made perfectly clear that we cant prove fraud in ALL states.... where im sure there was fraud..... but if we prove voter fraud in one state we can make a great case..... if we over reach and they disprove us in one state.... they disprove it all.

Al Capone didnt go to jail for his real crimes.... but tax fraud.
We only need to prove fraud once.... Iowa I think will show to be demographics/vs Romneys pocket book

Here is a video showing how you manipulate the tabulators used in NH 




Electronic Voting Tabulation Manipulation is what I see as the answer

----------


## bbwarfield

> Except we're not proving electronic voting manipulation yet.  There is a phenomenon that we're trying to understand.  Fraud is just 1 potential explanation.  We should be careful not to limit the analysis on that which some hope to be the explanation.
> 
> The 'flipping' seems to occur in caucus and primary states, so electronic voting manipulation is not likely to fully explain the issue.


my apologies..... i think i misunderstood you at first.... by all means lets get the overall data first.... if all we are doing is collecting thats great
But when we get down to analyzing I truly think New Hampshire..... south carolina... and Florida.... will be the three places you can prove fraud the easiest and not be shot down on demographic issues

----------


## The Man

From Google:

Results for Iowa Republican Caucus (U.S. Presidential Primary)
Jan 03, 2012 (>99% of precincts reporting)
Rick Santorum     29,839   24.6%
Mitt Romney        29,805   24.5%
Ron Paul              26,036   21.4%
Newt Gingrich      16,163   13.3%
Rick Perry            12,557   10.3%
Michele Bachmann  6,046   5%
Jon Huntsman           739   0.6%
Other                       316    0.3%





> I have 59,088 votes in Iowa.
> 
> 59 vote precinct demographics cannot differ significantly from 75 vote precincts demographics.

----------


## jjockers

> Electronic Voting Tabulation Manipulation is what I see as the answer


It's possible, but 1 part of the demographic defense would be: If EVTM caused this "vote flipping", then why do we see the same pattern in caucus states?


If you come across a good resource for precinct data beyond Iowa, let me know!  Unfortunately I've not found a solid, organized source for the info, so I've only Iowa to examine.

----------


## bbwarfield

> It's possible, but 1 part of the demographic defense would be: If EVTM caused this "vote flipping", then why do we see the same pattern in caucus states?
> 
> 
> If you come across a good resource for precinct data beyond Iowa, let me know!  Unfortunately I've not found a solid, organized source for the info, so I've only Iowa to examine.


EDIT: That is a legitimate argument.... our data could be debunked for looking to narrowly so by all means look at all the data.

caucus states are highly volatile.... the main reason entrance polls and polling companies say they do not like to deal with caucus states and for the most part skip them. If they do do them its always followed with a "but then again... its a caucus state" type statement.

You can check iowa to a degree for fraud.... watch the vote took numbers from attendees who watched the vote.... smaller precincts are the most commonly missed (but they are where we did better) but larger ones were usually independently verified and sent to watch the vote.....
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...l=en_US#gid=99 click the county tab at the bottom

Alot are missing... but enough are there to help in the iowa fraud case (keep note that observer bias is a major problem here cause some larger precincts were not recorded cause people didnt like the result and never sent it in)

----------


## The Man

In the end, there will be zero question that Mitt Romney's vote receiving percentage in larger precincts of "significant" counties perfectly correlates with only one factor, and that factor is the total number of votes at each the precinct. There simply is no practical demographic combination that can arguably correlate closely enough with the number of raw precinct votes to explain this.
Definition of "significant county" by Liberty1789's standard: Within the vote flipping threshold.

----------


## bbwarfield

I dont understand how in Iowa you would need a threshold.... you just report whatever dang numbers you feel safe reporting. You can say 2000 romney and 167 paul.... as long as your not using a number higher than the reasonalby expected number of people at your caucus site.... no one will care 

of course you would get caught by your fellow caucusers that were there... especially since you are allowed partisan observers during the counting... id expect the fraud really in smaller counties

South Carolina is the smoking gun for me...... iowa is just a gun shop....

----------


## bbwarfield

also.... im seeing no graphs with rick perry or bachman..... perry did very well in small precincts in iowa.... same with bachman.... Perry actually beat Romney in a good number of precincts under 200

----------


## The Man

> the simple answer to that.... any criminal who doesn't want to be caught has an alabi 
> 
> caucus states are highly volatile.... the main reason entrance polls and polling companies say they do not like to deal with caucus states and for the most part skip them. If they do do them its always followed with a "but then again... its a caucus state" type statement.
> 
> You can check iowa to a degree for fraud.... watch the vote took numbers from attendees who watched the vote.... smaller precincts are the most commonly missed (but they are where we did better) but larger ones were usually independently verified and sent to watch the vote.....
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...l=en_US#gid=99 click the county tab at the bottom
> 
> Alot are missing... but enough are there to help in the iowa fraud case (keep note that observer bias is a major problem here cause some larger precincts were not recorded cause people didnt like the result and never sent it in)


Look, the GOP chair resigns after the Caucus because he has a conscience. What's the probability that the final tally has 2 candidates within 20/ 6/ ? votes of each other? Pllllllllllllllllleeeeeeeeease!!!!!!! The *Vote graph on this thread* of Iowa gives us a clue about how the *votes were "counted"* in Iowa, not the other way around!!!

----------


## bbwarfield

I still think fraud took place.. honest... i havent jumped ship on this. 

Im from a background that says "look at everything.... narrow the focus.... avoid information that people will dismiss for any reason... avoid information that has a plausible but not probable other reason... avoid information gathered from people who have a clear bias unless you state that bias.... finally you have information no one can disagree with and if the other information you already were not looking at gets attacked, those attacks wont stick to your information" 

Iowa rigged? thousands of ways to do it... probably was done. and your graphs would show these as well

South Carolina is the place to focus cause it is not only using electronic machines *but machines that were sold after they were used in fraud in FLorida....not just the same type... the same exact machines* .....

lets keep up analazying everything....everything.... but make sure we weigh South Carolina heavier cause of the different natures of the voting systems and reporting systems. Iowa shows good graphs.... but there is "possible" but *not* "probable" reasons for that.

----------


## Liberty1789

Oh my God. Same systematic several-standard-deviation jumps in Romney's score in NH.

----------


## bbwarfield

> In the end, there will be zero question that Mitt Romney's vote receiving percentage in larger precincts of "significant" counties perfectly correlates with only one factor, and that factor is the total number of votes at each the precinct. There simply is no practical demographic combination that can arguably correlate closely enough with the number of raw precinct votes to explain this.
> Definition of "significant county" by Liberty1789's standard: Within the vote flipping threshold.


I agree wholeheartedly

----------


## Mark37snj

> I still think fraud took place.. honest... i havent jumped ship on this. *I'm from a background that says* "look at everything.... narrow the focus.... avoid information that people will dismiss for any reason... avoid information that has a plausible but not probable other reason... avoid information gathered from people who have a clear bias unless you state that bias.... finally you have information no one can disagree with and if the other information you already were not looking at gets attacked, those attacks wont stick to your information"


This is Statistical Mathmatical Warfare. You have admittedly stated that Statistics/Mathmatics is not in your area of expertise, your Background. The people who have the Statistical Mathmatical Background are saying Fraud, they are saying get it out, they are saying time to kick this up a notch. In a Statistical War I'm listening to the Statistical Generals, thats not you and you should be listening to them as well unless you have some other motive.

----------


## Mark37snj

bbwarfield this may simply come down to what *you* think we should be doing and what we should really be doing. The points you make are the things you do while your trying to write a story, make an argument, set a narrative. You present some data here and overlook some data there so they story flows nicely. We are not writing a story here, were crunching numbers, ALL NUMBERS. We are not leaving anything out because it does not fit well into the story we are trying to tell. We are not trying to lead people to a certain conclusion, were not trying to manipulate them. Our job is to discover the truth and get it out there regardless of whether it shows fraud in one precinct and no fraud in another. Get all the information out and let others draw their own conclusions. Let other experts draw their own conclusion, they don't need a story form us, they don't need an argument crafted for them, the data speaks for itself.

----------


## chapchap70

> Oh my God. Same systematic several-standard-deviation jumps in Romney's score in NH.


Is there a strategic reason why RP was left out of this data?


Edit:  I assume that the 10 percent Romney had added at the 90 to 100 percentile large precincts (compared with the smallest ones) came from Paul but not Huntsman and the others?

----------


## Liberty1789

How to detect the flip... R2 for most of us, F/t-stat for the math divas.



EDIT: Calculation started from 50% of cumulative votes cast

----------


## Liberty1789

> Is there a strategic reason why RP was left out of this data?


Good question. Romney collects all flipped votes so the stats are the most spectacular there. Gingrich/Santorum are more or less untouched, so you get maximum contrast. Paul, Perry, Bachmann and Huntsman are feeders, but they share the loss of what Romney gains between them and the stats are less "screaming".

I must also confess that the table is really fastidious to assemble, so I abridged it...

----------


## chapchap70

> Good question. Romney collects all flipped votes so the stats are the most spectacular there. Gingrich/Santorum are more or less untouched, so you get maximum contrast. Paul, Perry, Bachmann and Huntsman are feeders, but they share the loss of what Romney gains between them and the stats are less "screaming".
> 
> I must also confess that the table is really fastidious to assemble, so I abridged it...


I sent the image to a guy at our church who has an accounting background to see if it will peak his interest.  He works for a large computer software company on Long Island.  I'm not sure if it is still Computer Associates or if they got bought out and changed their name.  Can't keep track of all the mergers these days.

----------


## jjockers

> How to detect the flip... R2 for most of us, F/t-stat for the math divas.


Not sure what you mean here.  As someone who might qualify as a math diva, I wouldn't look at the R^2 (goodness of the linear fit) or the F/T-stat first.  Unless I am missing something, I'd first look at the slope (followed by the R^2).  Negative slope with high R^2 => losing votes as precinct size increases, Positive slope w/ high R^2 => gaining votes as precinct size increases.

Even then, a positive slope does not necessarily imply vote flipping.  It just means the candidate, for a reason yet to be determined, earned a higher percentage of votes as precinct size increased.

Also, some of the values presented are misleading.  Your low R^2 values are low because of early (<=5% on x-axis) fluctuation (smallest precincts).  See Santorum in the bottom graph.

----------


## bbwarfield

http://www.electionstudies.org/nesguide/gd-index.htm#9

Mark37nj if youve read all these articles (wich i have) then you can criticize me for pointing out that yelling fraud cause a graph looks a way you dont suspect is not a good idea. Many of these articles will help you understand why I am not a fan of looking at Iowa is actual legitimate differences in the electorate and demographics. 

Im fine with looking at the numbers.... I just want people to be clear when they are talking about two different states and for that matter two different counties within a state. 

Or we go with your plan and apply it across the board

Lets call the whole election cause smaller states have voted and chosen and they are statistically significant enough to decide the entire election.Iowa, New Hampshire, Maine and Colorado spoke.... when added together Romney came out on top. This is what your graph would show isnt it? these four states make a statistically significant sample on wich we can decide Mitt Romney should be the nominee.....and to prove the point the large states of Nevada and Florida prooved the numbers as well.... south carolina he still came in second but thats okay cause Newt is an outlier not a statistically important candidate.......... I will spend all day making a graph that shows you this if you like? Cause there is no importance of demographics... its just the numbers like you said.... its JUST THE NUMBERS.

Turn off sarcasm...........................................  .

Elections are decided by demographics. If you get 99% of the black vote (which obama did) then you won that demographic. So a precinct that is 92% black voters gives him roughly 90% of the vote... but how can this be cause the precinct next to it he gets 5%! why? no amount of numbers will tell you but by law we have to have MINORTIY MAJORITY districting in states were the DOJ thinks there is a significant enough chance of the minority not being represented. So the precinct line is actually DRAWN to exlude white votes from that precinct.

If you dont know how elections work..... the numbers would never tell you that and you would look at greenville counties 2008 presidential totals and screamed fraud all day.

----------


## Liberty1789

> Your low R^2 values are low because of early (<=5% on x-axis) fluctuation (smallest precincts).  See Santorum in the bottom graph.


Sorry, my bad, forgot to mention that the numbers are for the last 50% of the votes only

----------


## Mark37snj

> http://www.electionstudies.org/nesguide/gd-index.htm#9
> 
> Mark37nj if youve read all these articles (wich i have) then you can criticize me for pointing out that yelling fraud cause a graph looks a way you dont suspect is not a good idea. Many of these articles will help you understand why I am not a fan of looking at Iowa is actual legitimate differences in the electorate and demographics. 
> 
> Im fine with looking at the numbers.... I just want people to be clear when they are talking about two different states and for that matter two different counties within a state. 
> 
> Or we go with your plan and apply it across the board
> 
> Lets call the whole election cause smaller states have voted and chosen and they are statistically significant enough to decide the entire election.Iowa, New Hampshire, Maine and Colorado spoke.... when added together Romney came out on top. This is what your graph would show isnt it? these four states make a statistically significant sample on wich we can decide Mitt Romney should be the nominee.....and to prove the point the large states of Nevada and Florida prooved the numbers as well.... south carolina he still came in second but thats okay cause Newt is an outlier not a statistically important candidate.......... I will spend all day making a graph that shows you this if you like? Cause there is no importance of demographics... its just the numbers like you said.... its JUST THE NUMBERS.
> ...


All you did here was ignore facts, make a bunch of assumptions, give a bunch of opinions,  and create a Straw Man arugument for you to slay. BORING.

----------


## bbwarfield

> All you did here was *ignore facts*, make a *bunch of assumptions*, give a bunch of *opinions*,  and *create a Straw Man arugument* for you to slay. BORING.


um... i think thats what you did
yes i had some poor rehtorical style.... but youve not proven me wrong on anypoint... just called them all unimportant... or non researched or whatever. when you supply evidence with quotes from the forum you including quotes of you own assumptions? thats strange to say the least

----------


## Liberty1789

> I wouldn't look at the R^2.  I'd first look at the slope (followed by the R^2).


I see where you are coming from and I agree with that.

Hear my central case: at mid-way, 50% of votes in, hundreds of precincts counted, I should have a pretty good estimate of the final score at 100% and dozens and dozens of counties graphed here confirm that. Let's take it as my working assumption. There is no reason for the candidates' lines to differ in volatility and t stat other that randomly.

Now a vote flipper kicks in and transfers an amount of votes from one guy to the other, proportionally to the cumulative % of votes cast. My original flatline becomes a slope, yes, as you say, but very importantly, its value is now the sum of a natural line and a mathematical straight line. The mathematical impact of that is that slope will be much "straighter". The standard deviation around the linear fit of the slope segment will collapse. Straighter segment equates a higher R2 in the slope segment than in flat liners. And it means a massive change in F factor and T stat. *A true mathematical fingerprint!* Because of the inclusion of of a zero-volatility linear component, F factors/t-stat jump 5 to 30 times vs the untampered line! It is what you see in Palm Beach/Darlington/Washoe above.

----------


## Mark37snj

> um... i think thats what you did
> yes i had some poor rehtorical style.... but youve not proven me wrong on anypoint... just called them all unimportant... or non researched or whatever. when you supply evidence with quotes from the forum you including quotes of you own assumptions? thats strange to say the least


All your doing is Muddying the Waters. Lets take a look at all the crap you just tried to throw into this discussion. This is from one small paragraph in your last response.

demographics....99% of the black vote.....obama......demographic.....92% black voters.....90% of the vote.....5%.....law.....MINORTIY MAJORITY....districting.....DOJ.....minority......  ...precinct line.....exlude white votes

ALL this was in just 4 lines, one small paragraph.

----------


## bbwarfield

Those are all true.... what was your point there?
refering to South Carolina: I know the number was 99% in South Carolina but okay.... well go with 95% nationwide

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ite-House.html

The following article shows 92% black population in a precinct being questioned earlier

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/arti...epublican-race




> The Act established extensive federal oversight of elections administration, providing that states with a history of discriminatory voting practices (so-called "covered jurisdictions") could not implement any change affecting voting without first obtaining the approval of the Department of Justice, a process known as preclearance


 this is from wikipedia on the voting rights act (ive read the whole law... but i figured a summary would be easier)

and majority minority districting discussed in an article on the law

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/comment...07_hayden.html


If you want to prove me wrong... read all the pertinent information that shows what you said was oversimplification was true

----------


## bbwarfield

> All your doing is Muddying the Waters. Lets take a look at all the crap you just tried to throw into this discussion. This is from one small paragraph in your last response.
> 
> demographics....99% of the black vote.....obama......demographic.....92% black voters.....90% of the vote.....5%.....law.....MINORTIY MAJORITY....districting.....DOJ.....minority......  ...precinct line.....exlude white votes
> 
> ALL this was in just 4 lines, one small paragraph.


im sorry..... i didnt realize you were just creating a strawman calling this all crap not SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION that changes what you see in numbers from Greenville South Carolina were several such districts are in place.

----------


## bbwarfield

as a side not.... the majority minority districts were taken into account and were not significant in Greenvilles over all analysis but could have served as a debunk if not noted earlier. But it needed to be looked at and it was.

----------


## Liberty1789

> I don't have any significant stat training, and yes, it was tricky, but I think your perseverance paid off.  Thanks for this explanation, I think I get it now.
> 
> In the original Anderson County document, there seems to have been two arguments for fraud:  (a) the uniformity of the "swap" -- what The Man was calling the parabola effect, and (b) the fact that Romney's total ended up where Paul's should have been and vice versa.  Not being versed in the high level statistical methods, it was easier for me to grasp the idea of projected totals and results not ending up where they should have been.  The subsequent discussions about R-squares seemed to me, again as non-stat guy, to be an attempt to reinforce the projections without addressing the reliability of non-random sample selection.  It now seems to me that the two arguments are independent of each other.  For those that have been saying this all along, my apologies.  It's been a busy week and this has been a fast moving and highly technical thread.
> 
> If I may summarize in my own words, maybe you can confirm that I get it.
> 
> We don't care about projected totals (ends), we care about the nature of the plotted line itself (means).  The plot lines can be on different frequencies, but they should appear as white noise.  What the R-squares and t-stats are saying is that the signal itself is non-random.
> 
> I'm sure this is technically inaccurate, but is this pretty much what's going on?


This is critical and your intuiton is on the right track. I'll put it as simply as I can.

A visually straight line on the charts I publish is rarely perfectly straight. It joins points which are not perfectly aligned. The differences between the real points and the straight line that best fits them can absolutely be described a white noise. t-stat measures directly how stable is the slope of the line joining the points, how much it "vibrates" along its general direction. F factor is even smarter in some ways: it measures if all those points which are not perfectly on the line are normally distributed away from it: more points closer than far away from the line, if you will.

On segments of lines where the vote flipper I suspect is active, something extraordinary happens: the nature of the white noise is totally transformed! T-stat is up 5/10 times, F factor sometimes 20-30 times. This all indicates that the slope is not natural. it has been "smoothed" by the vote flipping. It vibrates much less and points next to the line are much closer than before, with fewer outliers.

What happened is this: you're mixing the original, "natural" line with normal white noise to a perfect straight line with no noise. The combination has therefore massively less noise than the original. t-stats and F factors shoot up : the straighter the line, the higher they go. And they shoot up massively. The radical change in the noise is a proof of tampering! *What one calls a mathematical fingerprint!*

Another point: I have not seen yet a big F factor (>500) on its own: if the white noise is gone from 1 line, there is always another one where the noise is gone as well. Algorithmic vote flipping would do precisely that.

----------


## The Man

Hey Liberty 1789, this exactly supports my observations. I would like to get your comment on this: Using the method of total votes vs. votes each, the precincts can be arranged in any random order and it will produce a "noisy", "jaggedy", "erratic", etc. looking line for Romney. But when the precincts are arranged in order from lowest vote total to highest, the curve is inexplicably "smooth." I concluded that this could not be natural, but rather had to be created by a computer algorithm. There's simply no reasonable alternative explanation. 


> This is critical and your intuiton is on the right track. I'll put it as simply as I can.
> 
> A visually straight line on the charts I publish is rarely perfectly straight. It joins points which are not perfectly aligned. The differences between the real points and the straight line that best fits them can absolutely be described a white noise. t-stat measures directly how stable is the slope of the line joining the points, how much if it "vibrates" along its general direction. F factor is even smarter in some ways: it measures if all those points which are not perfectly on the line are normally distributed away from it: more points closer than far way from the line, if you will.
> 
> On segment of lines where the vote flipper I suspect is active, something extraordinary happens: the nature of the white noise is totally transformed! T-stat is up 5/10 times, F factor sometimes 20-30 times. This all indicates that the slope is not natural. it has been "smoothed" by the vote flipping. It vibrates much less and points next to the line are much closer than before, with fewer outliers.
> 
> What happened is this: you're mixing the original, "natural" line with normal white noise to a perfect straight line with no noise. The combination has therefore massively less noise than the original. t-stats and F factors shoot up : the straighter the line, the higher they go. And they shoot up massively. The radical change in the noise is a proof of tampering! *What one calls a mathematical fingerprint!*
> 
> Another point: I have not seen yet a big F factor (>500) on its own: if the white noise is gone from 1 line, there is always another one where the noise is gone as well. Algorithmic vote flipping would do precisely that.

----------


## kathy88

I have no idea what you guys are talking about but I can't wait for it to come out    I've said it before I'll say it again THANK YOU SO MUCH. I know you guys have been busting your asses on this for a while now.

----------


## kathy88

HAHAHAHA. If you hover over the paperclip next to the stars on the front of this thread I just noticed the file is named WTF. HAHAHAHAHA.

----------


## affa

bb/mark -- deep breath, guys.  

liberty - once again, amazing work.

----------


## cjm

> This is critical and your intuiton is on the right track. I'll put it as simply as I can....


Thanks for the explanation.  My previous issues/challenges with regard to sampling and projection methodology are obviously not applicable here.

----------


## affa

ok, so i'm no graphic designer.

i took liberty's posts (starting around 737) in which he broke down SC by flipper on/off.   Somewhere around there, he also pointed out that the flipper is not based upon total votes per county, but rather, total votes as percentage of... something. can't remember.  just tried to find it and can't.  liberty?  anyway,   knowing very little about SC geography, i wanted something a bit more visual.

gold star =  Liberty detected NO vote flipping
BLUE star =  Liberty detected theft from Gingrich to Romney
RED star = Liberty detected theft from Paul to Romney
NO star = Liberty didn't report on that county.

i put in approximate vote count for some of them - mostly where i found it interesting -- for example, the cluster of 8ks near each other that show vastly different results.

