# Start Here > Ron Paul Forum >  The case for the occurence of algorithmic vote flipping

## drummergirl

*MODERATOR NOTE: This is a contentious subject that members of this forum have expressed strong disagreement on.  A number of members do not think there is any evidence of vote flipping, but in the interest of avoiding flame wars and derailments to the work that is being done here this thread is to be kept free of attacks on this project.  To view arguments making the case against the occurrence of vote flipping or to post arguments yourself go here or in other previous threads making the case against vote flipping such as here or here.*


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Here is a summary, written with the non-math oriented in mind, of the analysis so far.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...BVE/edit?pli=1

Since the original threads are now over 4000 posts, there is a TON of more data that's been analyzed since super Tuesday, and considering the time critical nature of the information, I thought it would be a good idea to start a new thread. 

If your state primary is yet to be conducted, please bring this to the attention of your election administrators so they have a chance to prevent fraud in their elections.

If your state primary is past, please gather up your data and head to your attorney general.

For anyone who likes to be thorough, the original thread is most easily read by the first post and then backwards from the most recent 

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?363915

----------


## economics102

+rep! Keep pushing, this is vital work!

----------


## drummergirl

thanks; next project is a technical summary with lots of math for those who want data.

----------


## RonRules

Please keep this new thread as clean as possible, with productive posts (Pro or con). If your pet argument has been shot down, please don't self-bump. Keep praise to a minimum, but please criticize in private.

Make every post about new information that has not been provided before. Learn to make charts through Excel or the new Java program made by RPF member "Program4Liberty". This is the quickest way to analyze a new state/county/precinct.

You can download the current version here:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/voteanalyze/?_test=b

All you need to do is to arrange your data in this format:



==================Using VoteAnalyze================
To Use:

I have included pregenerated output information for everyone, but if you should wish to verify that these numbers and this program are correct, the program source code is included here, and you can re-generate the information yourself by double-clicking VotesAnaylze.bat and following the prompts. Use compile.bat to compile the program.

Here is an example of generating the 2012 outputs:

VotesAnalyze.bat
Note: This program requires that no candidate's last name contain another candidate's last name - e.g. Joe Adams and Bill Adamson.
Enter the relative path and filename to the candidates text file:   votes2012/candidates.txt
Note: This program requires that all data be provided in files with comma seperated values (.csv)
Enter the relative path to the folder containing the .csv files:    votes2012
Generating data by state...
Generaling data for all states combined...
Outputting correlation table...
Generating chart images...
Program Finished.

That's it! "votes2012/candidates.txt" and then "votes2012" are the only things you need to enter to get the program to generate data for 2012.
Use 2008 and 2000 in place for those years.

---------------------------------------------------

Please note: it's not a polished program, so if you type anything in incorrectly, the input tables aren't formatted correctly, or something I've not mentioned here happens, then you'll just get a Java error.

Try again, tweak, and use the forums.

----------


## Constitutional Paulicy

Not sure how accurate this is, but I heard someone say that the reason Romney's numbers surge at the close of the process is due to larger districts. The argument was that he does better than other candidates in larger population centers (big cities) where the vote counts take longer to tabulate so they are the last districts to submit their results.

----------


## drummergirl

Unfortunately it's a bit more than that.  If that were the case his graphs would have a bump to a higher percentage, then flat line.  But what we see, over and over in nearly every state, is once 20-50% of the votes are tabulated, the graph of Romney's overall percentage climbs linearly to the end of the tabulation.  Statistically, it's impossible (well, the odds are better of winning the Texas state lottery 10 weeks in a row on a single quick pick a week).

And no one has been able to come up with a hypothesis as to why Romney's total does this at the expense of Ron Paul, Rick Perry, and Michelle Bachman in Iowa, Paul and Huntsman in New Hampshire, Santorum in Louisiana (Ron Paul untouched), Paul, Santorum, and Gingrich in Oklahoma, etc.