IMPORTANT:  note that there are a couple 1:1 flips for Gingrich to Romney touching 1:1 flips for Paul to Romney.   That's damning in my opinion.   The string of 8k (Gingrich to no-flip to Paul) is also interesting.


image was too large to embed; resized:

this embed only seems to work sometimes.  link is here:
http://image.bayimg.com/damcpaado.jpg

----------


## Slutter McGee

Seriously, I have no problem putting in the effort of reading an entire thread. But 85 pages is pushing it. Can anyone give me a bit of a summary?

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

----------


## affa

> Seriously, I have no problem putting in the effort of reading an entire thread. But 85 pages is pushing it. Can anyone give me a bit of a summary?
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Slutter McGee


it's worth reading. also, go to your settings and change number of posts per page.  i only have 22 pages.

summary:  it looks like we have established voter fraud in SC, and have evidence of it elsewhere.  

important bits:

1) Romney always the benefactor
2) Paul, Gingrich, Huckabee (in 2008) have all been hit. 
3) In most cases, it's 1:1 benefactor/victim, but in some cases Romney pulls from multiple others.
4) No one has offered a debunk that explains how this could only ever affect Romney the way it does (specifically, direct pull from one other candidate with no other candidates affected)
5) Statistical evidence that the slopes are algorithmic (smoothed) further indicating fraud (compared to fraudless areas where there is a lot of natural noise, which is how it should be)
6) it seems they only alter votes in larger precincts meeting certain other criteria.  low vote areas are left alone.

our resident stat experts believe we have massive smoking guns.

----------


## Slutter McGee

Thank you so much. As much as it hurts me to say it. At least the voter fraud is benefiting Romney and not Santorum. I will try to read more.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

----------


## Anna Karenina

Just curious why they didn't use this vote flipping technique on Rand? How and why on earth did they let him win?

----------


## Paul Fan

> Just curious why they didn't use this vote flipping technique on Rand? How and why on earth did they let him win?


Rand was too far ahead. It would have been too noticeable.

----------


## Liberty1789

A decluttered blog re-taking only the substantive analytical posts would be very useful actually, affa.

----------


## S.Shorland

This is the internet.Anybody could be anybody.I'd really like this to be in the hands of an indentifiable person with credentials and acknowledged to be so by a recognisable figure associated with Paul.That's my real beef.

----------


## cjm

> 4) No one has offered a debunk that explains how this could only ever affect Romney the way it does (specifically, direct pull from one other candidate with no other candidates affected)


We have to be careful with this one.  The "why Romney?" question is murky.  The answer to the "Why?" question could vary from county to county and election year to election year based on demographics.  Debunks have been offered that have not been statistically _dis-proven_.  The relative Republican-ness can explain shifts between Paul and Romney in some counties.  This doesn't explain Romney-Huckabee, but it doesn't need to.  Different years, different demographics, etc.  The burden is on the statistician to prove there's something there, the burden is not on the denier to prove there is nothing there.

The statistics focused on in this thread (algorithmic smoothing) cannot explain _why_, they can only demonstrate that it _is_ Romney.  I would just leave it at that.

----------


## Danan

I saw you guys speculating that Ron Paul could be better in heavily democratic areas and worse in republican as a possible explanation/debunk. Do you have any prove for this assumption? Or did I misunderstand you?

In the latest polls I saw Mitt Romney was ahead of Ron Paul with democrats (I even think by a margin that would extend Mitts overall lead). Ron only owns the voter segment of independents. This is not even astonishing if you look at their policies. So if anything Mitt should even increase his numbers in democratic areas. And even if Ron would do great with dems, there is no reason why guys like Gingrich and Santorum should stay equal and only Romney loses votes.

Also, more republican areas should - if anything - increase the numbers of Gingrich and Santorum against Ron Paul and maybe even against Mitt Romney.

----------


## bbwarfield

> I saw you guys speculating that Ron Paul could be better in heavily democratic areas and worse in republican as a possible explanation/debunk. Do you have any prove for this assumption? Or did I misunderstand you?


It's a theory that was kicked around, but the original way of deciding "Republicanism" of a precinct never took into account the minority vote demographic. (Used McCain vs. Obama as a standard) So while that theory hasn't been dis proven, i don't see it as a likely explanation but there still crunching numbers on these types of things.

----------


## affa

> We have to be careful with this one.  The "why Romney?" question is murky.  The answer to the "Why?" question could vary from county to county and election year to election year based on demographics.  Debunks have been offered that have not been statistically _dis-proven_.  The relative Republican-ness can explain shifts between Paul and Romney in some counties.  This doesn't explain Romney-Huckabee, but it doesn't need to.  Different years, different demographics, etc.  The burden is on the statistician to prove there's something there, the burden is not on the denier to prove there is nothing there.
> 
> The statistics focused on in this thread (algorithmic smoothing) cannot explain _why_, they can only demonstrate that it _is_ Romney.  I would just leave it at that.


i disagree. every 20 or 30 posts or so we get someone who hasn't read the thread suggesting Romney might just be more popular in bigger threads because of demographics. 

But this can NOT be explained by demographics or "relative Republican-ness" and there have been many posts on why.  It could explain Romney winning, sure.   It could explain a spike or a dip in a candidate, sure.   But it can not and does not explain 1:1 flipping in a race like we're seeing.

I discussed this more here:  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...85#post4212485

To quote from that post: any precinct that is so incredibly Romney-centric that every last vote pulled from Ron Paul would unerringly go to Romney is a precinct in which Romney is so popular that he'd be pulling votes from all other candidates across the board, not just Ron Paul.

Just because 'demographics' is the most common 'debunk' attempt doesn't make it valid. Can it be disproven? Well... that's what liberty has basically done by showing that the odds of what we're seeing are staggering within a single county, let alone repeatedly.  And to add to that, it's even sillier to think that the county next door, of a similar size, would show a similar 1:1 with Gingrich instead of Paul!

The assumptions in the 'debunk' - that Republicans reject the Constitutionalist Paul, and prefer the flipflopper Romney - are quite likely nothing more than media fabrications, especially based on what we're seeing in this thread.

----------


## affa

is my jpg in post 846 showing for anyone?  it was a nightmare getting that to embed, and i'm still not sure if it's working correctly.

----------


## Danan

> It's a theory that was kicked around, but the original way of deciding "Republicanism" of a precinct never took into account the minority vote demographic. (Used McCain vs. Obama as a standard) So while that theory hasn't been dis proven, i don't see it as a likely explanation but there still crunching numbers on these types of things.


Do these demographic explanations even matter at all if we can prove a statistically very unlikely (or impossible) voter shift kicking in and increasing at various precinct sizes?

In order to matter the demographic would have to change at the exact same rate as the voting results shift. And that all over SC (and probably even more states). That doesn't sound very reasonable. Also, I don't really think it's possible for anyone in the grassroots to check every possible demographical explanation - that sounds like a hell of work.


Do we see the same pattern of voter shift in various counties in every state or do different strange voting behaviors occur depending on the state? If the latter is the case, do these patterns correlate with the way the ballots were counted (do hand-counted ballots show a different pattern then machine-counted)?

If the same pattern emerged in Iowa as in counties that used electronic voting (even if it just happend in very few counties in Iowa) we do have a little problem. Either our Paul-campaign vote counters in Iowa didn't do a good job and were wrong (or fooled) or there is something very special in Mitt's personality that causes him to gain votes by precinct size with an astronomical precision that would force every statistician into insanity and this project is pointless. Because even if we could come up with a good story about voter fraud in SC, they could just debunk it and say that the same pattern exists in other precincts without electronic voting machines.

Again: Did the very same pattern that could have been caused by voting machines in SC occur at least once in another county where the ballots were hand-counted in public?

Sorry if these all concerns have been answered already. You can just ignore this post then and continue your work. =D

----------


## Danan

> is my jpg in post 846 showing for anyone?  it was a nightmare getting that to embed, and i'm still not sure if it's working correctly.


Well, there was a link that worked earlier this day. Now I don't see neither a embeded picture, nor a link.

----------


## affa

> Well, there was a link that worked earlier this day. Now I don't see neither a embeded picture, nor a link.


ugh. it goes back and forth working for me.  i see both the link and the jpg.

the link is:
http://image.bayimg.com/damcpaado.jpg

that is:

httpXXXXXX://image.bayimg.com/damcpaado.jpg

legend is in post 846.

can someone please see if it embeds for them?  it's liberty's SC charts put onto a census map.

----------


## Danan

> ugh. it goes back and forth working for me.  i see both the link and the jpg.
> 
> the link is:
> http://image.bayimg.com/damcpaado.jpg
> 
> that is:
> 
> httpXXXXXX://image.bayimg.com/damcpaado.jpg
> 
> ...


The link doesn't work now (at least not for me).

White page, "403 - Forbidden". But like I already said: It worked earlier this day.

I also don't see it embeded.

----------


## affa

> Do these demographic explanations even matter at all if we can prove a statistically very unlikely (or impossible) voter shift kicking in and increasing at various precinct sizes?
> 
> In order to matter the demographic would have to change at the exact same rate as the voting results shift. And that all over SC (and probably even more states). That doesn't sound very reasonable. Also, I don't really think it's possible for anyone in the grassroots to check every possible demographical explanation - that sounds like a hell of work.
> 
> SNIP... or there is something very special in Mitt's personality that causes him to gain votes by precinct size with an astronomical precision that would force every statistician into insanity and this project is pointless. 
> SNIP


Yes, exactly, basically.  There is no way to 'prove' it that I could think of other than the statistical improbability of what has already been shown.    That is, effectively, The Man and Liberty have already proven this couldn't possibly be 'demographics'.   Add in that 1:1 flipping doesn't even make logical sense, and it's a non-issue in my opinion.  Except it's not, because...

We need to keep addressing this issue because it's the 'go to' debunk for those who either haven't read the thread or haven't quite internalized the ramifications of what we're seeing.    Heck, it could be the water, right?   Different water sources might explain algorithmic smoothing creating a 1:1 vote flip that always benefits Romney...

----------


## hillertexas

> ugh. it goes back and forth working for me.  i see both the link and the jpg.
> 
> the link is:
> http://image.bayimg.com/damcpaado.jpg
> 
> that is:
> 
> httpXXXXXX://image.bayimg.com/damcpaado.jpg
> 
> ...


No....when I click on your link it says "403 - Forbidden"

----------


## lakerssuck92

I think this is it...

----------


## affa

> The link doesn't work now (at least not for me).
> 
> White page, "403 - Forbidden". But like I already said: It worked earlier this day.
> 
> I also don't see it embeded.


here is the original link (as opposed to a direct link)
http://bayimg.com/daMcpAADO

if anyone knows how to embed, please.

----------


## Mark37snj

> We have to be careful with this one.  The "why Romney?" question is murky.  The answer to the "Why?" question could vary from county to county and election year to election year based on demographics.  Debunks have been offered that have not been statistically _dis-proven_.  The relative Republican-ness can explain shifts between Paul and Romney in some counties.  This doesn't explain Romney-Huckabee, but it doesn't need to.  Different years, different demographics, etc.  The burden is on the statistician to prove there's something there, the burden is not on the denier to prove there is nothing there.
> 
> The statistics focused on in this thread (algorithmic smoothing) cannot explain _why_, they can only demonstrate that it _is_ Romney.  I would just leave it at that.


The Why you are referring to here is the Human factor. Why is this algorithym always benefitting Romeny? Because that is the way it was programmed. Why did the programmers want to benefit Romney? We may never know and I don't belieive it is a statistics issue. Maybe they liked his hair, or liked his flip flopping, or maybe because Romney is for Big Business and Big Goverment and he made a deal, who knows. But the Why is Romney always benefitting from this vote fipping is not something we need to prove on this board or something that can be proven statistically.




> Do we see the same pattern of voter shift in various counties in every state or do different strange voting behaviors occur depending on the state? If the latter is the case, do these patterns correlate with the way the ballots were counted (do hand-counted ballots show a different pattern then machine-counted)?
> 
> If the same pattern emerged in Iowa as in counties that used electronic voting (even if it just happend in very few counties in Iowa) we do have a little problem. Either our Paul-campaign vote counters in Iowa didn't do a good job and were wrong (or fooled) or there is something very special in Mitt's personality that causes him to gain votes by precinct size with an astronomical precision that would force every statistician into insanity and this project is pointless. Because even if we could come up with a good story about voter fraud in SC, they could just debunk it and say that the same pattern exists in other precincts without electronic voting machines.
> 
> Again: Did the very same pattern that could have been caused by voting machines in SC occur at least once in another county where the ballots were hand-counted in public?


This is why *IOWA* may be the *MOST IMPORTANT* state to prove electronic voter fraud occured. There are two possible culprits, that we know of, that are responsible for this voting flip. One is the electronic voting machines they vote on. The other is the *Central Tabulation Center* where all the votes from all the races goes to first before being sent back to the state to be reproted and realeased to the media. This one company can change an entire states votes count on one machine before they send it back. This is a foreign company that processes the votes offshore, not in America. In a state like Iowa which was a caucus and hand counted those votes, the results were sent to a Central Tabulation Center offshore and _Tabulated_ by this foreign company *BEFORE* being sent back to Iowa to be released to the media.

EDIT: Here is a link to an article that talks about that company http://healthfreedom2012.com/HFblog/...ael-sctyl-soe/

----------


## bbwarfield

> This is why *IOWA* may be the *MOST IMPORTANT* state to prove *electronic voter fraud occured*. There are two possible culprits, that we know of, that are responsible for this voting flip. One is the electronic voting machines they vote on. The other is the *Central Tabulation Center* where all the votes from all the races goes to first before being sent back to the state to be reproted and realeased to the media. This one company can change an entire states votes count on one machine before they send it back. This is a foreign company that processes the votes offshore, not in America. In a state like Iowa which was a caucus and hand counted those votes, the results were sent to a Central Tabulation Center offshore and _Tabulated_ by this foreign company *BEFORE* being sent back to Iowa to be released to the media.
> 
> EDIT: Here is a link to an article that talks about that company http://healthfreedom2012.com/HFblog/...ael-sctyl-soe/


I dont want to get in this again..... but no electronic tabulation occured in Iowa... scytl is the company used by South Caronlina and a couple Florida counties

For proof just look at the companies website

----------


## hillertexas

> here is the original link (as opposed to a direct link)
> http://bayimg.com/daMcpAADO
> 
> if anyone knows how to embed, please.



its weird...i couldn't embed yours so i ran it through my photobucket.

----------


## bbwarfield

double post

----------


## bbwarfield

> In a state like Iowa which was a caucus and hand counted those votes, the results were sent to a Central Tabulation Center offshore and _Tabulated_ by this foreign company *BEFORE* being sent back to Iowa to be released to the media.


Iowas votes were centrally tabulated by the party at a "secret location" that media and campaigns had representatives at. This was covered extensively by the media cause they did it due to worries about "threats from the OWS"
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...aucus-concerns

the only electronic tabulation was probably excel spreadsheets at the GOP offices in Iowa....  but scytl was not involved there

----------


## Mark37snj

> Iowas votes were centrally tabulated by the party at a "secret location" that media and campaigns had representatives at. This was covered extensively by the media cause they did it due to worries about "threats from the OWS"
> 
> the only electronic tabulation was probably excel spreadsheets at the GOP offices in Iowa.... but scytl was not involved there


Yeah, the media and campaigns had representatives at some secret location where that offshore company sent their results to.

EDIT: We've seen the data on Iowa, its results were manipulated. ALL data is going to be released, hell it already has been released by being posted on this forum and on Google docs. Other investigators will determine the Who/What/When/Where/Why/How.

----------


## bbwarfield

> Yeah, the media and campaigns had representatives at some secret location where that *offshore company* sent their results to.
> 
> EDIT: We've seen the data on Iowa, its results were manipulated. ALL data is going to be released, hell it already has been released by being posted on this forum and on Google docs. Other investigators will determine the Who/What/When/Where/Why/How.


manipulated yes.... but not by Scytel... my point is your making an assumption that no information suggests. I assume leprachauns are to blame and if you cant prove they werent.... ill continue with that!

Numbers in Iowa were manipulated... but not by Scytel.... not over seas.... find me an ARTICLE that says IOWA was counted over seas in the 2012 presidential preference straw poll.... and I will apologise and retire into obscuirty. 

Dont post things that are false unless you have something to back it up

Repeat.... scytel has no presence in the iowa numbers... any manipulation was carried out by someone else

----------


## Mark37snj

> manipulated yes.... but not by Scytel... my point is your making an assumption that no information suggests. I assume leprachauns are to blame and if you cant prove they werent.... ill continue with that!
> 
> Numbers in Iowa were manipulated... but not by Scytel.... not over seas....


So far the information proves that Scytel has its hands in many elections, its what they are being paid for. Scytel admits it, not one is denying it. The SAME anomolies that are occuring where we KNOW Scytel is involved just so HAPPEN to be occuring in Iowa as well. THE SAME ANOMOLIES, that means the same patterns, SD, T squared thingies. So the information we have so far MOST DEFINATELY SUGGESTS that Scytel is probably involved.

EDIT: MATHMATICAL FINGERPRINTS

----------


## bbwarfield

> So the information we have so far MOST DEFINATELY SUGGESTS that Scytel is probably involved.


Except the facts dont support this assumption

----------


## affa

thanks hillertexas!!

Here is my original legend/post for this map:

ok, so i'm no graphic designer.

i took liberty's posts (starting around 737) in which he broke down SC by flipper on/off. Somewhere around there, he also pointed out that the flipper is not based upon total votes per county, but rather, total votes as percentage of... something. can't remember. just tried to find it and can't. liberty? anyway, knowing very little about SC geography, i wanted something a bit more visual.

gold star = Liberty detected NO vote flipping
BLUE star = Liberty detected theft from Gingrich to Romney
RED star = Liberty detected theft from Paul to Romney
NO star = Liberty didn't report on that county.

i put in approximate vote count for some of them - mostly where i found it interesting -- for example, the cluster of 8ks near each other that show vastly different results.

IMPORTANT: note that there are a couple 1:1 flips for Gingrich to Romney touching 1:1 flips for Paul to Romney. That's damning in my opinion. The string of 8k (Gingrich to no-flip to Paul) is also interesting.

----------


## affa

> manipulated yes.... but not by Scytel... 
> 
> SNIP
> 
> Repeat.... scytel has no presence in the iowa numbers... any manipulation was carried out by someone else


gotta agree with bbwarfield here; while it appears there is manipulation in both, we can not assume, and certainly should not post as fact, that exactly the same people were involved.   is it a possibility?  sure. but there are alternative options as well that don't involve a single company.   and once you try to incriminate that company, people need only show they weren't involved in Iowa and it undermines the whole argument.

keep them separate.   apples and oranges.  both may be fraudulent, but they need to be dealt with differently and not forcefully treated as the same.

----------


## affa

regarding my SC map above... some more notes:

Notice that size of county (vote total OR population) doesn't indicate Paul dislike.  Horry and Charleston, for example, both have dense populations and about 40k votes... but one siphons from Gingrich, the other Paul.   Likewise, regions that have about 8k voters (and are in close proximity) can show no signs of fraud (normal distribution), flip against Paul, or flip against Gingrich.

Heck, Georgetown borders on both Horry and Charleston, but Paul flatlines with theft from Gingrich.   None of this is possible.  Even if Romney was super popular in certain regions of SC, you wouldn't have these clearly delineated lines of siphoning.

Lancaster is ridiculous as well.  Almost completely surrounded by no fraud, yet it siphons from Gingrich and touches a county that siphons from Paul.   All 1:1.  No overlap.  No way.

This map screams fraud to me.  i wish i had data to fill in the missing counties.

----------


## Danan

Is there a pattern of when the flip is against Paul and when it is against Gingrich (such as distance to Romney, etc)?

Also, is it true that the flip in certain counties *always* goes against Dr. Paul at *every*  single precinct above a threshold, always against Gingrich at other counties (again at every precinct) and against both of them in other counties? In those counties where both opponents suffer: Are there certain precincts where only Paul suffers and certain ones where only Gingrich suffers or are there single precincts where both of them suffer?

These questions could be important to determine at which level potential fraud occured.

----------


## Liberty1789

Ok, went thru my dozens of worksheets with a friend, brainstorming, trying to find holes/mistakes. Bugwise, only found one in the Iowa Caucus table, first column, but unfortunately for debunkers, that does not change anything to the impossible-to-explain-rationally trends: as more and more votes are counted, Santorum and Gingrich converge logically toward a flat line with no volatility. Romney continue his incomprehensible climb all the way.

Here is the corrected version. Apologies.



That the cumulative score of Romney goes up constantly is so difficult to rationalize, as it means that Romney's score in each decile of vote counted needs to go up big to keep pushing up the new cumulative total to a new high. Yes, yes. Here is a chart illustrating it. In the last decile, Romney scores no less than 44%! And yes, the same thing is happening in all counties where cumulative charts display Romney's surge.



So no real bugs seen in spreadsheets, yes cumulative means cumulative, the NH and IA cumulative table remains impossible to explain...

Where do we go?  Honestly this can only be demographics, whatever you say. Well, no. Visual proof in the next post.

----------


## bbwarfield

> 


I personally think the data will show Dorchester, Berkley, and aiken flipping from paul.... Florence from gingrich... Greenwood Paul if it flips... but its in the hazy low population area

----------


## Adam West

"This is why IOWA may be the MOST IMPORTANT state to prove electronic voter fraud occured. There are two possible culprits, that we know of, that are responsible for this voting flip. One is the electronic voting machines they vote on. The other is the Central Tabulation Center where all the votes from all the races goes to first before being sent back to the state to be reproted and realeased to the media. This one company can change an entire states votes count on one machine before they send it back. This is a foreign company that processes the votes offshore, not in America. In a state like Iowa which was a caucus and hand counted those votes, the results were sent to a Central Tabulation Center offshore and Tabulated by this foreign company BEFORE being sent back to Iowa to be released to the media."

Ha. I was wondering when Goldman-Sachs would rear its ugly head...

EDIT: Here is a link to an article that talks about that company http://healthfreedom2012.com/HFblog/...ael-sctyl-soe/

----------


## bbwarfield

> EDIT: Here is a link to an article that talks about that company http://healthfreedom2012.com/HFblog/...ael-sctyl-soe/


you may want to be careful with that source.. the book it comes from has some.. well... tin foil hat moments. It kinda reads like a "ron paul newsletter" at moments

It also has a pro paul chapter.... the problem is the rest of the book is very "israilis have stolen our elections" 
most of the info on scytel is independently verifiable.... but just be careful when referencing the book....

EDIT: well it would make sense.... although I dont typicaly like to use name calling as a reason to not use someones information "aka ron paul being called racist over newsletters" but it seems the authors name is used in conjunction with the phrase "jew bater" quite a bit on the internet. He also wrote a book about how 9/11 was a jewish set up against muslims. 
Im not saying his information about scytel is wrong... just use the sources he links to in his article rather than his article to prove the point..... his assumptions jump to far at other points in the book and id rather we not have a proxy attack on this

----------


## Mark37snj

> Ha. I was wondering when Goldman-Sachs would rear its ugly head...
> 
> EDIT: Here is a link to an article that talks about that company http://healthfreedom2012.com/HFblog/...ael-sctyl-soe/


This link does not work here or on the page. He is the a link to the blog and a excerp: http://healthfreedom2012.com/HFblog/




> Excerpt from the forthcoming book, Rigged (chapters to be posted on www.healthfreedom2012.com/HFblog)
> 
> Of particular concern is the entity Scytl-SOE. This was purchased largely by an Israeli venture capital firm known as Benchmark-Israel, now known as Balderton Capital. Associated with Goldman-Sachs, Balderton Capital is a buy-up firm. Another money source for Scytl-SOE is Nauta Capital, which is also Israeli-operated. The name Benchmark-Israel tells all, although, again, this name was recently changed to Balderton. Yet, that this firm is Israeli is beyond question. For example, in Israel Science and Technology News Benchmark is featured as a funder of yet another Israeli company, a software company called Cotendo.
> 
> Press releases regarding Sctyl proclaim that it is an electronic system which is completely secure and auditable and that Scytls advanced election security technology positions the company as a leader in the electoral modernization industry. A call to the local office for this company in Baltimore, Maryland,  revealed its not much of a company. The secretary confirmed only two people work there, her and her boss David Campbell.  A second call gets a voice-mail, asking to leave your number. The Web sites for Sctyl/SOE as well as Balderton Capital are rudimentary at best.
> 
> This is the most bizarre circumstance conceivable. A non-American, offshore entity counts the vote? Offices with two people at best a non-web sites control the election processes? It is obviously a set-up. Results from the electronic voting machines and even hand-ballots are sent to these privately or, rather, Israeli-owned companies. There is no way to confirm the results. Nor is there any monitoring of the activities of the people who are operating the servers. These operators could merely change the vote count as it comes in, and no one would know about it. Thats what they did in the 2012 South Carolina primary and more.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_(law)

*Circumstantial Evidence* - Evidence of an indirect nature which implies the existence of the main fact in question but does not in itself prove it. That is, the existence of the main fact is deduced from the indirect or circumstantial evidence by a process of probable reasoning. The introduction of a defendant's fingerprints or DNA sample are examples of circumstantial evidence. The fact that a defendant had a motive to commit a crime is circumstantial evidence. However, in an important sense all evidence is merely circumstantial because on no evidence can prove a fact in the absence of one or more inference.

----------


## bbwarfield

http://www.businesswire.com/news/hom...ction-Software

also of note.... scytl and SOE were not the same company till January 11th.... so scytl may be unaware of a problem present in SOE software.... or there merger may not have been used in SC yet (there current firmware is 5.0 somthing.... the ones used in most places is stil 4.0 something or other (you can find it on the secretary of states website for South Carolina EDIT: maybe we cant.... but you should be able to call monday and get that list end Edit.....what firmware and models are used where.... but Floridas election website statees theyve tested later software) 

The point is.... the number crunchers need to crunch the numbers... and until we have those we wont be able to point any fingers.... and even then alot more information will be needed to find 1) where the fraud took place 2) how it took place 3) who perpetrated it

----------


## bbwarfield

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_(law)
> 
> *Circumstantial Evidence* - Evidence of an indirect nature which implies the existence of the main fact in question but does not in itself prove it. That is, the existence of the main fact is deduced from the indirect or circumstantial evidence by a process of probable reasoning. The introduction of a defendant's fingerprints or DNA sample are examples of circumstantial evidence. The fact that a defendant had a motive to commit a crime is circumstantial evidence. However, in an important sense all evidence is merely circumstantial because on no evidence can prove a fact in the absence of one or more inference.


Im not following....

----------


## chapchap70

Liberty1789, 

I compared post 822 with 880.  If too few average precincts from 70% higher that had such a small effect on the rest of the sheet is all that was wrong in all your spreadsheets, I am even more impressed than I was already.

In the 880 spreadsheet, it took me a while to figure out that the NV stood for (I think) New Version instead of Nevada.

----------


## Mark37snj

> Im not following....


I'm just posting this to give a frame of reference so people can comment on where we stand with the evidence we have on the various issues.

----------


## affa

> Liberty1789, 
> 
> I compared post 822 with 880.  If too few average precincts from 70% higher that had such a small effect on the rest of the sheet is all that was wrong in all your spreadsheets, I am even more impressed than I was already.
> 
> In the 880 spreadsheet, it took me a while to figure out that the NV stood for (I think) New Version instead of Nevada.


Yea, NV is misleading.  V1, V2, V3 would get point across better if it's even needed to get across.  o

----------


## affa

for use in understanding South Carolina... the congressional districts used to determine delegates.:




can we get charts per congressional district?  or perhaps, 'unflipped results vs. current results' for each district?  basically, we can determine why they flipped Gingrich in certain areas.

----------


## Mark37snj

> http://www.businesswire.com/news/hom...ction-Software
> 
> also of note.... scytl and SOE were not the same company till January 11th.... so scytl may be *unaware of a problem present in SOE software*.... or there merger may not have been used in SC yet (there current firmware is 5.0 somthing.... the ones used in most places is stil 4.0 something or other (you can find it on the secretary of states website for South Carolina EDIT: maybe we cant.... but you should be able to call monday and get that list end Edit.....what firmware and models are used where.... but Floridas election website statees theyve tested later software) 
> 
> The point is.... the number crunchers need to crunch the numbers... and until we have those we wont be able to point any fingers.... and even then alot more information will be needed to find 1) where the fraud took place 2) how it took place 3) who perpetrated it


Very interesting, really. What I would like to know is when Scytl and SOE started exploring their merger. Were they collaborating before this?
Also I would like to get clarity on your_ "unaware of a problem present in SOE software"_ comment. Is it your opinion that the the anomolies we are seeing is simply the result of errors in the software or is your opinion that those "problems" are intentional with the purpose of commiting voter fraud?

----------


## Liberty1789

Take a big breath and fasten your seatbelt 



The top chart is about New Hampshire, Iowa and the good old county of Clark, NV.

Each point represents a decile (I took the 9 largest).
The X-axis is plotting the number of votes, as ever by ascending order of precinct vote tally.
The Y-axis indicates Romney's score improvement over the 2nd decile (the 10-20% of cumulative votes counted). The 2nd decile is therefore plotted at 0 on the Y axis (score 2nd decile -score 2nd decile = 0). The plots go up as Romney improves his scores for each and every consecutive decile, as always when he climbs.

Now focus on New hampshire, the red dots. Wow, look at that, man! The more voters, the better the score. His campaign is really good in large districts. And look: the score improvement is so regular. What a wonderful candidate...

Hmmm, what's funny is that he is achieving the very same, equally spaced progess in Iowa. Wow. Well, he is just doing better in larger precincts you see, even though, even though... those Iowan precincts do not look so large and different when compared to NH... Hmm...

Hold on... Talking of bizarre... What on Earth are those blue spot doing shooting up vertically? They get the very same even spacing but, precinct population seems to be barely changed?...

Well they do change: Quintile 5 has an average of 25 voters vs only 21 for Quintile 4. Then the gap is 5 votes, then again 5, then 9 votes... And every single time, Romney's score goes up like clockwork. A thing of wonder. We said the bigger the district, the better the performance of Romney's campaign, no? Even if it means 5 voters bigger?? No.

The t-stat parameters in the yellow box confirm it: not correlation to speak of.

But now look at the magic alignment of the second chart. Oh boy, this is correlation made in Heaven. The improvement of Romney is a straight linear function of cumulative votes. Just more votes and my score automatically goes up! A politician's dream come true!

Of course what we are looking at is an algorithm that has decided to switch a percentage of the cumulative votes to Romney. You tell the software how much you want to improve the final score by. A 7% to 9% boost seems quite popular from what can be read on the chart. Then the algorithm calculates how many votes need to be flipped and it spreads the flip unto the precincts, *proportionally to their share of the final vote*. In Clark, it means spreading all the way down to precincts of 15 voters, in perfect proportion of what you do to the 20-men precinct. Honest.

And that, my friends, concludes the step 3 of the absolute mathematical proof.

----------


## Adam West

This significant accomplishment could change the direction of the race for the Republican Presidential nominee.

----------


## affa

> Of course what we are looking at is an algorithm that has decided to switch a percentage of the cumulative votes to Romney. You tell the software how much you want to improve the final score by. A 7% to 9% boost seems quite popular from what can be read on the chart. Then the algorithm calculates how many votes need to be flipped and it spreads the flip unto the precincts, *proportionally to their share of the final vote*. In Clark, it means spreading all the way down to precincts of 15 voters, in perfect proportion of what you do to the 20-men precinct. Honest.
> 
> And that, my friends, concludes the step 3 of the absolute mathematical proof.

----------


## bbwarfield

> Very interesting, really. What I would like to know is when Scytl and SOE started exploring their merger. Were they collaborating before this?
> Also I would like to get clarity on your_ "unaware of a problem present in SOE software"_ comment. Is it your opinion that the the anomolies we are seeing is simply the result of errors in the software or is your opinion that those "problems" are intentional with the purpose of commiting voter fraud?


yes it is only an opinion.... but not that it is an error in the software.... I believe it was a human choice to commit fraud. But the "problem: ie someone purposefully making an algorith for the purpose of rigging an election in this instance" may have existed with or without scytels knowledge.... or it was perpetrated by scytel without the knowledge of SOE...... keep in mind these two companies also both beneficiaries of the breakup of Diebolds election department....(forced by the DOJ do to monopolies) so the code of these systems do not necessary need to be changed by someone in either current company but some one from the previous.......

Side note that is completely irrelevant but saw some discussion when it happend... Rick Santorums sugar daddy Friess is a major shareholder of Diebold.... he purchased it in december I believe. Now it would have been significant if Diebold was still in the voting biz.... which its not now.... although it looks bad with Freiss having power over Santorum (with his sugar daddy position) and over Diebold (with his significant stock holding) counting santorums votes with machines marked diebold....... conspiracy theorists dream... but not really a problem

----------


## bbwarfield

> And that, my friends, concludes the step 3 of the absolute mathematical proof.


bravo bravo bravissimo!!!

my friend... the word epic does not begin to describe your hard work and analysis

----------


## Mark37snj

> keep in mind these two companies also both beneficiaries of the breakup of Diebolds election department....(forced by the DOJ do to monopolies) so the code of these systems do not necessary need to be changed by someone in either current company but some one from the previous.......


Quote from http://real-agenda.com/tag/iowa/




> The SOE software that is used to “count” the votes allows for the easy alteration of the totals. Mrs. Harris warned that after SCYTL and SOE systems merged, people would have to trust one single source for counting the votes, “an Internet voting system controlled by SCYTL, with a results reporting system also controlled by SCYTL.”


You can't make this stuff up. The DOJ forced Diebold to split up then leaving two companies to control what Diebold did then they just later merge back into one company re-creating the same problem.

EDIT: I should be interesting reading to see who was/is on the Board of Scytel, SEO, and Diebold and see where they are now.

----------


## chapchap70

This thread started out being about South Carolina.  Now it seems that fraud is going on all over.  I guess it is safe to assume that if you looked in Minnesota, Colorado, etc. similar shenanigans would be found there as well.

----------


## bbwarfield

dont quote me on the complete line of custody of Diebold after the breakup.... but it does look like scytl is the one who has the lions share of Diebolds intellectual property. Heres the thing.... Es&s use to own the lion share... but were forced by the DOJ to breakup after the fact cause they too had become a monopoly..... now we have scytl... a FOREIGN company.... who even if they reach 100% of voting machines in the US... i dont believe the DOJ can force them to sell it off.... I may be wrong about all this but.... it just doesnt seem right to me

fact is SOuth Carolinas and several other states elections are 100% controlled by a foreign owned scytel

----------


## affa

we need to start documenting this now in a fashion more accessible than almost 1000 internet posts.

i have the domain for it - seems those involved dig the domain name, so we can move forward on that.  best case, need tech help from an established web designer.

we also need a revised and extended version of The Man's original document.   Liberty/The Man -- do you think you can work together on that?   Should we separate SC from the rest?  Or focus on it from the larger perspective, and then dig down into individual states within the document?    That is, a holistic view of the problem, then differentiate between Caucus and Primary states, finalizing with the overall similarities?

We need to firm up the path forward and start actively working towards it.

----------


## affa

> fact is SOuth Carolinas and several other states elections are 100% controlled by a foreign owned scytel


in my humble opinion, let journalists get into the 'who' is doing it.  we should focus on 'how' (that is, the algorithms and charts), and to a lesser extent, 'why' (who is affected).

----------


## Mark37snj

> in my humble opinion, let journalists get into the 'who' is doing it.  we should focus on 'how' (that is, the algorithms and charts), and to a lesser extent, 'why' (who is affected).


Liberty1789 just posted his 3rd step in absolute mathmatical proof. Is there a 4th? If there isn't and The Man concurs that then I would agree our next step is your website and that more accessible format you posted last page. Once we get them then it's VIRAL time along with more attempts to get a professional stats company to do a complete and independent analysis.

----------


## cachemaster

Great job! Now we just need to present the data in a report and send it EVERYWHERE!

----------


## Liberty1789

My 2 cts if you want to help:

1. Create a way to read the substantive posts uncluttered. Yes, the threat is too cumbersome now. I have no time to do this. Still crunching.
2. Find debunkers. I could miss something. There are way stronger mathematicians than me out there. Ideally one of them must pick the baton.

----------


## jjockers

Could those of you who have compiled the precinct data for various states please upload that data somewhere and provide a link here?

We need more eyes on the data, and reducing data gathering redundancy would save a lot of time.

Thanks!


The tool below would allow for many eyes to easily view and analyze, but thus far, I only have Iowa data.  

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/63868969/RPF...ysis_dist.xlsm

----------


## bbwarfield

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/63863033/scprecinctsall2008.xls

2008 republican primary precinct level data for all counties.... just select the tab at the bottom....

This was requested early on to help show the huck flip

----------


## bbwarfield

> The tool below would allow for many eyes to easily view and analyze, but thus far, I only have Iowa data.  
> 
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/63868969/RPF...ysis_dist.xlsm


the macros give me errors.... I can see the hard work you put into it and can tell it would be great tool.... ive tried it on excel 2007 and the current version of excel for mac... neither worked : ( I can understand the excel for mac but it worried me when i tried it a work and it gave me the same error...any work around i need to know?

----------


## jjockers

> the macros give me errors.... I can see the hard work you put into it and can tell it would be great tool.... ive tried it on excel 2007 and the current version of excel for mac... neither worked : ( I can understand the excel for mac but it worried me when i tried it a work and it gave me the same error...any work around i need to know?


Sent you a PM

*Edit* - The tool requires macros and will cause an error if macros are not enabled.  Enabling macros resolves the issue.

----------


## affa

liberty, when you have time (cough, i know you're busy) can you make graphs for the remaining small precincts in SC in the same style you did the others?  there aren't many to go, you did the lion's share already.  but that will let me complete the map of SC. 

is anyone here a web designer with time on their hands?

----------


## The Man

Affa, Honestly, there are so few precincts in some of these counties the data is meaningless IMO. I established early on that the crooks only hit the largest counties for obvious reasons.

----------


## kathy88

This is by far the BEST THREAD EVER on RPFs.

----------


## Liberty1789

I have them all already. Exhaustivity is good. Just list them pls.

----------


## Liberty1789

> This is by far the BEST THREAD EVER on RPFs.


Could be. Could be the most ridiculous as well. We need heavy machinery debunking.

----------


## affa

> Affa, Honestly, there are so few precincts in some of these counties the data is meaningless IMO. I established early on that the crooks only hit the largest counties for obvious reasons.


i know the data is meaningless from a statistical standpoint, but when presenting a map of SC counties and having some 'blank', it makes the map look suspect.  As in, why aren't these mentioned?   It requires prior knowledge to know they simply aren't statistically important.

----------


## affa

> Could be. Could be the most ridiculous as well. We need heavy machinery debunking.


at this point, i can't imagine any debunk that could affect the findings so far.  Heck, we have only really heard one debunk so far (demographics) and it simply doesn't fly.   What could possibly cause vote flipping with Gingrich in one county, and vote flipping with Ron Paul in the next door county?  It just isn't possible, especially in multiple instances.   Heck, just flipping with Paul in the manner we're seeing isn't possible with such frequency (rather, it would be a lightning strike)... 

It really is time to get more people looking at this.  Still waiting on a web dev to speak up.

----------


## jjockers

> It really is time to get more people looking at this.


Start by compiling all of the data (raw data by precinct, state) into one file.  Then upload that file and post a link here for "more people" to review.

----------


## chapchap70

I wonder if they will try to flip Santorum in Michigan.

----------


## PolicyReader

> Liberty1789 just posted his 3rd step in absolute mathmatical proof. Is there a 4th? If there isn't and The Man concurs that then I would agree our next step is your website and that more accessible format you posted last page. Once we get them then it's VIRAL time along with more attempts to get a professional stats company to do a complete and independent analysis.


When there the data here is finalized please PM me so I can make sure I see it.  I have some people I can reach out too for an independent check, none of them are professional firms and I still think that's a good idea to do regardless but some additional reviews are desired I would do my best to provide.

Cheers

----------


## cjm

> Could be. Could be the most ridiculous as well. We need heavy machinery debunking.


I think on a previous post you said that the smoothness was better/tighter when sorted by precinct turnout than republican-ness as expressed by the 2008 general election.  Have you tried sorting precincts by raw vote for an individual candidate to see if those plots looked random or smooth?

----------


## jjockers

Here's Nevada's results by precinct for anyone who wants to take a look.  Time permitting, I'll incorporate these into the tool (posted above).

http://www.nvgopcaucus.com/wp-conten...esults-All.pdf

----------


## Liberty1789

Does it work like this? Copy/Paste into txt file then import using From Text in Data menu tab in Excel. Should do the trick. Cannot see how to attach a txt file here.