----------


## Titus

Hopefully asking for clarification is ok.

Your article calls these basic statistics. However, it has been about 10 years since I took statistics, and I don't think I dealt much with Omega (I think that's the one that looks like an O). Is that the symbol for standard deviations? If so, are y'all using a t-test?

I'm not quite understanding the captions underneath each graph with the diagonal lines. Are the precincts sorted from smallest to largest and then added together? If so, wouldn't that suggest that the percentage of each precinct is what is flipped, rather than some from each precinct?

I think this needs a lot more explanation for people like me who have taken some statistics and want to know more about which equations were used and how they were generated.

Please don't take this as criticism of the model but I really want to understand it so I can contribute. If I can't understand it, I can be near certain the MSM viewers won't. Heck, the MSM hasn't even added up Maine's numbers.

That being said. +rep. Keep up the good work.

----------


## RonRules

> Not sure how accurate this is, but I heard someone say that the reason Romney's numbers surge at the close of the process is due to larger districts. The argument was that he does better than other candidates in larger population centers (big cities) where the vote counts take longer to tabulate so they are the last districts to submit their results.


I have said that and possibly other people in this forum. Most of us have watched the results come in on each of the primaries's election night, being filled with enthusiastic early on, to only be disappointed as the evening progressed.

The time-based evidence is hard to come by from official sources. You'd have to go to CNN/CBS/ABC and ask them for the file where they received the data along with time stamps for each piece of data as it came in.

If you are really interested in researching this, you could also go back to each thread were individual primaries were discussed in this forum, collect the results that we posted with post time in the thread and make charts from that data. The X-Axis would be time instead of cumulative precinct size. I believe that the charts will look somewhat similar to our current charts, because of what you state:  "where the vote counts take longer to tabulate so they are the last districts to submit their results."

It would be interesting to see one more point of argument to use. The general population would be more likely to accept such a time-based chart than "cumulative increasing precinct vote tally".

It's a neat project and I'd love to see someone tackle that.

One thing to be mindful though is that precincts, regardless of size, that use Direct Entry Machines (touch screen), will report just as quickly for small precincts as for large precincts. The above concept will work only for manually counted precincts or precincts that use optical scan.

----------


## Titus

> It would be interesting to see one more point of argument to use. The general population would be more likely to accept such a time-based chart than "cumulative increasing precinct vote tally".


I would certainly find that easier to understand.




> One thing to be mindful though is that precincts, regardless of size, that use Direct Entry Machines (touch screen), will report just as quickly for small precincts as for large precincts. The above concept will work only for manually counted precincts or precincts that use optical scan.


Question. Is the graph suggesting that time changes the way the votes are "flipped" or is it the size of the precinct?


Did someone do Maine?

----------


## arsenius

Titus, it is by precinct size.  However, smaller precincts often finish totaling first, and so may be reported first. The argument is not that only later precincts are flipped.

----------


## dsw

> Unfortunately it's a bit more than that.  If that were the case his graphs would have a bump to a higher percentage, then flat line.  But what we see, over and over in nearly every state, is once 20-50% of the votes are tabulated, the graph of Romney's overall percentage climbs linearly to the end of the tabulation.  Statistically, it's impossible (well, the odds are better of winning the Texas state lottery 10 weeks in a row on a single quick pick a week).


If the larger percentages are in the larger precincts, i.e., the data points that pull up the average tend to occur toward the end of the sequence, then it won't flatten out.   It's only going to flatten out if you get to a point where the prior average is (roughly) the overall average, and the remaining precincts average out to the overall average ... but that's not the case if there's a correlation between the precinct ordering and the vote percentage.  

What the non-flattening graphs show, in a convoluted way, is that there IS a correlation between precinct size and vote percentage.  If there is such a correlation, the graph won't be flat, and the stronger the correlation the less flat it will be. 