County	District	Total	Gingrich	Huntsman	Paul	Perry	Romney	Santorum
BELKNAP	Alton	1572	153	204	375	12	653	175
BELKNAP	Barnstead	918	80	124	276	23	282	133
BELKNAP	Belmont	1229	111	165	336	10	452	155
BELKNAP	Center Harbor	325	43	65	73	0	124	20
BELKNAP	Gilford	1844	164	285	317	12	922	144
BELKNAP	Gilmanton	878	90	136	239	8	308	97
BELKNAP	Laconia  1	695	53	114	127	1	342	58
BELKNAP	Laconia  2	391	52	52	87	8	151	41
BELKNAP	Laconia  3	467	45	59	99	6	209	49
BELKNAP	Laconia  4	408	46	45	119	0	152	46
BELKNAP	Laconia  5	310	38	38	99	2	91	42
BELKNAP	Laconia  6	657	59	92	125	3	316	62
BELKNAP	Meredith	1657	169	301	371	12	689	115
BELKNAP	New Hampton	520	48	103	157	4	153	55
BELKNAP	Sanbornton	699	66	94	207	9	274	49
BELKNAP	Tilton	622	60	87	214	14	182	65
CARROLL	Albany	142	23	18	42	0	45	14
CARROLL	Bartlett	639	55	139	118	9	285	33
CARROLL	Brookfield	221	26	27	58	2	82	26
CARROLL	Chatham	71	7	9	22	2	24	7
CARROLL	Conway	1417	151	244	389	8	528	97
CARROLL	Eaton	100	21	17	19	4	34	5
CARROLL	Effing-ham	317	25	41	125	2	88	36
CARROLL	Freedom	388	34	74	93	3	154	30
CARROLL	Hale's Loc.	80	11	8	6	0	47	8
CARROLL	Hart's Loc.	13	1	2	4	1	5	0
CARROLL	Jackson	287	23	80	34	2	129	19
CARROLL	Madison	502	37	94	148	2	178	43
CARROLL	Moulton-borough	1461	203	244	286	8	645	75
CARROLL	Ossipee	859	127	112	248	8	294	70
CARROLL	Sandwich	352	27	57	79	1	162	26
CARROLL	Tamworth	504	58	89	154	1	156	46
CARROLL	Tuftonboro	807	73	130	123	3	413	65
CARROLL	Wakefield	1010	119	126	278	7	364	116
CARROLL	Wolfeboro	2023	201	281	352	12	1066	111
CHESHIRE	Alstead	277	31	60	80	1	69	36
CHESHIRE	Chester-field	665	63	156	146	3	230	67
CHESHIRE	Dublin	396	21	106	89	5	105	70
CHESHIRE	Fitz-william	411	40	71	116	5	133	46
CHESHIRE	Gilsum	164	12	27	49	1	56	19
CHESHIRE	Harris-ville	183	11	38	66	0	62	6
CHESHIRE	Hinsdale	359	45	64	91	3	108	48
CHESHIRE	Jaffrey	1009	73	181	294	7	350	104
CHESHIRE	Keene W 5	713	56	174	122	5	284	72
CHESHIRE	Keene Wd 1	282	24	82	75	1	78	22
CHESHIRE	Keene Wd 2	508	50	122	146	5	140	45
CHESHIRE	Keene Wd 3	561	57	134	124	4	199	43
CHESHIRE	Keene Wd 4	650	74	139	158	10	205	64
CHESHIRE	Marl-borough	312	24	89	68	2	107	22
CHESHIRE	Marlow	156	8	35	43	1	38	31
CHESHIRE	Nelson	126	15	35	34	1	18	23
CHESHIRE	Richmond	254	8	37	125	0	58	26
CHESHIRE	Rindge	1312	93	169	394	6	447	203
CHESHIRE	Roxbury	42	4	9	14	0	10	5
CHESHIRE	Stoddard	286	25	51	64	0	90	56
CHESHIRE	Sullivan	123	10	20	42	3	31	17
CHESHIRE	Surry	182	14	35	36	0	71	26
CHESHIRE	Swanzey	1066	90	231	279	2	336	128
CHESHIRE	Troy	303	27	51	106	6	75	38
CHESHIRE	Walpole	622	55	168	149	5	183	62
CHESHIRE	Westmore-land	387	27	120	67	2	123	48
CHESHIRE	Winchester	408	42	61	124	5	111	65
COOS	Berlin Wd 1	210	30	37	69	0	44	30
COOS	Berlin Wd 2	231	26	35	86	1	58	25
COOS	Berlin Wd 3	315	41	44	96	0	104	30
COOS	Berlin Wd 5	168	17	27	55	2	44	23
COOS	Cam-bridge	1	0	0	1	0	0	0
COOS	Carroll	178	31	34	46	3	52	12
COOS	Clarks-ville	69	9	10	24	0	17	9
COOS	Cole-brook	388	44	64	143	3	96	38
COOS	Colum-bia	128	14	21	37	0	36	20
COOS	Dalton	182	27	30	59	1	52	13
COOS	Dixville	6	1	2	1	0	2	0
COOS	Dummer	70	6	9	28	2	13	12
COOS	Errol	72	6	7	24	1	30	4
COOS	Gorham	364	54	39	100	3	131	37
COOS	Jefferson	241	46	38	49	0	79	29
COOS	Lancaster	573	93	93	160	4	164	59
COOS	Milan	184	30	28	60	4	35	27
COOS	Millsfield	14	1	2	8	0	2	1
COOS	Northum-berland	237	31	33	86	1	61	25
COOS	Pittsburg	181	28	29	42	2	55	25
COOS	Randolph	87	12	23	16	1	33	2
COOS	Shelburne	91	13	21	12	0	35	10
COOS	Stark	98	8	7	35	1	28	19
COOS	Stewarts-town	133	15	16	57	2	25	18
COOS	Stratford	71	7	8	20	1	25	10
COOS	Wentworth's Loc	5	0	0	2	0	1	2
COOS	Whitefield	371	42	62	115	4	108	40
GRAFTON	Alexandria	374	30	55	164	1	93	31
GRAFTON	Ashland	417	49	62	137	0	134	35
GRAFTON	Bath	210	31	37	57	2	59	24
GRAFTON	Benton	64	7	3	29	0	19	6
GRAFTON	Bethlehem	414	45	89	133	4	109	34
GRAFTON	Bridge-water	294	29	59	68	4	121	13
GRAFTON	Bristol	723	58	136	185	3	284	57
GRAFTON	Campton	591	84	109	161	5	173	59
GRAFTON	Canaan	506	45	94	149	14	139	65
GRAFTON	Dorchester	84	13	12	29	0	19	11
GRAFTON	Easton	75	11	25	21	1	13	4
GRAFTON	Ellsworth	31	2	11	8	0	8	2
GRAFTON	Enfield	567	59	123	139	4	181	61
GRAFTON	Franconia	244	28	66	35	0	107	8
GRAFTON	Grafton	258	29	19	92	2	89	27
GRAFTON	Groton	122	15	19	39	5	34	10
GRAFTON	Hanover	1320	68	531	191	9	454	67
GRAFTON	Haverhill	711	87	158	173	7	192	94
GRAFTON	Hebron	214	29	50	38	3	71	23
GRAFTON	Holder-ness	496	68	117	95	7	167	42
GRAFTON	Landaff	76	7	15	17	0	31	6
GRAFTON	Lebanon Wd 1	497	46	148	80	4	161	58
GRAFTON	Lebanon Wd 2	460	35	117	97	6	161	44
GRAFTON	Lebanon Wd 3	555	60	132	130	3	168	62
GRAFTON	Lincoln	288	39	55	55	1	113	25
GRAFTON	Lisbon	225	26	34	77	2	70	16
GRAFTON	Littleton	940	158	183	246	15	253	85
GRAFTON	Lyman	99	19	14	30	0	23	13
GRAFTON	Lyme	268	12	83	55	2	90	26
GRAFTON	Monroe	185	31	37	51	2	44	20
GRAFTON	Orange	63	4	13	22	0	15	9
GRAFTON	Orford	202	14	49	35	0	84	20
GRAFTON	Piermont	130	17	34	35	2	32	10
GRAFTON	Plymouth	673	84	148	185	6	187	63
GRAFTON	Rumney	365	50	67	116	2	81	49
GRAFTON	Sugar Hill	149	20	34	44	1	46	4
GRAFTON	Thornton	471	51	105	142	1	141	31
GRAFTON	Warren	190	25	35	74	1	39	16
GRAFTON	Waterville Valley	104	12	30	13	0	41	8
GRAFTON	Wentworth	209	16	31	75	1	55	31
GRAFTON	Woodstock	262	30	42	81	3	86	20
HILLSBOROUGH	Amherst	3282	244	670	548	14	1551	255
HILLSBOROUGH	Antrim	566	50	120	185	5	153	53
HILLSBOROUGH	Bedford	6337	778	959	923	33	3142	502
HILLSBOROUGH	Bennington	292	18	33	85	20	109	27
HILLSBOROUGH	Brookline	1362	92	246	310	5	606	103
HILLSBOROUGH	Deering	393	34	74	124	4	116	41
HILLSBOROUGH	Francestown	470	25	98	121	4	169	53
HILLSBOROUGH	Goffstown	3697	402	514	938	41	1410	392
HILLSBOROUGH	Greenfield	371	28	85	111	6	105	36
HILLSBOROUGH	Greenville	290	28	28	95	0	105	34
HILLSBOROUGH	Hancock	471	31	168	83	7	156	26
HILLSBOROUGH	Hillsborough	975	72	200	307	13	290	93
HILLSBOROUGH	Hollis	2421	223	497	482	7	1021	191
HILLSBOROUGH	Hudson	4254	355	598	993	16	1910	382
HILLSBOROUGH	Litchfield	1766	157	248	348	10	826	177
HILLSBOROUGH	Lynde-borough	453	32	89	125	4	163	40
HILLSBOROUGH	Manchester 1	2100	256	403	341	10	928	162
HILLSBOROUGH	Manchester 10	1351	131	207	397	12	432	172
HILLSBOROUGH	Manchester 11	802	82	81	282	2	244	111
HILLSBOROUGH	Manchester 12	1444	185	188	337	13	547	174
HILLSBOROUGH	Manchester 2	1575	182	257	369	4	609	154
HILLSBOROUGH	Manchester 3	791	86	125	252	4	263	61
HILLSBOROUGH	Manchester 4	951	121	132	297	8	290	103
HILLSBOROUGH	Manchester 5	664	67	72	233	7	192	93
HILLSBOROUGH	Manchester 6	1696	203	244	333	8	757	151
HILLSBOROUGH	Manchester 7	1084	103	148	338	14	377	104
HILLSBOROUGH	Manchester 8	1736	215	233	370	8	722	188
HILLSBOROUGH	Manchester 9	1156	162	157	304	8	413	112
HILLSBOROUGH	Mason	388	35	62	112	8	133	38
HILLSBOROUGH	Merrimack	5671	601	854	1206	38	2448	524
HILLSBOROUGH	Milford	2888	248	487	730	24	1092	307
HILLSBOROUGH	Mont Vernon	696	60	140	148	2	273	73
HILLSBOROUGH	Nashua 1	1943	157	310	361	10	941	164
HILLSBOROUGH	Nashua 2	1547	122	246	348	11	676	144
HILLSBOROUGH	Nashua 3	1358	100	221	321	11	587	118
HILLSBOROUGH	Nashua 4	659	56	81	246	4	204	68
HILLSBOROUGH	Nashua 5	1767	133	276	351	4	844	159
HILLSBOROUGH	Nashua 6	1039	74	124	279	4	452	106
HILLSBOROUGH	Nashua 7	1100	92	175	273	7	425	128
HILLSBOROUGH	Nashua 8	1535	110	277	323	20	689	116
HILLSBOROUGH	Nashua 9	1609	147	246	326	11	744	135
HILLSBOROUGH	New Boston	1401	137	207	372	7	537	141
HILLSBOROUGH	New Ipswich	1292	69	145	447	11	418	202
HILLSBOROUGH	Pelham	2298	180	257	449	7	1241	164
HILLSBOROUGH	Peter-borough	1254	91	345	237	9	484	88
HILLSBOROUGH	Sharon	106	3	23	23	1	47	9
HILLSBOROUGH	Temple	377	37	71	92	3	139	35
HILLSBOROUGH	Weare	1923	168	274	550	13	677	241
HILLSBOROUGH	Wilton	856	61	145	263	22	274	91
HILLSBOROUGH	Windsor	50	6	7	18	1	14	4
MERRIMACK	Allenstown	680	68	78	213	5	241	75
MERRIMACK	Andover	456	58	97	132	6	128	35
MERRIMACK	Boscawen	636	61	99	207	3	200	66
MERRIMACK	Bow	2109	203	508	392	15	796	195
MERRIMACK	Bradford	403	44	69	125	3	121	41
MERRIMACK	Canterbury	604	69	197	139	2	140	57
MERRIMACK	Chichester	668	85	94	191	9	186	103
MERRIMACK	Concord 1	687	70	160	187	10	199	61
MERRIMACK	Concord 10	1159	104	308	199	8	428	112
MERRIMACK	Concord 2	645	50	120	170	2	238	65
MERRIMACK	Concord 3	460	43	115	124	3	139	36
MERRIMACK	Concord 4	584	51	147	186	3	141	56
MERRIMACK	Concord 5	870	63	288	160	1	274	84
MERRIMACK	Concord 6	396	37	84	142	6	96	31
MERRIMACK	Concord 7	731	60	194	139	5	272	61
MERRIMACK	Concord 8	631	59	113	179	4	206	70
MERRIMACK	Concord 9	527	47	93	129	8	183	67
MERRIMACK	Danbury	253	29	22	93	3	68	38
MERRIMACK	Dunbarton	826	85	149	176	4	287	125
MERRIMACK	Epsom	1033	98	171	328	3	299	134
MERRIMACK	Franklin 1	471	49	78	140	7	153	44
MERRIMACK	Franklin 2	317	29	72	101	4	84	27
MERRIMACK	Franklin 3	447	45	93	126	8	130	45
MERRIMACK	Henniker	885	73	243	239	6	242	82
MERRIMACK	Hill	235	19	41	78	0	77	20
MERRIMACK	Hooksett	2876	365	431	511	21	1214	334
MERRIMACK	Hopkinton	1433	138	395	289	4	492	115
MERRIMACK	Loudon	1161	121	192	296	7	356	189
MERRIMACK	New London	1230	114	340	153	4	552	67
MERRIMACK	Newbury	549	58	122	109	5	220	35
MERRIMACK	Northfield	858	89	157	269	19	232	92
MERRIMACK	Pembroke	1417	154	237	412	9	471	134
MERRIMACK	Pittsfield	783	80	91	261	32	213	106
MERRIMACK	Salisbury	319	31	65	99	4	94	26
MERRIMACK	Sutton	465	54	102	109	4	164	32
MERRIMACK	Warner	633	50	159	161	3	193	67
MERRIMACK	Webster	450	44	84	136	7	127	52
MERRIMACK	Wilmot	352	26	73	81	5	139	28
ROCKINGHAM	Atkinson	1861	137	249	246	4	1086	139
ROCKINGHAM	Auburn	1496	179	201	326	11	596	183
ROCKINGHAM	Brentwood	989	87	153	186	7	447	109
ROCKINGHAM	Candia	1137	137	162	289	9	407	133
ROCKINGHAM	Chester	1240	145	166	306	14	503	106
ROCKINGHAM	Danville	893	78	131	228	3	389	64
ROCKINGHAM	Deerfield	1084	129	174	279	9	380	113
ROCKINGHAM	Derry	5742	558	762	1330	36	2533	523
ROCKINGHAM	East Kingston	664	48	95	106	4	350	61
ROCKINGHAM	Epping	1170	114	174	344	9	392	137
ROCKINGHAM	Exeter	2847	211	656	569	16	1197	198
ROCKINGHAM	Fremont	971	82	122	238	2	423	104
ROCKINGHAM	Greenland	857	76	175	137	10	404	55
ROCKINGHAM	Hampstead	2277	189	401	375	13	1125	174
ROCKINGHAM	Hampton	3282	256	520	537	14	1749	206
ROCKINGHAM	Hampton Falls	747	57	118	113	3	417	39
ROCKINGHAM	Kensington	555	47	92	107	1	271	37
ROCKINGHAM	Kingston	1271	96	148	297	10	606	114
ROCKINGHAM	London-derry	5284	544	800	964	42	2448	486
ROCKINGHAM	New Castle	366	34	87	38	6	190	11
ROCKINGHAM	Newfields	484	54	97	92	2	205	34
ROCKINGHAM	Newing-ton	251	22	44	43	2	112	28
ROCKINGHAM	New-market	1508	124	322	425	8	513	116
ROCKINGHAM	Newton	779	55	90	186	3	393	52
ROCKINGHAM	North Hampton	1107	74	206	178	5	574	70
ROCKINGHAM	North-wood	957	82	138	297	3	313	124
ROCKINGHAM	Notting-ham	1016	136	167	240	6	344	123
ROCKINGHAM	Plaistow	1474	97	188	287	2	790	110
ROCKINGHAM	Portsmouth 1	421	33	107	93	2	151	35
ROCKINGHAM	Portsmouth 2	583	39	132	144	7	228	33
ROCKINGHAM	Portsmouth 3	339	31	76	76	0	128	28
ROCKINGHAM	Portsmouth 4	834	78	162	178	4	371	41
ROCKINGHAM	Portsmouth 5	721	49	211	131	3	306	21
ROCKINGHAM	Raymond	1883	192	220	581	15	683	192
ROCKINGHAM	Rye	1462	109	270	181	8	789	105
ROCKINGHAM	Salem	5269	434	520	937	27	2974	377
ROCKINGHAM	Sandown	1305	111	157	328	7	598	104
ROCKINGHAM	Seabrook	1209	107	120	247	10	634	91
ROCKINGHAM	South Hampton	213	14	31	39	6	110	13
ROCKINGHAM	Stratham	1868	131	394	281	7	957	98
ROCKINGHAM	Windham	3449	251	425	569	12	1968	224
STRAFFORD	Barrington	1551	144	262	400	6	504	235
STRAFFORD	Dover 1	477	47	80	165	1	140	44
STRAFFORD	Dover 2	524	43	117	139	2	178	45
STRAFFORD	Dover 3	986	96	204	174	7	420	85
STRAFFORD	Dover 4	788	58	156	162	3	325	84
STRAFFORD	Dover 5	674	63	141	138	3	265	64
STRAFFORD	Dover 6	768	62	139	167	3	326	71
STRAFFORD	Durham	1071	62	296	219	1	437	56
STRAFFORD	Farm-ington	873	112	83	245	7	273	153
STRAFFORD	Lee	776	54	171	190	4	278	79
STRAFFORD	Madbury	382	26	90	82	3	139	42
STRAFFORD	Middleton	309	17	41	102	5	108	36
STRAFFORD	Milton	766	80	83	232	9	240	122
STRAFFORD	New Durham	622	47	87	193	2	226	67
STRAFFORD	Rochester 1	760	69	104	198	6	253	130
STRAFFORD	Rochester 2	889	89	122	192	9	345	132
STRAFFORD	Rochester 3	760	84	109	192	6	252	117
STRAFFORD	Rochester 4	590	35	74	161	5	223	92
STRAFFORD	Rochester 5	688	64	92	176	4	267	85
STRAFFORD	Rochester 6	562	39	59	160	6	203	95
STRAFFORD	Rollinsford	462	40	85	96	5	188	48
STRAFFORD	Somersworth 1	329	25	35	69	5	149	46
STRAFFORD	Somersworth 2	260	26	36	77	1	67	53
STRAFFORD	Somersworth 3	268	20	45	79	1	90	33
STRAFFORD	Somersworth 4	243	22	39	74	2	71	35
STRAFFORD	Somersworth 5	142	11	19	45	3	44	20
STRAFFORD	Strafford	901	95	139	235	14	272	146
SULLIVAN	Acworth	201	17	45	64	3	48	24
SULLIVAN	Charlestown	623	86	115	168	6	152	96
SULLIVAN	Claremont 1	439	53	82	140	3	96	65
SULLIVAN	Claremont 2	636	98	139	132	5	173	89
SULLIVAN	Claremont 3	474	63	101	128	4	122	56
SULLIVAN	Cornish	250	30	63	59	1	68	29
SULLIVAN	Croydon	183	12	30	63	7	58	13
SULLIVAN	Goshen	154	22	38	43	0	35	16
SULLIVAN	Grantham	728	84	202	123	8	256	55
SULLIVAN	Langdon	134	17	27	34	1	41	14
SULLIVAN	Lemspter	223	21	37	66	5	70	24
SULLIVAN	Newport	969	109	220	251	12	262	115
SULLIVAN	Plainfield	376	35	98	85	5	106	47
SULLIVAN	Springfield	295	24	66	80	1	98	26
SULLIVAN	Sunapee	888	86	182	182	4	342	92
SULLIVAN	Unity	244	34	51	59	2	68	30
SULLIVAN	Washington	259	28	48	64	4	86	29

----------


## Liberty1789

> i know the data is meaningless from a statistical standpoint, but when presenting a map of SC counties and having some 'blank', it makes the map look suspect.  As in, why aren't these mentioned?   It requires prior knowledge to know they simply aren't statistically important.


Gimme the list of the missing charts. I'll post them for you.

----------


## bbwarfield

> Does it work like this? Copy/Paste into txt file then import using From Text in Data menu tab in Excel. Should do the trick. Cannot see how to attach a txt file here.


useing a free dropbox account is probably the best way to share things on here

then you can just share the public link to the items in the public folder
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/63863033/scprecinctsall2008.xls

this way people can get the exact same document with out haveing to fiddle with it to make sure everything imported correctly

----------


## Liberty1789

A little preamble to the next post.

I need to make sure that the difference between cumulative share of votes and non-cumulative share of votes is extra clear.

I want as well to show what is the implication of a cumulative share of votes going up in a straight line, a striking, constant feature of Romney's score.

Let's take a basic example: a county of 1,000 people that we split into 10 equally populated deciles. Let's start with a 10% score for a candidate in decile 1 and let's grow his cumulative score to 20% by the time we reach the last decile.



Easy counting gives us what his share of votes in each decile must be to get there. By decile 10, the candidate needs to score 30%, 3 times what he was scoring in decile 1. A simple equation explains the relationship here:

Vote Share per Precint = 2 x Cumulative Vote Share - 10%

Vote Share per Precinct must grow at twice the rate of growth of the Cumulative Vote Share, precinct after precinct.

In a real world, I would strongly argue that this is impossible to do systematically. By the time you have counted 80-90% of the votes, poll science tells us that you have an extremely strong predictor of the final result. The more you count, the less you deviate. For Romney's share of votes, the more you count, the same you deviate.

Enviable magic... Like Salomon, it's probably in the hair...

----------


## milo10

Do you know who would be exceptionally interested in this question?  Other countries.

If you could get this in front of the right people, you could have a whole team of mathematicians from Russia or China studying this from every possible angle, and doing virtually bulletproof probability studies in terms of fraud.  While those two nations stand out in the political interest they would have in this topic, people around the world will be intrigued by this.  This story has to go international.

I think maybe getting an initial study out there with all of the raw data, and then emailing mathematics departments at universities around the world to see where they can go with it.

Btw, I am so grateful to all the people who are involved in this.  If this is true, it will be one of the greatest scandals in modern history.

----------


## bbwarfield

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/63863033/NVG...esults-All.xls

all precincts for the NV Gop primary 2012..... this is a exccel version of the pdf. already shared on the forum.... I OCRd it and converted to excel.... so it is 99.99% correct... the ocr is pretty good with pdfs made in the last 5 years so im not worried (it can even do typewriting from the 20's with high 80 % accuracy) so just that caveat...

----------


## affa

> Gimme the list of the missing charts. I'll post them for you.


Pickens, Greenwood,  Aiken, Barnwell, Florence, Clarendon, Williamsburg, Berkeley, Dorchester

like i said, not many at all.  i assume based on population none were flipped due to not satisfying the criteria for it.

----------


## Liberty1789

Back to South Carolina...

Let me explain the column headers of the table below.



In each county, I have looked at the chart searching for the part where Romney's line turns into a straight, smooth segment. As you can see, most of the time, it starts around 30% and goes all the way to 100%.

Then Number of Observations gives you how many data points are in the segments. The more, the merrier: the stats become more reliable. The table cuts off at 15 observations.

Then there is a statistical detector of vote flip: Slope Std Dev. This is the standard deviation of the slopes of the 4 candidates line segment, matching to start and end point of Romney's. The 4 slope numbers are provided in the 4 next columns. If the detector's cell is blue, the chart lines are slopy. Vote flipping alert!

Let's take Richland. Romney goes straight and smooth as soon as 10%, all the way to 100%.  76 observations, very cool. Slope STd Dev. is big and blue: something fishy is going on. Wow: the slope of Romney's line is 9%.

I say wow because *the segment's slope is a straight read across for the rate at which the percentage of cumulative votes is flipped.*

(And remember the previous post: if the cumulative flips 9%, the non cumulative is flipping 1.5 to 2 times more...)

Now Richland is spectacular because all the flip comes from Paul. Yep: 9% flip rate. The votes are flipped from 10% to 100% deciles, so 9% x (100%-10%) = 8% of the county ballot was transfered right here.

Look at Horry: all the flip from Gingrich. York : all from Santorum.

How Romney can take all his extra share of votes from a sole candidate in a county is already hard to rationalize. But have binary switches on/off like that county after county??

You might have noticed by now that only Romney get green squares (positive slopes). Wonder boy.

Now what the last 4 columns are about**: how smooth and straight are the segments. As discussed before, it illustrates than something happens to the "white noise" once the numbers are processed by the algorithm.

I need a drink while you debunk.

----------


## kathy88

> Do you know who would be exceptionally interested in this question?  Other countries.
> 
> If you could get this in front of the right people, you could have a whole team of mathematicians from Russia or China studying this from every possible angle, and doing virtually bulletproof probability studies in terms of fraud.  While those two nations stand out in the political interest they would have in this topic, people around the world will be intrigued by this.  This story has to go international.
> 
> I think maybe getting an initial study out there with all of the raw data, and then emailing mathematics departments at universities around the world to see where they can go with it.
> 
> Btw, I am so grateful to all the people who are involved in this.  If this is true, it will be one of the greatest scandals in modern history.


Ummm..... never mind

----------


## Mark37snj

> Do you know who would be exceptionally interested in this question?  Other countries.
> 
> If you could get this in front of the right people, you could have a whole team of mathematicians from *Russia* or *China* studying this from every possible angle, and doing virtually bulletproof probability studies in terms of fraud.  While those two nations stand out in the political interest they would have in this topic, people around the world will be intrigued by this.  This story has to go international.


Ain't no way were gona touch that with a 10' pole. You would probably get labeled as a terrorists and end up in Gitmo. 




> I think maybe getting an initial study out there with all of the raw data, and then emailing mathematics departments at universities around the world to see where they can go with it.


This will probably be part of the "Making it go Viral" strategy.

----------


## Captain Shays

> Do you know who would be exceptionally interested in this question?  Other countries.
> 
> If you could get this in front of the right people, you could have a whole team of mathematicians from Russia or China studying this from every possible angle, and doing virtually bulletproof probability studies in terms of fraud.  While those two nations stand out in the political interest they would have in this topic, people around the world will be intrigued by this.  This story has to go international.
> 
> I think maybe getting an initial study out there with all of the raw data, and then emailing mathematics departments at universities around the world to see where they can go with it.
> 
> Btw, I am so grateful to all the people who are involved in this.  If this is true, it will be one of the greatest scandals in modern history.



THIS with nothing to ad. Every word. Spot on

----------


## Liberty1789

> Pickens, Greenwood,  Aiken, Barnwell, Florence, Clarendon, Williamsburg, Berkeley, Dorchester
> 
> like i said, not many at all.  i assume based on population none were flipped due to not satisfying the criteria for it.


I would say Aiken flipped, aggressively in the last 20% with a cute hinge point, Florence suspect. The rest probably clean. The surge in Clarendon is only with 3 data points, so probably fortuitous.

----------


## Mark37snj

> THIS with nothing to ad. Every word. Spot on


Once we get the professional statistical study done in America with a reputable company we can send it to most countries, every major news outlet worldwide, every House of Representative, Senators, Governer, state Attorney General, universities, etc. But I would strongly advise against some foreign entity being responsible for breaking this. It would instantly cloud the issue, taint it, heck Romeny will probably use it to help him win the election by saying foreign interests are trying to stop him. They have already blasted Super-Pacs saying they leave the door open for foreign interests to influence/buy our elections, the MSM will pump this nite and day especially if its a country that is communist or has any _issues_. They would probably link it to their opposition of war against Iran. This is a tempest in a tea cup.

----------


## bbwarfield

> I need a drink while you debunk.


If we ever meet... ill buy you one! 

This is astounding....

If im not mistaken usually the "winner" (ie newt) would be the bennificiary to the positive if there we saw these in "nature" but yet he makes not ganes on these things unless the precincts are too small to adequatly flip? is this what I am understanding correctly?

----------


## Liberty1789

Very, very good point.

After studying IA, NH and NV, I was wondering: are we just looking at a weird halo/winner effect? The winner is just vampirizing other contenders in the strangest of ways. Well, we can put that one to rest: despite a landslide victory Newt did not "vampirize" a single county. Meanwhile, Romney...

This is just beyond me... unless, of course, an algorithm is at work...

----------


## bbwarfield

> Very, very good point.
> 
> After studying IA, NH and NV, I was wondering: are we just looking at a weird halo/winner effect? The winner is just vampirizing other contenders in the strangest of ways. Well, we can put that one to rest: despite a landslide victory Newt did not "vampirize" a single county. Meanwhile, Romney...
> 
> This is just beyond me... unless, of course, an algorithm is at work...


your probly well aware on my thoughts on this.... but I think your work on South Carolina will help root out the algorithm the best'

South Carolina is the only one analyzed that used a completely electronic system. The algorithm would be seen in the purest form here. New Hampshire would show it in a hodge podge according to were the perpetrators felt comfortable/the machines were used..... florida the same

Iowa and Nevada got there own funky thing going... but South Carolina is purely controlled by the elctronic voting machine and therefore is a great place for the investigators to start then prove in NH and FL.

----------


## bbwarfield

> Very, very good point.
> 
> After studying IA, NH and NV, I was wondering: are we just looking at a weird halo/winner effect? The winner is just vampirizing other contenders in the strangest of ways. Well, we can put that one to rest: despite a landslide victory Newt did not "vampirize" a single county. Meanwhile, Romney...


I think you hit the nail right on the head. these other states Romney won {tied in Iowa since 8 friggin precincts went missing} and if this "vampirism" was natural.... thats exactly what you would see.... south carolina though? he was pummeled by Newt. Newt should recieve these siphonings if its "natural" 

I would like to see... and may have to do this on my own.... but a graph showing NH with machine tabulated precincts vs. hand counted precincts..... I think you will see massive vote flipping once hand counted are removed from the equation...

----------


## The Man

Excellent analysis Liberty1789. I want to voice some observations:
1. The "t stat" column is of the utmost interest to me. To anyone reading this, the higher the t stat, the more "smooth" the line. Liberty1789 discovered that in the counties where there were "suspicious" gains and losses from low to high vote total precincts, the graphs of the Receiver (Romney) and the donor(RP, NG or RS) takes on a unnaturally smooth characteristic, evidenced by a high "t stat". He believes this to be the "electronic fingerprint" of the manipulators. The fact that this "t stat" smoothness measurement so closely correlates with the suspicious areas is astounding to me. Assuming an honest fair election, I would have expected just the opposite: As Romney's percentage suddenly begins to change, the data should actually become more erratic not less. To me, the mere chance that a high "t stat" score would directly correlate with a candididate's picking up vote percentage is "ridiculous". 
2. It's time for someone to release a followup to the original report. Maybe the title should be "A Statistical Analyst's Attempt to Debunk Reports of Electronic Vote Manipulation in the 2012 GOP Presidential Preference Election "? The release is time sensitive! The author can be anonymous.
3. I fully anticipate that there will be debunkers that will call this report nonsense that can be attributed to demographics. There IS only one DEMOGRAPHIC that is related to Romney's vote receiving percentage in the 2012 GOP Presidential Preference Primary. That demographic is THE NUMBER OF VOTES AT EACH PRECINCT!

----------


## cachemaster

> Excellent analysis Liberty1789. I want to voice some observations:
> 1. The "t stat" column is of the utmost interest to me. To anyone reading this, the higher the t stat, the more "smooth" the line. Liberty1789 discovered that in the counties where there were "suspicious" gains and losses from low to high vote total precincts, the graphs of the Receiver (Romney) and the donor(RP, NG or RS) takes on a unnaturally smooth characteristic, evidenced by a high "t stat". He believes this to be the "electronic fingerprint" of the manipulators. The fact that this "t stat" smoothness measurement so closely correlates with the suspicious areas is astounding to me. Assuming an honest fair election, I would have expected just the opposite: As Romney's percentage suddenly begins to change, the data should actually become more erratic not less. To me, the mere chance that a high "t stat" score would directly correlate with a candididate's picking up vote percentage is "ridiculous". 
> 2. It's time for someone to release a followup to the original report. Maybe the title should be "A Statistical Analyst's Attempt to Debunk Reports of Electronic Vote Manipulation in the 2012 GOP Presidential Preference Election "? The release is time sensitive! The author can be anonymous.
> 3. I fully anticipate that there will be debunkers that will call this report nonsense that can be attributed to demographics. There IS only one DEMOGRAPHIC that is related to Romney's vote receiving percentage in the 2012 GOP Presidential Preference Primary. That demographic is THE NUMBER OF VOTES AT EACH PRECINCT!


When this is released debunkers from Romney camp among others will come full swinging at us. We need to be prepared to defend the stats and have proper debunks for their debunks.

----------


## affa

> 3. I fully anticipate that there will be debunkers that will call this report nonsense that can be attributed to demographics. There IS only one DEMOGRAPHIC that is related to Romney's vote receiving percentage in the 2012 GOP Presidential Preference Primary. That demographic is THE NUMBER OF VOTES AT EACH PRECINCT!


All debunk attempts so far boil down to 'demographics' and all fall flat.  The future report must spend an inordinate amount of time showing exactly why demographics can not explain these anomalies.

----------


## Liberty1789

> Excellent analysis Liberty1789. I want to voice some observations: There IS only one DEMOGRAPHIC that is related to Romney's vote receiving percentage in the 2012 GOP Presidential Preference Primary. That demographic is THE NUMBER OF VOTES AT EACH PRECINCT!


I am sure that you did not mean number of votes but % of total votes cast, right? 

I have included the t-stat as per your kind request. 

It measures a sort of standardized "wobbliness" of the slope. And here the numbers show that there no wobbliness whatsoever, which is amazing indeed. It completely violates poll science, a mathematical law of gravity!

To give an simple illustration. Take an urn with 10 red or black balls in it and your are trying to estimate the proportion of each. Normally, after having drawn 9 balls, you have a pretty good estimate of what the final proportion will be, right? Your interval of confidence is very narrow by now: 1 ball left to guess out of 10, so the final proportion can only move by 10% from the number after having drawn 9 balls. What Romney's numbers show is that your are no better guessing at 90% than at 50% what his final score will be. WHAT ??????????

----------


## cjm

> All debunk attempts so far boil down to 'demographics' and all fall flat.  The future report must spend an inordinate amount of time showing exactly why demographics can not explain these anomalies.


The original report had projections based on low turnout precincts. Those projections did not follow proper statistical methodology based on cluster sampling which depends on demographics. As long as projections are left out of a new report, I think everything else is fine with the caveat that I'm taking the high level statistics at face value and cannot confirm them myself.  If the plot itself is non-random and algorithmically smooth, and proves vote tampering, let's not muddy the waters with projections.

----------


## The Man

OK- yes Liberty1789 you are right... again.

----------


## affa

is it worth sussing out an outline of the report here?    That is, define sections, sequence, and scope of the report for peer review?

----------


## bbwarfield

> is it worth sussing out an outline of the report here?    That is, define sections, sequence, and scope of the report for peer review?


probably best to let the people who crunched the numbers do it over private messages and offer it on here later.... unfortuantely people like me would start complaining about them not following rhetorical style and other stuff ..... id probably have to resort to far side comics again

----------


## affa

demographics by county for South Carolina

Greenville breakdown
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/45/45045.html

there is a tab in the upper left that lets you switch counties.   you can also 'browse data sets' by county.

info on housing, education, income, race, more.

Liberty/The Man -- can you think of a way to chart votes by county against these demographics to prove demographics aren't at work?  perhaps for each demographic, show all counties by candidate? not sure how.  or does this only muddy the waters? 
(note - i don't think demographics can ever explain what we're seeing... but perhaps we can use census data to prove it)

----------


## bbwarfield

> demographics by county for South Carolina
> 
> Greenville breakdown
> http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/45/45045.html
> 
> there is a tab in the upper left that lets you switch counties.   you can also 'browse data sets' by county.
> 
> info on housing, education, income, race, more.
> 
> ...


the amount of demographics would be astronomical.... the ethnic background seems to have no sway from what ive already looked up (and posted articles on) 

wealth is the one thing that MAY... repeat MAY show some correlation.....


but the last chart liberty showed and the way it proves the unnaturalness of Romneys siphoning.... i think the demographics is become a moot point.... possibly look at three counties to see if the wealth demographic explained any of it......  but i think creating such a chart would be fruitless if a sample is done that proves the wealth demographic was not the issue

----------


## bcreps85

> wealth is the one thing that MAY... repeat MAY show some correlation.....


One thing I read on Maine did suggest that many of Romney's votes were from the 5 richest counties, so you are correct that someone may find some correlation here, though I doubt it will be enough to actually disprove the original hypothesis.  There just aren't that many "one percenters"...they can't make up a significant enough voting block to be the explanation for this, IMHO.

----------


## bbwarfield

> One thing I read on Maine did suggest that many of Romney's votes were from the 5 richest counties, so you are correct that someone may find some correlation here, though I doubt it will be enough to actually disprove the original hypothesis.  There just aren't that many "one percenters"...they can't make up a significant enough voting block to be the explanation for this, IMHO.


1% probably not.... but there are alot of places with people making over 200,000 a year.... wich tend toward Romney according to available data. Theres an instance of one precinct wich is almost all 200,000 plus (kinda like a lake district) so while wealth could be a factor it wouldnt create these smooth lines and siphoning systems (In Greenville I have personal knowledge that most of the 1% went to Newt... the whose whys and hows of that are privledged information coming from my job) 

im big on data sets being similar/well defined..... south carolina really has only two demographics at play (race/income) race is a dead end as less than 3% of minorities made up the vote in the primary.... wealth could be (but probably is not) a factor ....

So maybe some random sampling.... but no need for full scale search with the demographics in sc.... unless the sampling shows it has a chance of being a debunk

----------


## affa

> So maybe some random sampling.... but no need for full scale search with the demographics in sc.... unless the sampling shows it has a chance of being a debunk


my point was more to 'pre-dunk potential debunks' than anything else.  I have posted here before that I think demographics causing a 1:1 flip is astronomically unlikely in one precinct, let alone multiple.  but if someone can come up with a way to quickly show that, say, race, education, and wealth (based on these numbers) do not explain it, we close that argument up forever.  I do not know what charts would be needed to show this, however.

----------


## bbwarfield

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/sc

this would prove race had nothing to do with it.... 

education a little

wealth a little

age is a good possibility i didnt think of......

----------


## Danan

> http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/sc
> 
> this would prove race had nothing to do with it.... 
> 
> education a little
> 
> wealth a little
> 
> age is a good possibility i didnt think of......


Hm. Shouldn't the average age go down with increasing precinct size? Romney does better with older folks than with younger ones. And at least where I live younger people tend to move away from rural areas to the cities.

----------


## cjm

> the amount of demographics would be astronomical.... the ethnic background seems to have no sway from what ive already looked up (and posted articles on) 
> 
> wealth is the one thing that MAY... repeat MAY show some correlation.....
> 
> 
> but the last chart liberty showed and the way it proves the unnaturalness of Romneys siphoning.... i think the demographics is become a moot point....


^this.




> possibly look at three counties....


^not this 




> (note - i don't think demographics can ever explain what we're seeing...


affa, it may surprise you a bit given my posts on this thread (I don't think I've worded them as carefully as I could), but I agree with this statement 100%.  I have already admitted that I was confused about the separate arguments for fraud (projections vs. smoothing), and since Liberty took the time to explain the results of his statistical analysis (thanks again, Liberty), I see that demographics is not an issue when we see an algorithmically smoothed curve -- a moot point, as bbwarfield says.  I agree completely.

But, if someone issues a 300 page report on this statistical analysis without ever mentioning the word "demographics," but at the end says, "demographics can't explain this," then all will be for naught.  This has nothing to do about being right or wrong, it's about argumentation, red herrings, and human nature.  You've seen dozens of examples on this thread alone.  That one statement that says, "demographics can't explain this" without an actual demographic analysis to back it up, opens the door for discussions on demographics.  Personally, I strongly advise not going there.

Has anyone ever written an email at work or with some organization where a solidly crafted case was made for one item, and a few comments were added to editorialize?  How many times do your adversaries respond to the solidly crafted case?  Never.  They pick one of the editorial comments and ignore the rest.  Remember that we're not dealing with the scientific community here, this is politics.  Whatever is put out needs to stay focused and be rock solid.  I think the work will stand up to any demographic challenges, but until we're ready to perform that analysis, "we think" is all we can say.  To which the establishment response will be, "They make a good case for suspicious activity, but never performed the demographic analysis to back up their claims."  If demographics is a moot point, which I think it is, it's not worth mentioning at all.  Heck, increased variety in the demographics should _increase_ the randomness of the plots, right?  But until we've done the work, "should increase" is all we can say and the detractors will run with it.

Maybe I'm just paranoid or overly cautious.  But my recommendation to the report generators is to stick with the non-randomness of the plots and focus on SC.  If anyone is adamant about other states, make them separate reports so that they can each stand on their own.

I'm sure my posts on this thread have annoyed some of you from time to time, I appreciate you taking the time to read them.  Honestly, I'm on your side in this.

----------


## cjm

> Hm. Shouldn't the average age go down with increasing precinct size? Romney does better with older folks than with younger ones. And at least where I live younger people tend to move away from rural areas to the cities.


Depends on the area.  Where I live, younger people are drawn to the cities, but those cities are heavily Democrat.  Some precincts have turnouts of 10-15 people in the 2008 Republican primary, so they are much "smaller" than the "larger" (higher turnout) precincts on the outskirts of town that are more rural and more Republican.  You can probably classify each case, but each case within a classification will still be fairly unique.

----------


## affa

> But, if someone issues a 300 page report on this statistical analysis without ever mentioning the word "demographics," but at the end says, "demographics can't explain this," then all will be for naught.  This has nothing to do about being right or wrong, it's about argumentation, red herrings, and human nature.  You've seen dozens of examples on this thread alone.  That one statement that says, "demographics can't explain this" without an actual demographic analysis to back it up, opens the door for discussions on demographics.  Personally, I strongly advise not going there.


I do understand where you're coming from, but I think you're incorrect in thinking that if we discuss 'demographics' it opens the door to discussions.   Why?  I think that door is wide open to begin with.   It's the 'go to' explanation for people who haven't took the time to read through this thread, and it will be the go to explanation for those who skim the report without understanding it. 

That's why I think it needs to be addressed, and debunked as a potential explanation.   I put up the census information in case someone can come up with a way to debunk it statistically, though I believe it can be logically debunked as well.   

But I do not think simply not mentioning it will make the problem go away; in fact, I think it makes the report easier to dismiss (oh, they didn't take demographics into consideration)... when in fact, we did discuss demographics to death and the charts, once understood, dismiss demographics as a cause.

----------


## bbwarfield

[QUOTE=cjm;4224887Has anyone ever crafted an email at work or with some organization where a solidly crafted case was made for one item, and a few comments were added to editorialize?  How many times do your adversaries respond to the solidly crafted case?  Never.  They pick one of the editorial comments and ignore the rest. .[/QUOTE]

This....



Im not suggesting including the three county random check in the report.... just for the sake of "due diligence" so we know we did it.... and to appease those who want it all checked... at least do some random sampling


okay... now this is gonna sound COMPLETELY ridiculous... but hear me out.

Many of you remember there was a "exit polling" companny ( named ccap or something) that came out with completely ridiculous numbers that were no where near the end total... the company had a good sounding system to come up with the numbers and it all looked scientific (except the numbers always being in youtube slide shows) now..... the MSM exit polls match the final numbers constantly. 

Maybe this polling place actually was right? maybe the vote flipping actually is the reason they looked like pro-paul coocs? if we unflipped them and suddenly they are all within the margin of error of this group that tried to do an accurate number apart from media bias..... most places called it fraud..... but maybe unflipping the vote may prove them to be honest brokers that just have cruddy web design?

----------


## cjm

> That's why I think it needs to be addressed, and debunked as a potential explanation.   I put up the census information in case someone can come up with a way to debunk it statistically, though I believe it can be logically debunked as well.


Fair enough.  Reasonable people can agree to disagree on matters of opinion -- and just to clarify, I mean the opinion whether to address this in a report or let it be.

----------


## bbwarfield

> Fair enough.  Reasonable people can agree to disagree on matters of opinion -- and just to clarify, I mean the opinion whether to address this in a report or let it be.


unfortunately for most people on this forum..... i am not "reasonable"

----------


## cjm

> Many of you remember there was a "exit polling" companny ( named ccap or something)....


I remember them.  I went to track down some of their information recently and the youtube clips that I found had been pulled for SC.  YMMV.

----------


## bbwarfield

> I remember them.  I went to track down some of their information recently and the youtube clips that I found had been pulled for SC.  YMMV.


your right.... BUT (and there always is one with me) in comes daily paul and they have it written down with some people ommenting on various aspects of them http://www.dailypaul.com/206718/earl...second-with-26

paul in second at 26% actually sounds like the real number for south carolina

----------


## Barrex

I have been following this thread from the day it was created and now we are close to 100th page.
*First* I want to thanks all of you who contributed and are doing an amazing work.
*Second* and more important now is that it is time to move onto *next step*. Compile all data and all findings in 1 document (preferably google document so everyone can download it and analyze it). Liberty1789, The Man etc. This is your job . Get on chat and arrange this.
*Third* post it in a new thread for all to try to find mistakes and debunk.
*Forthy* send it to professionals; contact RevPac and others and prepare to release it to media and public.


I know that we must be careful but time is not on our side.

----------


## cjm

> unfortunately for most people on this forum..... i am not "reasonable" :rolleyes:


And I can see where a reasonable person can come to that conclusion. ;)

Loosely related to unreasonableness, seeing as we're nearing 1000 posts, if this thread falls short, I'm going to find the lorem ipsum generator for demographics and methodology and just post until we break the thousand mark.

----------


## bbwarfield

http://cpctcss.org/Mission.html according to this they may be short on funding and credibility.... but they are on our side... and there polls were taken (according to them) exactly for people like us (by us i mean liberty and the man) to prove them right about election fraud

----------


## affa

well, given that we're all pretty confident this is a blatant case of election fraud, that tells us many things:

1) we do go out and vote
2) Romney is being rejected wholesale by the people
3) Ron Paul is doing quite well, doesn't have a 'ceiling'
4) Gingrich and Santorum are either 'in the know' or will be similarly furious when this is outed
5) as many of us suspected, there is widespread election fraud in the US

I mean, this really just rewrites this election cycle.

----------


## bbwarfield

wow.... no wonder we cant get honest exit poll data. Were you aware its a monopoly? There is only one company that does exit polls used by all networks and very large percentage of there associated newspapers (ap supplies for newspapers in most cases and they only recieve exit polls from this company)

Edison Research

there ARE no other exit poll companies

----------


## chri5opher

//

----------


## splanky

So file $#@!ing charges already!

----------


## The Man

I am not the best person to author the final report. It has to originate from a source independent of me and the first report. I will help facilitate it but the author's credentials should demand credibility. So far, the analyst here in SC hasn't confirmed that he is going to participate. His credentials are impressive though. Liberty1789 is a better candidate than me.  


> Liberty, the Man, inter alia:
> 
> I know you guys are working hard and doing an amazing job, but how long do you think before we can get a 'final', single document which we can then send to professionals and whoever else for vetting? I assume once this step is completed (assuming no one is able to debunk your work so to speak) we can then forward this to journalists to take this to the next level.

----------


## bbwarfield

> So file $#@!ing charges already!