Look at it this way.  Assume there's a correlation between precinct size and vote percentage and for this example, assume it's increasing.  If we look at some midpoint in the sorted sequence, then the correlation means that the points to the right will have a higher average than the points to the left.  But the cumulative average is obviously the average of the points to the left, so points to the right will cause the cumulative average to continue rising as we continue accumulating them.  So the correlation means that the curve is not flat.  Fraud or no fraud, it's just the effect of sorting by a non-independent variable.  

The statistical argument assumes that the precinct size and vote percentage are independent variables.  If there's a correlation between precinct size and vote percentage, then the statistical argument is incorrect.

----------


## drummergirl

> Hopefully asking for clarification is ok.
> 
> Your article calls these basic statistics. However, it has been about 10 years since I took statistics, and I don't think I dealt much with Omega (I think that's the one that looks like an O). Is that the symbol for standard deviations? If so, are y'all using a t-test?
> 
> I'm not quite understanding the captions underneath each graph with the diagonal lines. Are the precincts sorted from smallest to largest and then added together? If so, wouldn't that suggest that the percentage of each precinct is what is flipped, rather than some from each precinct?
> 
> I think this needs a lot more explanation for people like me who have taken some statistics and want to know more about which equations were used and how they were generated.
> 
> Please don't take this as criticism of the model but I really want to understand it so I can contribute. If I can't understand it, I can be near certain the MSM viewers won't. Heck, the MSM hasn't even added up Maine's numbers.
> ...


Thank you for your questions.  This summary was written to help explain the math for people who don't know math.  next project is a technical summary.  And yes, if you flip through the original thread and look for the t-test values, R squared, and f numbers your jaw will drop.

If you are wanting to look for yourself at the basics, page one of the original thread and then read backwards is my best advice for now.  I apologize for not having more detail for you atm, but I have to get up early (ewwww!).

----------


## drummergirl

[QUOTE=Titus;4316877
Question. Is the graph suggesting that time changes the way the votes are "flipped" or is it the size of the precinct?


Did someone do Maine?[/QUOTE]

It is not time.  It is precinct size, which is actually shorthand for "the number of ballots cast in a precinct".  So "small" just means there were not a lot of votes cast there.  The difference between small and large is not necessarily obvious.  I know we have one state where the break point was a difference of 20 votes per precinct.  20 votes is not that big a change.

And I believe Maine statewide was done.

----------


## RonRules

> Question. Is the graph suggesting that time changes the way the votes are "flipped" or is it the size of the precinct?
> Did someone do Maine?


If a given state/county is re-plotted with time on the X-Axis, it will show some slope in the direction of vote flipping, much like the cumulative precinct vote tally charts. I expect the chart to be more bumpy, depending on the type of equipment used at the various precincts.

Maine was done at the state level as shown below, but I don't remember seeing charts for individual counties in Maine. You'll have to get the data from the friendly local GOP, but it is also an important project to pursue. Maine is one of those states were will will likely have a plurality of delegates, but lose (officially) the popular vote. This could happen in 6-7 states and I expect much commotion in the coming weeks as these delegates get announced.

It is important that we can make a strong case for vote flipping in these contentious states. From the looks of the chart below, I think Ron had the popular vote in Maine, but got flipped to second place. We need a solid analysis, county by county in Maine. Anybody want to do this?

----------


## drummergirl

> The statistical argument assumes that the precinct size and vote percentage are independent variables.  If there's a correlation between precinct size and vote percentage, then the statistical argument is incorrect.


I think what you mean is that if there should be a correlation between precinct size and vote percentage then the statistical argument is incorrect.  That is absolutely true.

It is the central issue of what we see, as a matter of fact.  The math we are talking about is pretty basic and old.  If the math is wrong, the whole field of statistics will never be the same.

----------


## dsw

> I think what you mean is that if there should be a correlation between precinct size and vote percentage then the statistical argument is incorrect.  That is absolutely true.
> 
> It is the central issue of what we see, as a matter of fact.  The math we are talking about is pretty basic and old.  If the math is wrong, the whole field of statistics will never be the same.