Senator Thomas Jordan: And you bring me rumors and conjecture.
Ben Marco: I started with nightmares. Rumors, conjectures, that's a giant leap forward. 

wish i could find the clip but this quote from manchurian candidate came to mind ; )

----------


## milo10

> Once we get the professional statistical study done in America with a reputable company we can send it to most countries, every major news outlet worldwide, every House of Representative, Senators, Governer, state Attorney General, universities, etc. But I would strongly advise against some foreign entity being responsible for breaking this. It would instantly cloud the issue, taint it, heck Romeny will probably use it to help him win the election by saying foreign interests are trying to stop him. They have already blasted Super-Pacs saying they leave the door open for foreign interests to influence/buy our elections, the MSM will pump this nite and day especially if its a country that is communist or has any _issues_. They would probably link it to their opposition of war against Iran. This is a tempest in a tea cup.


My point wasn't that they should break it, but rather that this is a news matter that is a *major* international story.  Election improprieties are a very big deal in the international community, as they serve to delegitimize a government.  It would not surprise me in the slightest if this was basically ignored in the United States for a few weeks, other than Ben Swann and maybe some stuff on Rachel Maddow, Democracy Now, and so forth, while it is being covered heavily in places like the Middle East, Taiwan, Eastern Europe, and so forth.

I mentioned China and Russia as two countries that are mostly independent from U.S. global hegemony, and have a large number of very skilled mathematicians.  If our concerns are valid, they could put together an exhaustive report on this topic that could head off every possible objection.  But if the mention of those two countries sparks any concern, then there are many outlets for this.

----------


## Mark37snj

> My point wasn't that they should break it, but rather that this is a news matter that is a *major* international story.  Election improprieties are a very big deal in the international community, as they serve to delegitimize a government.  It would not surprise me in the slightest if this was basically ignored in the United States for a few weeks, other than Ben Swann and maybe some stuff on Rachel Maddow, Democracy Now, and so forth, while it is being covered heavily in places like the Middle East, Taiwan, Eastern Europe, and so forth.
> 
> I mentioned China and Russia as two countries that are mostly independent from U.S. global hegemony, and have a large number of very skilled mathematicians.  If our concerns are valid, they could put together an exhaustive report on this topic that could head off every possible objection.  But if the mention of those two countries sparks any concern, then there are many outlets for this.


I think were on the same page, just making different points. The international community may have a role to play but it should be a supporting role not a lead role. Their participation will help but I personally prefer America takes care of her own business herself if possible. Releasing the information here first will serve several purposes. It will show us who is definately on our side. It's one thing to tow the party line, it's another thing to remain silent or participate in a coverup of a crime of this magnitude. If the media ignores it, then when it does finally break and Americans finally get full wind of this it will further serve to increase their outrage to an appropriate level. This is where the international community would help. The MSM is a serious problem in this country. If they ignore and suppress a story of this magnitude the backlash against the MSM for participating in this voter fraud and coverup will help us in dealing with them. Giving them enough rope to hang themselves is an appropriate metaphor. The MSM, our Goverment, politicians, law enforcement, all will be outed and exposed to the public if they don't support us.

----------


## Hospitaller

bump

----------


## affa

> I am not the best person to author the final report. It has to originate from a source independent of me and the first report. I will help facilitate it but the author's credentials should demand credibility. So far, the analyst here in SC hasn't confirmed that he is going to participate. His credentials are impressive though. Liberty1789 is a better candidate than me.


We need to determine who is writing this report else we risk losing momentum.

----------


## rb3b3

WOW!!!!! i have been a frequent everyday visitor of ron paul forums for the last 6 months, and i have always skipped over this thread simply because of the title of it.... i guess i was tired of all the vote fraud stuff with just heresay even though i think we ALL know vote fraud is taking place... Boy oh boy am i glad i clicked on this thread last night. I stayed up until 3 a.m. reading every post in this thread!! although i have no idea about stats, it sure does seem that liberty and the man surely know what the heck they are talking about!!! GREAT WORK EVERYONE!!!!! i cant wait to see what happens with this!!!!!

----------


## bbwarfield

> WOW!!!!! i have been a frequent everyday visitor of ron paul forums for the last 6 months, and i have always skipped over this thread simply because of the title of it.... i guess i was tired of all the vote fraud stuff with just heresay even though i think we ALL know vote fraud is taking place... Boy oh boy am i glad i clicked on this thread last night. I stayed up until 3 a.m. reading every post in this thread!! although i have no idea about stats, it sure does seem that liberty and the man surely know what the heck they are talking about!!! GREAT WORK EVERYONE!!!!! i cant wait to see what happens with this!!!!!


+rep for being a late comer and still reading the whole thing!

----------


## affa

> WOW!!!!! i have been a frequent everyday visitor of ron paul forums for the last 6 months, and i have always skipped over this thread simply because of the title of it.... i guess i was tired of all the vote fraud stuff with just heresay even though i think we ALL know vote fraud is taking place... Boy oh boy am i glad i clicked on this thread last night. I stayed up until 3 a.m. reading every post in this thread!! although i have no idea about stats, it sure does seem that liberty and the man surely know what the heck they are talking about!!! GREAT WORK EVERYONE!!!!! i cant wait to see what happens with this!!!!!


awesome!  i do think this thread is so long at this point it would be offputting to those who didn't start reading it early.   which is why i think we're ready for a new report to consolidate all findings, at which point we can start a new thread.

----------


## arsenius

I've been putting off posting to this thread, since I don't have the ability to do any analysis myself, but I've been reading it incessantly!

I really think it's important to get this out as soon as possible, given the fact that there is only another week before Super Tuesday.  Any third party verification will also take time, and then assuming there is a story (which there certainly seems to be!), it will take time to break.  Has there been any contact with a PAC yet, or anyone that can take this to the next level?  It sounds like there are a couple professionals who "might be interested" but it seems like this is something that will need to be paid for, and not done just because it is interesting.

Thanks to everyone who contributed!

----------


## The Man

Why don't we ask the Webmaster (or whoever has the capability) to put up an add on this site entitled "Calling all professional Mathematical/Statistical Analysts! In the name of the Republic and Ron Paul We need your Help NOW!"? The ad could direct any interested person to a streamlined version of this thread with only the relevant mathematical posts showing. This could spawn more involvement from the right people and could expedite one's learning curve. We could archive all of the spreadsheets from Liberty1789 and others for anyone to download.

----------


## Adam West

> We need to determine who is writing this report else we risk losing momentum.


Perhaps someone could start a new thread calling all R.P.F. forum members to battle stations! There is a wealth of talent and knowleadge out there waiting to be tapped. The hard work has been done, let's not allow things to come to a grinding halt when the chalice is almost within our grasp. Don't forget, the clock is ticking. There is no time to waste...

----------


## Liberty1789

This is different from the previous work. The following argument is mathematically stronger than the previous ones by several orders of magnitude.

Counting votes in a ballot is like taking marbles fron an urn until you've got them all out. Take an urn with 10 marbles, 5 reds 5 blues. You draw the 1st: probability if it being red? 50% Let' say it is red. Pick the second. Probability of being red? 4 reds left in there, so you know it is now 4 chances out of 9.

Now put a 10,000 marbles in there, 1/2 reds 1/2 blues. Pick one. Now make a chart of the cumulative % of the drawn balls that are red. Your first data point on the chart will be 0% or 100%. Draw the second ball. The 2nd data point will be 100% (drawn 2 reds), 50% (1 red, 1 blue) or 0% (no reds). As you know that your final result is 50%, the line will oscillate up and down randomly but rapidly converge towards 50%, something like this:



The mathematical law describing this process is call hypergeometric. It describes in particular the statistics of partial ballot counting! 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.

Let's look at the numbers of Allendale County, SC. 311 votes.

Here is a chart you are now familiar with: Candidate score vs Cumulative votes sorted by ascending vote tally



Normal patterns, nothing special apparently. Now the hypergeometric distribution allows me to caluclate the following probabilities:



What does it say? Take Santorum. His final score is 12%. Don't forget: this is not an estimate, it is actual. His cumulative score MUST get there. People in Fairfax No 1 are known for their superior political wisdom. Santorum gets no vote. So 23 votes have been cast. Santorum has only 311-23 votes left to go from his current 0% to 12%. Probabilitity of him getting 0% out of 23 votes cast? Hypergeometry says 5%. But he does very well in the Martin precinct (guys, get a grip, his a fake). His cumulated share of votes goes back to 10%, close to his final score of 12%. The oscillator has sent him close to the final target and the probability of that is high: now 39%. Etc... Gingrich does well early, so he then needs very little to reach his final 52%. The number reflect that. Paul was looking good all the way but is trashed in Fairfax No 2. His odds from reaching the final 7% fall suddenly from 77% to 7%. Romney needed a big last precinct to end up 29%, which he got.

So expect big volatility in the numbers as candidates outperform/underperform locally and oscillate before reaching their final score.

If we plot the last table, we obtain that cute doodle:

X axis cumulative vote, Y axis Probability of having the score X or lower.



When a Y value is at 50%, it mean that the oscillator is currently aligned with the final score. So expect to go across that line frequently. In a real world.

Ok, more example of untampered counties.



Now. Think, Winnie, think. What does it mean to be at 0%. It means that your interim cumulative score is so low that you have no chance to get back up to the final result. On the charts which will follow, 0% is always something like 0.4%, or 0.002%, or 0.0000000000000000001%. Take this one.



VOTE FLIPPER ON ALERT !!!

How do I know? Notice a difference with the previous charts? I guessed so. What are the odds when Romney is at 27% with 23% of the votes counted to end up where he did, at 32%? Hypergeometry, a law of the universe, says: 1 out of 267,385,153.

Checkmate.

Copy, paste, disseminate. Debunk, but good luck with that one. You'll need it.

(To be continued in Step 4b)

----------


## cjm

> This is different from the previous work....


The only problem is that this example uses a random sampling of marbles while the vote tallies are sorted by voter turnout -- not random.  The sorted tallies might be "random enough" for this convergence test, but that hasn't been established by any post in this thread.

----------


## affa

> Perhaps someone could start a new thread calling all R.P.F. forum members to battle stations! There is a wealth of talent and knowleadge out there waiting to be tapped. The hard work has been done, let's not allow things to come to a grinding halt when the chalice is almost within our grasp. Don't forget, the clock is ticking. There is no time to waste...


I just wrote something up.  Are we ready?

----------


## Adam West

> I just wrote something up.  Are we ready?


We ready. We ready. We ready...

----------


## bbwarfield

> I just wrote something up.  Are we ready?


 if its a new thread can you post the infor here first? just as a heads up.....

----------


## Liberty1789

I need to comment more on the last chart of my previous post:



Romney's midway score is impossibly low and leave no statistical chance to reach his final score. But another guy's oscillator is broken! Paul has already accumulated so many votes that he has a 100% chance to beat his final score. Well, midway, it is a 99.99996% chance. And in the end he did not.

A beautifull example with many more data points.



Romney's score vampirizes Paul's all the way, but notice that Santorum loses his oscillator between 60 and 70%. Yep. The vote flipper has just added him. Or you might still want to speculate about underlying demographics at play? 

In some places its is more brutal...



Historical infatuation/bragging rights? Bet with a friend (or online )? Vote flipper born or living in Georgetown? Go figure...

I like the ones where everyone loses his oscillator in the end...



Tactical intervention. Laurens does not look to hot for Romney. An early boost between 20% and 60%, then Paul is left free to oscillate again.



Flipper early on/off, late on/off, 1 victim, 2, 3. It's called covering tracks. Epic fail.

This concludes my mathematical proof series. Hope you enjoyed.

Let the world know. Fast.

Follows a South Carolina oscillators galore.

And more goodies laters on.

May I humbly dedicate this work to the man who inspired it all, Ron Paul, for whom I have boundless admiration, and all men of integrity and goodwill, past and present. May they prevail.

God bless you all.

----------


## Liberty1789



----------


## Liberty1789



----------


## Liberty1789



----------


## Liberty1789



----------


## Liberty1789



----------


## Liberty1789



----------


## Liberty1789



----------


## Liberty1789



----------


## chri5opher

//

----------


## cachemaster

Thanks for everyone's hard work! 100 pages!!!! Let's keep it up this is HUGE!

----------


## Liberty1789



----------


## Liberty1789



----------


## Antwan15

what the hell is going on here!!!!

----------


## Liberty1789



----------


## chri5opher

//

----------


## cachemaster

Can we hypothesize what will happen today in Michigan and Arizona and look for this vote flipping? Can we somehow use this additional proof?

----------


## bcreps85

Wow.  Well done Liberty...would like to see someone take a stab at debunking this.  I got nothing.  The hint of doubt that I was still holding onto just shrunk significantly.

----------


## bbwarfield

wow..... Im amazed


as a side note.... the last of liberties mass post was #999 so congrats! you pushed us above 1,000 ; )

----------


## cjm

> Wow.  Well done Liberty...would like to see someone take a stab at debunking this.  I got nothing.  The hint of doubt that I was still holding onto just shrunk significantly.


Post #981

----------


## cachemaster

I have a question: How well will only statistical data hold up when presenting this? Is there anything that can be done to find physical evidence?

----------


## tremendoustie

> This is different from the previous work. The following argument is mathematically stronger than the previous ones by several orders of magnitude.
> 
> Counting votes in a ballot is like taking marbles fron an urn until you've got them all out. Take an urn with 10 marbles, 5 reds 5 blues. You draw the 1st: probability if it being red? 50% Let' say it is red. Pick the second. Probability of being red? 4 reds left in there, so you know it is now 4 chances out of 9.


Is this assumption correct, though? Aren't these cities made up of many wards, which may differ politically?

For example, if more rural wards report first, with more urban wards reporting later, it would be expected that candidates who are popular in rural areas would loose percentage points, while those popular in urban areas would gain.

That is, perhaps it's not like drawing marbles from an urn.

----------


## Aden

Hey guys, I have been following this thread off and on since it started.  I am too busy IRL to keep up on it though.  Hey Liberty, can you make a blog post here on RPF, or somehow put all the latest information together in one spot for us to read?  Or maybe you guys can just tell me what post #s are the most important to read, to know what is going on with this thread.  Also, what are the links to the data sets you guys are using?  And, when somebody writes this up can you please state where to get the data sets or any other information?  I want to email the writeup to all the math professors on campus.

----------


## Liberty1789



----------


## bbwarfield

> Is this assumption correct, though? Aren't these cities made up of many wards, which may differ politically?
> 
> For example, if more rural wards report first, with more urban wards reporting later, it would be expected that candidates who are popular in rural areas would loose percentage points, while those popular in urban areas would gain.
> 
> That is, perhaps it's not like drawing marbles from an urn.


these are not based on time reporting but by precinct size. Alot of the demographic switches are not significant enough (less that 2% of the vote was minority even though some precincts were 92% black) 

this is showing a clean statystical anamoly that is not explainable based on demographics

The urn thing is an example and is not really 1:1 .... the analogy is the weakest part of the argument... but the data is very very strong

----------


## bcreps85

> Post #981


Although these are sorted by voter turnout, voter turnout does not really have much to do with any geographical data, since voter turnout is relative and not tied to area population.  Also, since polling data indicates that Paul gets pretty much the same amount of support in different areas sort of affirms this.  The chosen method should be random enough for this test.

There are two real keys here.  First, there is a huge number of statistical anomalies.  If we saw them once, we'd shrug it off...but we see it constantly and only in favor of a single candidate.  Second, if the astronomical chances of the first reason were not unlikely enough, we now have to compound that with the chances of a near 1:1 vote projection flip based on an acceptable sample, and every number in Liberty's last post above becomes "beyond Excel"...

----------


## Mark37snj

> 


*BOOM* goes the Dynamite!!!

EDIT: Mitt Romney, the man whose Magic is beyond Excel!

----------


## cachemaster

> 


can we compare this to probability of the other candidates by county as well?

----------


## amonasro

>

----------


## bdmarti

From the start I have found these graphs to be fascinating.   I want very much to understand what it is that is happening here.  The "flipping" algorithm fits well but I don't want to don a tinfoil hat and look like an idiot.  

If there is a reason that larger vote precincts would vote in a higher percentage for Romney, we need to know what that is.  Has early voting been eliminated?  

I like the last batch of graphs, but I don't find it convincing because there could, possibly, be a reason that the large precincts vote differently and thus the samples aren't random in the same way picking marbles from a jar would be.  Clearly if you lined up precincts first by ones Paul won, then Santorum, Then Gingrich, then Romney you'd end up with bizzaro looking graphs and you'd have astronomical odds of ending up at your end percentage, just like Romney does in that last series of graphs.  yet, when we look at the precincts by size, that is kind of what we are doing...we know that Romney wins the big precincts and Paul wins the small ones.  This will have the obvious effect of having strange graphs like what was just produced.   

I do not claim to know why Romeny would so dominate large precincts.   I do think the graphs look fishy and I want to understand them better.  I don't however currently think the last batch of graphs are a slam dunk, because the ordering of Paul wins vs Romney wins precincts is too obviously flawed compared to a random sample.  Since we know the data shows Romney wins the big precincts, this would need to be eliminated as a factor before I think that last set of graphs means much.

I wish I was more skilled with statistics or had better debunking ideas.  I'm glad for the people in this thread and the work they are doing though.

----------


## rb3b3

Like I said in a previous post, I don't know statistics to save my life, but I do know that if u put 10  marbles in a bag 5 of which are red and 5 of which are green, I know in the end if u pick 10x 5 will be red and 5 will be green hahahahaha........ The most important question I have is, will this all get swept under the rug by the establishment??? Judges, media, attorneys???????????????????

----------


## chri5opher

//

----------


## Aden

We need demographic and socioeconomic data for each precinct so that we can run cross tabs and look for relationships.

----------


## Mark37snj

> can we compare this to probability of the other candidates by county as well?


Well only results where the algorithym did not take votes from someone would/should show realistic odds. All voting stats for Ron Paul where he had votes taken from him would also show crazy mathmatical odds. The only odds that should show normal would be those where the algorithym did not TAKE or ADD votes. So impossible odds for Ron Paul and others would also strengthen the arguement for fraud.

----------


## Mark37snj

> We need demographic and socioeconomic data for each precinct so that we can run cross tabs and look for relationships.


No we don't. Plz read thread.

----------


## Liberty1789

Just a quick word. You can resort along any demographic parameter you like. Rich/poor? The rich deciles will oscillate, the poor will oscillate. Rural/urban? will oscillate. Black/white? Will oscillate. Gay/straight, fat/lean, whatever. Oscillation will be there. Step 4 is about the total, binary disappearance of oscillation. And that is impossible naturally, which ever way you slice the electorate.

----------


## affa

> We need demographic and socioeconomic data for each precinct so that we can run cross tabs and look for relationships.


I provided links a few pages back.  But again, that's just for the debunkers.  Liberty's proof essentially establishes that demographics are not a factor.

----------


## rb3b3

Oh this is just great!!!!! This thread had me up until 3 am this morning, and now I keep refreshing the page every 2 minutes since I got up at 8 am!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I cant wait to see what happens!!!!!!!

----------


## chri5opher

//

----------


## rb3b3

Liberty if u don't mind me asking, what is your statistical background?? Where did u learn stats from? Do u do it for a living?? To me you look like a master of stats, but I guess I'm wondering, what do u look like to a true master of stats?

----------


## cjm

> these are not based on time reporting but by precinct size. Alot of the demographic switches are not significant enough (less that 2% of the vote was minority even though some precincts were 92% black)


Again, you may be right, but this has never been established.  Asserting that demographics has no impact on the sort order of precincts and the eventual path that the plot follows is not the same as demonstrating/proving it.

If you want to follow the urn example, you have to select individual votes at random from the entire county.  Any form of clustering and sorting is non-random and different methodologies need to be applied.

This can be found on any basic stats web site and even wikipedia.

----------


## rb3b3

> Again, you may be right, but this has never been established.  Asserting that demographics has no impact on the sort order of precincts and the eventual path that the plot follows is not the same as demonstrating/proving it.
> 
> If you want to follow the urn example, you have to select individual votes at random from the entire county.  Any form of clustering and sorting is non-random and different methodologies need to be applied.
> 
> This can be found on any basic stats web site and even wikipedia.


Cjm I know ur the debunker in this thread and for once I say that's a good thing!!!! I would like to know what your conclusions are to this point?? Fraud ??? Nothing??? Possible fraud? Definite fraud that still needs some info?

----------


## bbwarfield

> Again, you may be right, but this has never been established.  Asserting that demographics has no impact on the sort order of precincts and the eventual path that the plot follows is not the same as demonstrating/proving it.
> 
> If you want to follow the urn example, you have to select individual votes at random from the entire county.  Any form of clustering and sorting is non-random and different methodologies need to be applied.
> 
> This can be found on any basic stats web site and even wikipedia.


yes... i have suggested doing a random sampling to prove the demographic issue.... i think most demographics are disproven but some (wealth especially) will show some of the variance in numbers... but not all variances in the numbers. Those variances I believe will show that only manipulation of the vote totals is the culprit


but a random sample of demographics should be taken to see if there is any need to broaden that theory

----------


## cjm

> Cjm I know ur the debunker in this thread and for once I say that's a good thing!!!! I would like to know what your conclusions are to this point?? Fraud ??? Nothing??? Possible fraud? Definite fraud that still needs some info?


I'm not sure what to think.  Sorry guys, I have to go knock on doors.  Super Tuesday state here.

----------


## rb3b3

> yes... i have suggested doing a random sampling to prove the demographic issue.... i think most demographics are disproven but some (wealth especially) will show some of the variance in numbers... but not all variances in the numbers. Those variances I believe will show that only manipulation of the vote totals is the culprit
> 
> 
> but a random sample of demographics should be taken to see if there is any need to broaden that theory


Bb war,,,,,, what has been the best argument so far as to why these graphs wouldn't be true?? U r a main player in this thread as well so id like ur opinion on this.... Does cjm raise valid debunking points??????? Goddddd I knew I should've never cut my statistic class!!!!! I knew one day I would need to know this!!!!! And that day has come!!!

----------


## Danan

> Bb war,,,,,, what has been the best argument so far as to why these graphs wouldn't be true?? U r a main player in this thread as well so id like ur opinion on this.... Does cjm raise valid debunking points??????? Goddddd I knew I should've never cut my statistic class!!!!! I knew one day I would need to know this!!!!! And that day has come!!!


Besides the fact that Liberty says it's almost impossible from a scientific, statistical viewpoint, you can also add common sense observations. Why would Romney switch votes only with Ron Paul in one county and only with Gingrich in the neighbouring county as the precinct size grows? Why would the flip kick in only at various sizes? And so on.

----------


## Liberty1789

+rep

----------


## affa

> Again, you may be right, but this has never been established.  Asserting that demographics has no impact on the sort order of precincts and the eventual path that the plot follows is not the same as demonstrating/proving it.


The smoking gun here is the lack of 'white noise' -- the algorithmic precision of Romney's rise in the various charts.  This rise has little or no 'white noise' as all non-manipulated candidates have. This effectively means Liberty has found the algorithm.   Think of it like a key and a lock; only the algorithm will provide the answer with no noise.

For example, let's say I give every passerby 1-3 m&ms, but I give every 5th passerby 2-4 m&ms.   This will be virtually undetectable, let alone predictable, until one looks at the data ordering by position in line, at which point it becomes crystal clear that only those positions divisible by 5 ever get 4 m&ms.  From there, you can work backwards, and also show they never get 1, either, and that they average higher than all other positions.    What looks like random noise from any other angle (say, evaluating m&ms based on gender or wealth) becomes not only clear, but predictable, once you discover the algorithm.  

That's what, imo, Liberty/The Man have discovered.  They (specifically Liberty, in this case) found the algorithmic, predictable slope of Romney's votes as precinct size rises.  This rise isn't just different between tiny and large precincts, but rather, rises constantly even when we compare precincts in the 80% vs 90% size brackets.   This rise is 'clean', with little to no 'white noise', as can be found in the candidates not affected.   The steady, constant, no-noise rises begin at defined 'hinge points' which clearly link up to vote flipping with the victim(s).

That lack of white noise is a smoking gun in a room full of smoking guns.

----------


## rb3b3

> Besides the fact that Liberty says it's almost impossible from a scientific, statistical viewpoint, you can also add common sense observations. Why would Romney switch votes only with Ron Paul in one county and only with Gingrich in the neighbouring county as the precinct size grows? Why would the flip kick in only at various sizes? And so on.


The reason I'm soo excited about this thread is because lets face it, something just isn't right with these elections,,, we hear the news of dead people voting, we hear the news of taking ballots to secret locations etc, as damaging as all that is, this is just on a whole different level..... My problem is that everything has been swept under the rug, I don't want this to be swept under the rug as well..... So now I will be the debunker............. If this is proved, who can tell me that all of this will not be swept under the rug as well???? We are fighting a fight that is much bigger then we all know!!!!!!!!!!!! What will happen if this is proved to be true, will they start all over?? Someone help me out here!!! I'm afraid we get, " crazy Ron Paul supporters at it again trying to claim fraud as usual!!!!

----------


## affa

> The reason I'm soo excited about this thread is because lets face it, something just isn't right with these elections,,, we hear the news of dead people voting, we hear the news of taking ballots to secret locations etc, as damaging as all that is, this is just on a whole different level..... My problem is that everything has been swept under the rug, I don't want this to be swept under the rug as well..... So now I will be the debunker............. If this is proved, who can tell me that all of this will not be swept under the rug as well???? We are fighting a fight that is much bigger then we all know!!!!!!!!!!!! What will happen if this is proved to be true, will they start all over?? Someone help me out here!!! I'm afraid we get, " crazy Ron Paul supporters at it again trying to claim fraud as usual!!!!


take a deep breath.

vote fraud generally gets swept under the rug.   It's possible that will happen here.   However, this is so big, and so blatant, that it's possible we can break through with it, and force the media to report on it.

whether we will accomplish that goal is still up in the air.  we need to hope recognized statisticians start looking at this, and that a enterprising journalist decides he (or she) wants that Pulitzer.

----------


## Liberty1789

> take a deep breath.
> 
> vote fraud generally gets swept under the rug.   It's possible that will happen here.   However, this is so big, and so blatant, that it's possible we can break through with it, and force the media to report on it.
> 
> whether we will accomplish that goal is still up in the air.  we need to hope recognized statisticians start looking at this, and that a enterprising journalist decides he (or she) wants that Pulitzer.


+ 100 rep if I could

----------


## rb3b3

> take a deep breath.
> 
> vote fraud generally gets swept under the rug.   It's possible that will happen here.   However, this is so big, and so blatant, that it's possible we can break through with it, and force the media to report on it.
> 
> whether we will accomplish that goal is still up in the air.  we need to hope recognized statisticians start looking at this, and that a enterprising journalist decides he (or she) wants that Pulitzer.


Ok thanks,,,, so what else are we waiting on to make this official?? What else do we need to know to make sure we are not overlooking anything??? Once official what's the next step??? I mean I would hope the campaign really takes this and runs with it!!!

----------


## rb3b3

> + 100 rep if I could


LIBERTY!!!!!!! You are the man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I just want you to know that I really really appreciate your hard no really really hard work!!!!

----------


## havox112

No mainstream outlet will report on this.  It will be their endgame if they do.

----------


## Adam West

> The reason I'm soo excited about this thread is because lets face it, something just isn't right with these elections,,, we hear the news of dead people voting, we hear the news of taking ballots to secret locations etc, as damaging as all that is, this is just on a whole different level..... My problem is that everything has been swept under the rug, I don't want this to be swept under the rug as well..... So now I will be the debunker............. If this is proved, who can tell me that all of this will not be swept under the rug as well???? We are fighting a fight that is much bigger then we all know!!!!!!!!!!!! What will happen if this is proved to be true, will they start all over?? Someone help me out here!!! I'm afraid we get, " crazy Ron Paul supporters at it again trying to claim fraud as usual!!!!


The left leaning liberal media would salivate over this like rabid dogs.

----------


## rb3b3

Can someone please tell me if this is a fact yet??????????????? If not what more info do we need to make it 100%????

----------


## bbwarfield

> Bb war,,,,,, what has been the best argument so far as to why these graphs wouldn't be true?? U r a main player in this thread as well so id like ur opinion on this.... Does cjm raise valid debunking points??????? Goddddd I knew I should've never cut my statistic class!!!!! I knew one day I would need to know this!!!!! And that day has come!!!


the "best argument" is a misnomer.... cause the best argument for me pales in all reality..in fact fraud is 1000x more likely than what i am about to explain.. but here it is.

The BEST argument for the graphs looking this way without fraud is that Romney has run the single best campaign in the history of American Politics. He has used every single kind of data (census, voter registration list, targeted mailing lists suplied by his endorsers such as gov. haley, marketing research by all the firms...ect) to litterally target any and all people who would consider voting for him.... but not just targeting them in making sure that they get literature.... but targeting EXACTLY what they want to hear.... exactly the person you want to hear it from.... in exactly the format you want it.

The money it would take to do this would rival all the money ever used in all the campaigns in America and most us companies (pepsi and coke would weep at how much money... and how succesful) this would be the only reason I could see these kind of graphs showing what they do WITHOUT fraud.

actually... thats my 2nd best reason... more plausible in reality .... Act of a vengeful God 

I am vocal on here with my opinions, but mostly about not mixing apples and oranges.... it the state of south carolina a see no reasonable explanation but the voteing machines being rigged to change the results

EDIT: initialy with just the Mans work i accepted fraud could be a reason but it was edging out demographics  75% to 25%...... once liberty did his... i am fully at 99.99% to 0.01% against demographic/good campaigning being the reason

----------


## Mark37snj

> Can someone please tell me if this is a fact yet??????????????? If not what more info do we need to make it 100%????


We need a professional statistics company, department, ect to do a complete and comprehensive independent analysis. That is the only thing that will answer all questions, although some will still ignore it but they will be in the minority. Enough Americans will beleive in the evidence. You can't please everyone but this data will please most.

----------


## bcreps85

> take a deep breath.
> 
> vote fraud generally gets swept under the rug.   It's possible that will happen here.   However, this is so big, and so blatant, that it's possible we can break through with it, and force the media to report on it.
> 
> whether we will accomplish that goal is still up in the air.  we need to hope recognized statisticians start looking at this, and that a enterprising journalist decides he (or she) wants that Pulitzer.


This will be harder to sweep under the rug if it cannot be debunked.  Why?  Our standing in the world is the worst it has ever been.  If it is not reported here, it will be reported elsewhere.  Party heads can try to ignore it all they want, but most of their underlings - no matter who much we disagree with them on the issues, will not support blatant fraud.  Word will get out, and any news agency that is not covering it will be viewed as complicit.

Most likely, it'll be "investigated", and some patsies will be thrown to the dogs.  We'll be assured it was an isolated incident.  The media that leans left will use it as an attack piece on Republicans for another 4 years of Obama.  None of the people who were really responsible will pay the way they should.  On the other hand, people will demand fair and honest elections and this sort of thing will become more difficult in the future - whether mandated at a federal or state level.  If those measures don't go far enough...well, those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.

That being said...what happened when the original DP poster met with the SCGOP the second time?  I don't recall an update...

----------


## rb3b3

> The left leaning liberal media would salivate over this like rabid dogs.


Well my major problem with this, I'm sure I will sound dumb but, my major problem is the programmer in Florida who revealed the major problem with these machines and how they were rigged........ Most Americans I would Assume don't know or don't care that this fraud is taking with our election system...... Which brings me back to the point of us fighting a much bigger battle that anyone can ever imagine!! I'm talking about the only way to win this uphill battle is by having a real war with them! Am i wrong??

----------


## mosquitobite

I honestly feel the only way to make this get out is for each and every one of us with blogs post it.
All of us share it on facebook, twitter.

This has to go viral - due to each and every one of us on RPF and DP.

----------


## bbwarfield

> The left leaning liberal media would salivate over this like rabid dogs.


they wouldnt... notice the eixt polls matched the unflipped results? all media exit polls come from Edison Research...... no other company is used by the MSM

They would have to admit there exit polls were also rigged if vote flipping took place..... since they more or less created the monopoly.... they would be culpable (cnn's election crunchers were originally run by the founder of edison) 

so.... it will be a court battle in the end

----------


## Adam West

> Well my major problem with this, I'm sure I will sound dumb but, my major problem is the programmer in Florida who revealed the major problem with these machines and how they were rigged........ Most Americans I would Assume don't know or don't care that this fraud is taking with our election system...... Which brings me back to the point of us fighting a much bigger battle that anyone can ever imagine!! I'm talking about the only way to win this uphill battle is by having a real war with them! Am i wrong??


I agree with what you are saying, but when that information was revealed America was not in the grips of an election cycle. The President was in, people were tired of the bickering and wanted to move on. I think it will play differently now.

----------


## bcreps85

> they wouldnt... notice the eixt polls matched the unflipped results? all media exit polls come from Edison Research...... no other company is used by the MSM
> 
> They would have to admit there exit polls were also rigged if vote flipping took place..... since they more or less created the monopoly.... they would be culpable (cnn's election crunchers were originally run by the founder of edison) 
> 
> so.... it will be a court battle in the end


The MSM isn't doing the polls, Edison Research is.  Plausible deniability.

----------


## bbwarfield

> The MSM isn't doing the polls, Edison Research is.  Plausible deniability.


agree.... but every one on the people on the information page use to be big in the MSM....that tells me the MSM wouldnt throw there friends to the wolves.... wolf blitzer aint gonna attack a board of former colleagues and bosses.... there entire board is old MSM people that moved into making the news from reporting it..... 

Edison Research=Gonzo journalism when compared to there old jobs at CBS, CNN, ABC and the like

----------


## The Man

The board of Edison Research is comprised mostly of members of the mainstream media. Edison Research IS the mainstream media. It's another scam IMHO.


> The MSM isn't doing the polls, Edison Research is.  Plausible deniability.

----------


## rb3b3

Again I ask, when are we taking the next step???

----------


## bcreps85

I think they'd throw ex-colleagues under the bus if the heat was on.  I think they'd throw their own families under the bus if it came to it.  These are people without self respect and people without principle.

----------


## tremendoustie

> these are not based on time reporting but by precinct size. Alot of the demographic switches are not significant enough (less that 2% of the vote was minority even though some precincts were 92% black) 
> 
> this is showing a clean statystical anamoly that is not explainable based on demographics
> 
> The urn thing is an example and is not really 1:1 .... the analogy is the weakest part of the argument... but the data is very very strong


Is it not feasible that there is a significant correlation between Paul support and precinct size?

I looked at the original results for Manchester, NH, and the largest precincts are all the suburban ones, while the smallest precincts are urban. Is it not likely that Paul enjoys stronger urban and rural support, while romney enjoys stronger suburban support?

----------


## bcreps85

> Is it not feasible that there is a significant correlation between Paul support and precinct size?
> 
> I looked at the original results for Manchester, NH, and the largest precincts are all the suburban ones, while the smallest precincts are urban. Is it not likely that Paul enjoys stronger urban and rural support, while romney enjoys stronger suburban support?


Throughout the 106 page thread, this has been proven to not be the case multiple times, multiple ways.

----------


## tremendoustie

> Throughout the 106 page thread, this has been proven to not be the case multiple times, multiple ways.


How?

It has been conclusively proven that there are no electorally significant demographic correlations with precinct size?

Has population density vs. precinct size been plotted? Because I would guess there is a significant relationship, both between population density and precinct size, and between Paul support and population density.

Could results by precinct size, instead of being shown for a particular town, be shown for all precincts of near identical density?

Also, how many people would have to be in on this? In the precinct I was in, results were posted directly from the machine, to the wall, publicly. Is it suggested that each machine is pre-programmed, or that the fraud is occurring in statewide tabulation?

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

I have a few points i'd like to address here.

This information should be printed in hard-copy, along with the date of the print. Before any of this information gets into the wrong hands.

----------


## bcreps85

> How?
> 
> It has been conclusively proven that there are no electorally significant demographic correlations with precinct size?
> 
> Has population density vs. precinct size been plotted? Because I would guess there is a significant relationship, both between population density and precinct size, and between Paul support and population density.
> 
> Could results by precinct size, instead of being shown for a particular town, be shown for all precincts of near identical density?
> 
> Also, how many people would have to be in on this? In the precinct I was in, results were posted directly from the machine, to the wall, publically. Is it suggested that each machine is pre-programmed, or that the fraud is occurring in statewide tabulation?


Two ways come to mind.

1.  Exit polling data was used from four states and averaged, which conclusively proved that Ron Paul has steady influence between urban, suburban, and rural locations.  The fluctuation was 1%, well within the margin of error.

2.  The early assumption was that voter turn out was equivalent to precinct size.  It isn't.  Low precinct turnout can happen in a more populated area, and it was shown to have happened in several such places.

As far as who would have to be involved.  The GOP big wigs...who have been caught on camera stating they would not let Paul win, no matter what.  Some key people in the media...you really think Hannity and Bill O would have a problem with this...and how many media companies were/are in bed with Bain capital (what a coincidence)?  Pollsters...many of whom are ex-MSM.  Then throw in a combination of how Paul is often under-polled in most cases due to weak polling methods.  In short, less people than you think.

----------


## tremendoustie

> Two ways come to mind.
> 
> 1.  Exit polling data was used from four states and averaged, which conclusively proved that Ron Paul has steady influence between urban, suburban, and rural locations.  The fluctuation was 1%, well within the margin of error.


This is fairly convincing, if it was done properly. Which page was that report on?

Can we create a small-to-large precinct plot for only those precincts where we have exit polling data, and plot exit polling results on the same chart?

----------


## Aden

I just want everything condensed into a PDF or something so I can start emailing it to math professors and alternative media.

----------


## bbwarfield

I say get this to blackbox voting.... they may have hit a brick wall.... but they have alot contact info for people who put there academic integrity on the line to bring there information to the public... they would know who to get it to... even if not how to disseminate the information the best

----------


## bbwarfield

keep in mind (new people) somethings we say "its been debunked" have... some have not but we did make the assumption we had... none of us have perfect memories... and mine tends to have a margin of error of +/- 10 %

----------


## Aden

Is there a way to figure out what the vote totals should look like?  In other words, can we reflip the counties we think are flipped, to see what the true totals for SC would look like?

----------


## Liberty1789

> Is there a way to figure out what the vote totals should look like?  In other words, can we reflip the counties we think are flipped, to see what the true totals for SC would look like?


The easy way is to look at scores at 20% cumulated at take them as final. Takes you there pretty well in most cases.

----------


## Liberty1789

As you can see, only Santorum was more or less left alone when one considers the full state. Paul and Gingrich badly hurt.

----------


## cachemaster

> Is there a way to figure out what the vote totals should look like?  In other words, can we reflip the counties we think are flipped, to see what the true totals for SC would look like?


If you read the thread you would have seen this has already been done multiple times, including in the original report.

----------


## bbwarfield

[QUOTE=bcreps85;4227411]Two ways come to mind.

1.  Exit polling data was used from four states and averaged, which conclusively proved that Ron Paul has steady influence between urban, suburban, and rural locations.  The fluctuation was 1%, well within the margin of error.

QUOTE] problem is the exit polls were also spot on in South Carolina... were we are showing the numbers are probably quite off.

I think that the original analysis of was correct.... that the 1% deviance didnt affect it..... but exit poll numbers  probably were massaged as well..... so if they think we are wrong... the exit poll data holds weight..... if they think we are right.... then the exit polls are as phoney as the vote tallies....  catch 22

----------


## bbwarfield

> If you read the thread you would have seen this has already been done multiple times, including in the original report.


its kinda been done.... but ive never seen a

South carolina total would be x romney x gingrich x paul.....ect.... I would like the final percentage as well..... just to run a side wacky theory

----------


## tremendoustie

> As you can see, only Santorum was more or less left alone when one considers the full state. Paul and Gingrich badly hurt.


I don't know though -- if they're committing fraud, wouldn't they make it more meaningful? Paul only dropped from 14.5% to 13%, looks like, while Romney rose from 23% to 27.5%, and G dropped from 45% to 42%. It's not like any result changed, or even the relative positions strongly changed.

Why would they commit fraud based on precinct size, anyway? Wouldn't they just change all results?

----------


## Liberty1789

Based on initial vote report.

My previous methods were not too convincing on Maine because of the small number of data points. Oscillators are much more revealing.

The probability of Romney going from 33% at 40% of votes to 40% at 100% is 1 in  6,105,209,235,838,670.

----------


## bbwarfield

> I don't know though -- if they're committing fraud, wouldn't they make it more meaningful? Paul only dropped from 14.5% to 13%, looks like, while Romney rose from 23% to 27.5%, and G dropped from 45% to 42%. It's not like any result changed, or even the relative positions strongly changed.


actually.... if this is a preprogrammed algorithm... they were expecting Romney to be within margin of errors of the real winner.... or even win right out and increase his lead....

No one expected Newt to just lamblast into first like he did

----------


## Liberty1789

> I don't know though -- if they're committing fraud, wouldn't they make it more meaningful? Paul only dropped from 14.5% to 13%, looks like, while Romney rose from 23% to 27.5%, and G dropped from 45% to 42%. It's not like any result changed, or even the relative positions strongly changed.
> 
> Why would they commit fraud based on precinct size, anyway? Wouldn't they just change all results?


The fraud rate never goes above about 17%. It does not reverse a landslide against you. Delegates were proportional though, IIRC.

----------


## tremendoustie

> The probability of Romney going from 33% at 40% of votes to 40% at 100% is 1 in  6,105,209,235,838,670.


If there's no actual correlation. Can we plot these same results using exit polling data? If Romney's plot is flat in that graph, then this does seem very strange.

----------


## bbwarfield

> If there's no actual correlation. Can we plot these same results using exit polling data? If Romney's plot is flat in that graph, then this does seem very strange.


exit poll data predicted exactly what was reported on election night..... also its one set of data for the whole state.... no significant analysis could be done to plot such kind of useful charts

----------


## The Man

The only independent exit polling numbers I found for the 2012 SC Primary are as follows, word for word:
"Checked at 3 P.M. and with 1698 interviews it's:

Gingrich     34%
Romney     26%
Paul           25%
Santorum  15%

"Sample skews much larger (40% under 45) and more male (57.5%) than 2008 primary (33% and 51% respectively).Since Paul does better with these demographics, expect this number to drop as the full vote comes in."

----------


## tremendoustie

> exit poll data predicted exactly what was reported on election night..... also its one set of data for the whole state.... no significant analysis could be done to plot such kind of useful charts


I thought it had been proven, based on exit polling, that there was no correlation between population density and romney support.

Apart from data proving otherwise, it's not hard for me to believe that there would be 4% greater Romney support in large districts.

----------


## CTRattlesnake

So the percentages on the x axis represent total vote going from the smallest precincts to largest right?

----------


## Liberty1789

> So the percentages on the x axis represent total vote going from the smallest precincts to largest right?


Yes...

----------


## bbwarfield

> I thought it had been proven, based on exit polling, that there was no correlation between population density and romney support.
> 
> Apart from data proving otherwise, it's not hard for me to believe that there would be 4% greater Romney support in large districts.


it was...once again if you believe the eixt polling.... the problem is they dont release the raw data.... so you just have "such and such a percent of urban voters went to romney... such an amount went to paul..... ect."  In one precint in one county you can expect a variance... but is very odd to see a whole state go against the generalization of the exit polls

----------


## bbwarfield

> The only independent exit polling numbers I found for the 2012 SC Primary are as follows, word for word:
> "Checked at 3 P.M. and with 1698 interviews it's:
> 
> Gingrich     34%
> Romney     26%
> Paul           25%
> Santorum  15%
> 
> "Sample skews much larger (40% under 45) and more male (57.5%) than 2008 primary (33% and 51% respectively).Since Paul does better with these demographics, expect this number to drop as the full vote comes in."



would these numbers be more in line with the unflipped totals?

----------


## S.Shorland

Maine 'original reported figures'? So at 10% vote count Paul was at 40%? In the new document i hope there are links to all original data.I should save it all too and make google cache records or whatever.

----------


## tremendoustie

> it was...once again if you believe the eixt polling.... the problem is they dont release the raw data.... so you just have "such and such a percent of urban voters went to romney... such an amount went to paul..... ect."  In one precint in one county you can expect a variance... but is very odd to see a whole state go against the generalization of the exit polls


So what's the breakdown of urban/suburban/rural exit polling for romney?

Of course, the margin of error of these exit polls is likely to be larger than the 4% difference for romney, and certainly far larger than the 1.5% difference for Paul. We're not talking about huge numbers here.

Again, a 4% difference based on precinct size, for romney, doesn't seem hard to believe to me. I would need strong evidence showing there's no real correlation.

In Manchester NH, for example, the largest precincts were all suburban, which, understandably, went harder for romney.

----------


## SCButterfly

> No one expected Newt to just lamblast into first like he did


We can't be sure of that.

(Note: the time above the FBN icon and who was already on the phone.)  
_Our "voting machines" are not even taken off-line until 7:00 p.m._





Sorry to muck with the statistical bent here, I'm still trying to pull myself out from under my "SC Rock of Shame".

----------


## hillertexas

We need to get this out to the other campaigns...Newt, Santorum...even Huntsman, Cain,  and Bachman (Bachman was siphoned from in one state).  We need someone who already has the media's attention to cry foul.  Accuse Romney of rigging the election.  But we need to let our campaign know what is going on asap for sure.  It just has to get out.  Tell anyone who will listen.

----------


## affa

ok, based on feedback here i started a new 'summary' thread.   basically, get more eyes on it.  it'll likely split conversation between two threads, but that's the price paid to have a summary so new people can get on board.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...43#post4227543

LIBERTY-- there are already people asking questions that you should answer.

----------


## CTRattlesnake

Where is Liberty getting this data?

----------


## Liberty1789

All the data if from state election web sites or GOP's. I need only county name, precinct name, votes cast per candidates.

Reconstructing my job from the ground up is therefore very easy for a math guy. 300 hundred million people. I cannot believe nobody will do it/ is doing it...

----------


## CTRattlesnake

> All the data if from state election web sites or GOP's. I need only county name, precinct name, votes cast per candidates.
> 
> Reconstructing my job from the ground up is therefore very easy for a math guy. 300 hundred million people. I cannot believe nobody will do it/ is doing it...


Ok...thanks for all your work, this is big, do you have plans to put out an official report? Or send it to a guy like Ben Swann?

----------


## bbwarfield

> We can't be sure of that.
> 
> (Note: the time above the FBN icon and who was already on the phone.)  
> _Our "voting machines" are not even taken off-line until 7:00 p.m._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to muck with the statistical bent here, I'm still trying to pull myself out from under my "SC Rock of Shame".


that tv has no sound! : ) apparently we went to the same watching party

----------


## SCButterfly

> Ben Swann?


http://www.dailypaul.com/214415/gues...omment-2243192

http://www.dailypaul.com/214415/gues...omment-2243757

----------


## SCButterfly

> that tv has no sound! : ) apparently we went to the same watching party


  !!!!!!  I could just hug your neck.   You just blew my mind knowing that about the teevee.    What a small world.   **Twilight Zone music playing here**  Yeppers, was there.

----------


## bbwarfield

> !!!!!!  I could just hug your neck.   You just blew my mind knowing that about the teevee.    What a small world.   **Twilight Zone music playing here**  Yeppers, was there.


ever since i dont think election results are the same without listening to a harrowing account of Homeland Security given by a holocaust survivor (I guess it was her parents but it sounded like she left just before)

----------


## SCButterfly

One more thingy:  This probably means nothing.  Me and a fellow RP SCGOP dude both landed with an oddity (to us) on our tapes.  We consulted one another and never followed up on either end so maybe y'all know what this means.  What is this on the very bottom of the tape?  "UnderVotes for Above Contest".  Both of our precincts had it.



*Is this like a "test vote" in the beginning or what?  Y'all know?*

----------


## SCButterfly

> ever since i dont think election results are the same without listening to a harrowing account of Homeland Security given by a holocaust survivor (I guess it was her parents but it sounded like she left just before)


You should have been at my table then.    The Ron Paul "Thelma and Louise" was discovered at that table.  I guarantee it was more fun.

----------


## The Man

Hey Liberty 1789, Does your X-Axis correspond to the percentage within each County? If so, does this mean that the precincts are arranged not by absolute number of voters, but by % of vote in its respective County? The graph doesn't look like I would have expected. 


> As you can see, only Santorum was more or less left alone when one considers the full state. Paul and Gingrich badly hurt.

----------


## Liberty1789

> Hey Liberty 1789, Does your X-Axis correspond to the percentage within each County? If so, does this mean that the precincts are arranged not by absolute number of voters, but by % of vote in its respective County? The graph doesn't look like I would have expected.


 1 data point per precinct, starting with precinct with lowest vote tally, as ever. The list goes like that:

Fairfield	Blackstock
Florence	Florence 9
Williamsburg	Morrisville
Sumter	Bates
Hampton	Garnett
Hampton	Gifford
Dorchester	Givhans 2
Charleston	N Charleston 1
Orangeburg	Nix
Richland	             Ward #8
Georgetown	DreamKeepers

EDIT: I count only the votes of the big 4 when sorting

----------


## bbwarfield

> One more thingy:  This probably means nothing.  Me and a fellow RP SCGOP dude both landed with an oddity (to us) on our tapes.  We consulted one another and never followed up on either end so maybe y'all know what this means.  What is this on the very bottom of the tape?  "UnderVotes for Above Contest".  Both of our precincts had it.
> 
> 
> 
> *Is this like a "test vote" in the beginning or what?  Y'all know?*


undervotes are when someone doesnt finish voting... pick someone.... walk out of the booth and never hit the confirm button would seem to be the most common reason on electronic machines...... in hand ballots an under vote is when someone picks two candidates, no candidates, or doesnt clearly mark a candidate (check mark over laps into other boxes) or on punch cards where it dimpled, pregnant, hanging..... just means counting it would require discernment and the person counting does not feel comfortable saying "this person meant to vote for x"

in electronic it either means a machine error during that persons vote or they didnt hit the confirm screen

----------


## cjm

I think it's time for me to unsubscribe this thread.  I've added all I can.  I wish you all the best of luck and I eagerly await the final report.  I'll see you in the other threads

----------


## Aden

What do X & Y Axis represent on the charts on the right side?

----------


## Liberty1789

X = % of cumulative votes, sorted by ascending orcer of precinct vote tally.
Y = *given the known final score of the candidate*, % probability that the candidate's score is no better than what it is after X% votes counted

----------


## CTRattlesnake

> Hey Liberty 1789, Does your X-Axis correspond to the percentage within each County? If so, does this mean that the precincts are arranged not by absolute number of voters, but by % of vote in its respective County? The graph doesn't look like I would have expected.


The x axis is total votes.

0% meaning 0 votes, and 100% meaning every vote counted. That being said, the totals are arranged so that the smaller precincts are put first (on the left side) and slowly increase in number until you reach the largest precincts on the right at 100%.

The graph shows how votes become skewed in romney's direction once you reach the larger precincts and how he wins an inordinate amount of votes there.

----------


## Aden

I think we need a South Carolina map by precinct, instead of by county, with the stars in place (like the map from earlier in the thread).  That would be cool to see.  I wonder if it is possible to have small precincts in an urban area.  If there are precincts with a small amount of voters in a big city, then those numbers can be compared to the precincts with a large amount of voters in the same big city.  If Liberty is correct, then we would see a big difference.  This would further destroy the urban/rural demographic argument.

Like this

Source: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/ind...topic=147466.0

----------


## milo10

> they wouldnt... notice the eixt polls matched the unflipped results? all media exit polls come from Edison Research...... no other company is used by the MSM
> 
> They would have to admit there exit polls were also rigged if vote flipping took place..... since they more or less created the monopoly.... they would be culpable (cnn's election crunchers were originally run by the founder of edison) 
> 
> so.... it will be a court battle in the end


The Young Turks, Al Jazeera, RT, Alex Jones, Democracy Now, Counterpunch, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Lew Rockwell, and thousands of other channels, blogs, and news outlets here and abroad.

This is too big a scandal to ignore, but I agree they will try to sit on it for a while.  As I mentioned in earlier posts, I think this might get bigger play abroad at first than it does here.  In the world of international relations, illegitimate elections are a huge issue.  I also think there will be a cascading effect where past American elections are looked at with similar or greater thoroughness.  All of the past stories of voting irregularities will take on much greater importance and credibility.

What is unique about this compared to 99.999% of similar scandals, conspiracy theories, and so forth is that we have the main evidence to work with.  It is all right there for anyone proficient in math.  

It is also important for its timeliness.  If Romney wins the nomination and loses the general, most people will simply not care that much about these charges a year from now.  Foolish, but that is how people are wired.  If we get this story out while the nomination process is still going on and it is all very much in the news, then its importance increases by a factor of 10 or more.

----------


## bbwarfield

> The Young Turks, Al Jazeera, RT, Alex Jones, Democracy Now, Counterpunch, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Lew Rockwell, and thousands of other channels, blogs, and news outlets here and abroad.
> 
> This is too big a scandal to ignore, but I agree they will try to sit on it for a while.  As I mentioned in earlier posts, I think this might get bigger play abroad at first than it does here.  In the world of international relations, illegitimate elections are a huge issue.  I also think there will be a cascading effect where past American elections are looked at with similar or greater thoroughness.  All of the past stories of voting irregularities will take on much greater importance and credibility.
> 
> What is unique about this compared to 99.999% of similar scandals, conspiracy theories, and so forth is that we have the main evidence to work with.  It is all right there for anyone proficient in math.  
> 
> It is also important for its timeliness.  If Romney wins the nomination and loses the general, most people will simply not care that much about these charges a year from now.  Foolish, but that is how people are wired.  If we get this story out while the nomination process is still going on and it is all very much in the news, then its importance increases by a factor of 10 or more.


i should clarify.... it would take a court battle for the average american to care... a big ass flashy court battle... the case of the century.... 

I dont care about people in uraguay knowing that it was rigged... I want the general american populace to know and be outraged! I want to see them streaming into the streets demanding justice!

----------


## bbwarfield

Michigan is a primary with electronic voting / tabulation...... think we got another stats hunt on our hands...lol

in all seriousness I think south carolina was a tough enough one.... i wouldnt put you stats guys through another state

----------


## milo10

> i should clarify.... it would take a court battle for the average american to care... a big ass flashy court battle... the case of the century.... 
> 
> I dont care about people in uraguay knowing that it was rigged... I want the general american populace to know and be outraged! I want to see them streaming into the streets demanding justice!


If this is major news throughout the world and the alternative media, it can't be suppressed in the MSM.  It is not 1995.

----------


## Liberty1789

Maybe the correction for a misunderstanding: when I said that I am done with what I have boldly called the absolute mathematical proof, I meant that I do expect to search for other "cheat" detectors. The oscillation detector is like mass spectroscopy. I do not need more or better. But I will publish more results obtained with them.

affa, you might want to add them to the beginning of your summary thread as EDITs, so that the substantive analysis remains frontloaded.

Ok, back to investigation in NH (honestly guys, if not debunked, this could become a book!).

A smart alec mentioned in a post that he wanted to see the  table where I have shown the layman's probability of Romney's score to be "natural" in various SC counties for other candidates. Smart, fair and instructive, so wish granted.

Let's start with Coots, NH. On all my analysis, it has never exhibited any anomaly. Here is the oscillation doodle.



Remember, if the score of the candidate converges naturally towards the final score as you count more and more ballots, it will zig-zag above and under the 50% line all the time. Boy, Coots illustrates that very well: mad criss-crossing. Now nifty maths give me the following table:



The number in the table are a tabular form of the doodle chart. See how everyone's probability to reach his final score looks normal? Gingrich is drifting a bit low at 22%, but comes back immediately.

Now Merrimack, NH. Doodle chart: strong mathematical anomaly. Where are Romney and Paul's oscillations gone?



Are they gone a little, or are they entirely gone? Well the tabular form tells you the probality of that:



See the difference with Coots 

Paul is vampirized by Romney here.

Possibly something funny going on in the last precinct in favour of Huntsman, but it's only 1 data point.

----------


## bbwarfield

never tought it would need this... but... bump

----------


## Liberty1789

For the sake of completeness and our NH friends.

The linearity analysis are weakish (statistically underpowered) in NH because od the small number of precincts.

However, there is a lot of votes to by. And that is good to answer this question: do cumulative votes behave according to the hypergeometric distribution or not? When Romney's green line does not oscillate and is a flat line at %, our theory is that the vote fliiper is on. The victim is the guy with a corresponding flat line stuck at 100%.

----------


## Liberty1789

Hillsborough, the Big Hollow... Oh Dear...

----------


## Liberty1789

I have been asked, very relevently: is the anomaly visible across time?

Here is the county of Alachua, FL across time. Why this one? Well, it's what happens to you when you are the 1st by alphabetical order...

The data was OCRed from the PDFs of results from the website of the Supervisor of Elections of Alachua. There might be some news for you, officer...

http://elections.alachua.fl.us/index...d=33&spanish=N



So what do we get?

2000: Good old times. Every line does what it supposed to do. It oscillates around and converges rapidly towards the final result of the candidate in a flat, straightish line. The oscillation doodle is a zig-zag orgy. Well, gone are the good old times...

2004: Did not see it. Was Bush only, right?

2008: I have split the results in 2 charts to zoom the scale on the small guys. They are small and probably ignorant of the hypergeometric distribution law, but they tend to follow it pretty well. On the other hand, the big guys... Romney's surge alert... Paul bleeding. McCain is flat in the doodle chart for a while but the small waves along the lines suggest that his 0% is a big zero, like 0.05, not statistically impossible. Romney's zeros are the real stuff, the 0.00000000000000000000000000001 ones, the ones we are looking for. I know, I need a log scale on the chart...

2012: Well, what can I say... You get the... picture 

Now I hear a question in the back:

- The chart title indicates "Rep.", presumably for Republican. Does it mean that you have...?
- Yes, Sir. And trust me, after across time, you want to see across the aisle!

----------


## Liberty1789

The Democrats are cool: they voted in 2004, so we get a full time series.



2000: Gore vs Bradley: good boys. Oscillation, quick convergence into a flat line. In a duel, when the % of one candidate goes up, the other one goes down. That symetry is reflected in the mirror image of the oscillation doodle. However, they still do oscillate, don't they? Perfect.

2004: Candidate galore! Kerry dominates everybody head-and-shoulders, so I have provided a zoom of the also-rans. The oscillation doodle is a glorious testament to a vibrant democracy. Halleluja!

2008: Vibrant democracy amongst the small guys in the 2nd of the two charts. See how hypergeometry, like gravity, applies to small things? Some guy here has 27 votes and seems to abide to the (mathematical) law religiously. Well, done. Compared it to the big guys' broken oscillators. No religion. Well, Edwards recovered his oscillator after beeing fleeced, sorry, after going anomalous in the first half of the ballot count, to the benefit of Obama. Then Obama goes anomalous and shares the loot with Clinton.

Ergo new hypothesis: *the anomaly keeping us busy appeared between 2004 and 2008*.

----------


## Barrex

Good work Liberty1789 (you are pretty old).

Are you following comments and people who try to debunk it on reddit?

Again small observation that is probably not necessary but in final document use same colors for candidates on every graph and post what is "x" and what is "y" axis. I know what is what because i followed this from start but most people are new and are getting lost.

Could you tell us what is next?
Any time-line when will this be ready?

----------


## millercards

I'm a lurker who's read a lot of this.  I haven't kept up the last two days because of other life necessities, but I was curious if Michigan was being talked about yet.  I realize there's a lot of work to be done in the other states... but from what I noticed about Michigan:

The early polls were something like:
Romney 38%
Santorum 36%
Paul 15%
Gingrich 11%

Closer to the election, in and around the debate, Santorum seemed to surge, and then fade a little, and it seemed like it was something close to:

Santorum 38%
Romney 36%
Paul 15%
Gingrich 11%

Final Results:

Romney 41%  + 4 or 5
Santorum 38%  even
Paul 11%   - 4
Gingrich 7%  - 4


Just seems from the percentages alone that Michigan could very well have had the same thing happened.

NOTE - I don't feel confident in my Gingrich numbers, but the other ones I remember well.

----------


## The Man

I just spoke with the Michigan Elections Commission who told me that they will not post precinct level results until mid March.


> I'm a lurker who's read a lot of this.  I haven't kept up the last two days because of other life necessities, but I was curious if Michigan was being talked about yet.  I realize there's a lot of work to be done in the other states... but from what I noticed about Michigan:
> 
> The early polls were something like:
> Romney 38%
> Santorum 36%
> Paul 15%
> Gingrich 11%
> 
> Closer to the election, in and around the debate, Santorum seemed to surge, and then fade a little, and it seemed like it was something close to:
> ...

----------


## bbwarfield

> I just spoke with the Michigan Elections Commission who told me that they will not post precinct level results until mid March.


well.... thats convenient... reason given?.... "its so hard?"

----------


## The Man

She told me that they always do it like this. She said they wait until the results are "official" before the precinct data is posted.


> well.... thats convenient... reason given?.... "its so hard?"

----------


## mosquitobite

How many people here following this thread have volunteered to work their precinct for the local elections?

Just wondering if we had real people working the polls and saw the numbers being spit out of the machines before being "official" if that would help?

----------


## bbwarfield

> How many people here following this thread have volunteered to work their precinct for the local elections?
> 
> Just wondering if we had real people working the polls and saw the numbers being spit out of the machines before being "official" if that would help?


too late in my state.... but woudnt matter much here... the data is sent out electronically and then back to the precinct.... they have no idea what the numbers are just the amount of people who voted.

----------


## mosquitobite

Here in Indiana we use paper ballots with an electronic reader - so they could be wrong already - BUT we'd at least be able to confirm the numbers match what the final report is?  Obviously, if the caucuses are not immune - anything could happen, anywhere in the pipeline!

----------


## bcreps85

Wow Liberty...even more convincing stuff than before.  So it starts in '08...and I seem to recall lots of allegations of vote tampering to get Obama the win.  Sounds like they might have been more than allegations...

----------


## Liberty1789



----------


## Barrex

> 


But Mitts line is going up before "Anomalous surge" too.(from cca. 15% to 54% when "Anomalous surge" begins).

debunk :
Why steal votes if they are not deciding place in the race?

Maybe because every percent means more delegates...

----------


## Liberty1789



----------


## bcreps85

> But Mitts line is going up before "Anomalous surge" too.(from cca. 15% to 54% when "Anomalous surge" begins).
> 
> debunk :
> Why steal votes if they are not deciding place in the race?
> 
> Maybe because every percent means more delegates...


Well, several reasons...

1.  This isn't a sophisticated algorithm or it wouldn't have been detected (if that is what is going on).  As stated previously, it isn't meant to reverse a landslide...that would be too obvious, even without all of this statistical analysis.  

2.  Remember when Ron Paul was second in NH?  He was considerably down there...now what if Romney was 36% and Paul was 34%?  That kind of draws a different narrative about the supposed front-runners dominance, doesn't it?

3.  Remember Romney's second in SC?  Well...what if he was third and Paul was second?  Hell, what if it just made Paul 3rd and Santorum 4th?  That could have been the nail in his coffin.  It doesn't have to make someone first to change the narrative...

4.  What about states where you have to get a percentage of the vote to be eligible for proportionately awarded delegates?  Anywhere Paul finished around 10-12% could have easily been 15% otherwise...meaning delegates were taken from him by the algorithm in any case like this.

I'm sure there are more, just some quick observations.

----------


## Liberty1789



----------


## affa

> Well, several reasons...
> 
> 1.  This isn't a sophisticated algorithm or it wouldn't have been detected (if that is what is going on).  As stated previously, it isn't meant to reverse a landslide...that would be too obvious, even without all of this statistical analysis.  
> 
> 2.  Remember when Ron Paul was second in NH?  He was considerably down there...now what if Romney was 36% and Paul was 34%?  That kind of draws a different narrative about the supposed front-runners dominance, doesn't it?
> 
> 3.  Remember Romney's second in SC?  Well...what if he was third and Paul was second?  Hell, what if it just made Paul 3rd and Santorum 4th?  That could have been the nail in his coffin.  It doesn't have to make someone first to change the narrative...
> 
> 4.  What about states where you have to get a percentage of the vote to be eligible for proportionately awarded delegates?  Anywhere Paul finished around 10-12% could have easily been 15% otherwise...meaning delegates were taken from him by the algorithm in any case like this.
> ...


Agreed with all, but also:

They may have the code in place before they know the exact results.

----------


## The Man

Remember that precincts can have more than a single voting machine. If the manipulation is being performed inside the EVM firmware (I'm not saying this is the case), this can create what I have termed an algorithm "harmonic". For example in my plots of total votes vs. votes each candidate starting with smallest vote precincts, I would often see a sudden slope change at a vote total that would correspond to a precinct vote count of, say, 250 votes. Another slope increase would often happen at around 450- 600 votes. I speculated that in the precincts with 2 machines, the algorithm wouldn't engage until 500  (2 X 250) 3 machines@ 750 (3X 250) and so on. It could be interesting to know how many voting machines were used at each precinct and to create separate graphs based on how many EVM's were used at the the precincts. Differences in the 1, 2, 3, or 4 machines per precinct graphs could potentially reveal if this manipulation is in the EVM itself.

----------


## bbwarfield

> Remember that precincts can have more than a single voting machine. If the manipulation is being performed inside the EVM firmware (I'm not saying this is the case), this can create what I have termed an algorithm "harmonic". For example in my plots of total votes vs. votes each candidate starting with smallest vote precincts, I would often see a sudden slope change at a vote total that would correspond to a precinct vote count of, say, 250 votes. Another slope increase would often happen at around 450- 600 votes. I speculated that in the precincts with 2 machines, the algorithm wouldn't engage until 500  (2 X 250) 3 machines@ 750 (3X 250) and so on. It could be interesting to know how many voting machines were used at each precinct and to create separate graphs based on how many EVM's were used at the the precincts. Differences in the 1, 2, 3, or 4 machines per precinct graphs could potentially reveal if this manipulation is in the EVM itself.


keep in mind that all of the votes are sent to a central tabulation system before being sent back to the precinct.... the algorith could be in the cards, machines, tabulation server.... so many places to hide

----------


## Mark37snj

I finished with the thread summaries. BIG thanks to Kathy88 who converted it to pdf format. I combined both threads into one summary with the second thread following the first. I focused on including posts from our stat team and those they responded to and a few others I felt were relevant. It needed to be slimed down more, it's almost 200 pages, but I didn't want to cut any more posts because I felt that they were relevant. There was just so much information on both threads and it was very difficult to even get the summary this small.


Significant Evidence of Algorithmic Vote Flipping in the 2012 GOP Primary

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJA...mlLc3ZhQQ/edit

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJA...XdLV2ZyUQ/edit

Evidence of Algorithmic Vote Flipping in GOP Primary Elections Layman's Executive Summary

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJA...npDYnNyQQ/edit

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJA...npKMEZUUQ/edit

Original South Carolina Google docs

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_wW...1OWZkZjhk/edit

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_wW...wZjkyY2Iw/edit

----------