But the probability argument (that the odds of Mitt's graph doing such and such is some huge number) only makes sense if there's no correlation between the precinct size and the vote percentage.  The slope of the graph proves that there IS a correlation, and therefore the calculation of the odds of it happening is no longer valid.  So I'm confused about what the probability argument is supposed to show.  It assumes something proven to be false.

It's obviously not impossible for there to be a correlation between precinct size and vote percentage, and therefore a curve that doesn't flatten out, without needing any fraud to explain it.  The Virginia Beach data show one way that could happen.  There's a large contiguous area with two properties, (a) the precincts in that area are among the largest in the city (they account for 60% of the top 23 precincts), and (b) Romney was very popular in those areas.  With no fraud at all having those two conditions coincide is sufficient to have a graph that starts out looking good for Ron Paul but doesn't flatten out and ends with Mitt winning.  

I'm not saying that this is the whole story in VBC -- obviously not since the bias for Romney over Paul shows up well before that point in the ordered list of precincts (and well before the alleged flipping is supposed to start according to the algorithm).  But it illustrates a kind of situation that could cause this sort of correlation, without fraud.  

A key point here is that, as I noted in the other thread, there's a strong pattern in the precinct ordering that tends to cluster precincts of similar size together.  I don't know if that's true elsewhere, but it's clear in VBC.   So when an area spanning multiple precincts is strongly pro-Mitt, and it happens to be one of the areas with large precincts, a correlation with precinct size is the natural result.

----------


## affa

> It's obviously not impossible for there to be a correlation between precinct size and vote percentage, and therefore a curve that doesn't flatten out, without needing any fraud to explain it.


This is why we've spent tens of hours charting historical elections, showing that Romney is, by far, Mr. Precinct Size and that, barring 2008, it has only really been seen in nature to any significant degree Louisiana, where the guy in charge of elections ended up in jail for election fraud.

----------


## kathy88

> Get this off the front page.Anyone interested already knows you are in hot topics.It's just a bright light flashed in the eyes that detracts from current real important business.


Wouldn't that be a moderator decision? Wead just wrote a blog about the fraud going on, that is in grassroots. The only "detraction" from other business occurs if you click on the topic. So don't click.

----------


## jbauer

First I can say I stoped reading the 4k+ thread weeks ago.

Second, whether you disagree or agree with the methods is irrelevent here.  That horse has been beaten to death several times over.  So don't "tinkle" in their cheerios.

You guys have put a ton of work into this, work that you wouldn't have done if you didn't really beleive what you were working on would make a difference.  I'm not sure if its valid or not.  In my mind for validation it would have to be taken to an outside source, re-run the work re-checked the numbers by someone without a horse in the race.   This would ultimatley be a huge factor in proveing or disproving the results and your conclutions.    

Have you looked into the costs of having an outside source pour over your data and give their conclutions?  I'm not sure what that would cost or what ammount of time it would take.  What I do know is if Dr. Paul can raise $1M in a couple days.  Surley with properly asking and showing your need you could come up with the several $1k's to take this to the next logical step and if kept transparent you'd get what you're asking for.  

If the conclutions are right it would fundementally change the voting world.  If they're wrong it would only cost what people were willing to chip in.

What is the next step?

----------


## arsenius

I agree with jbauer, what is the next step?

At this point I don't see this coming to anything, without some sort of breakthrough.  The phenomenon has been duplicated all over.  It's established.  There needs to be a next step to prove whether it's fraud or not, or get it into someone in the media's hands (a tall order, I know!).  Drummergirl, your updated summary is great, although I would personally change the beginning to be less emotional and jump right into the report.  Thank you for starting work on a technical summary as well!

I am currently emailing drummergirl's summary to the county clerks in Wisconsin, because it is voting next week.  I am trying to make it clear in the email that I am contacting them as a concerned citizen who wants to ensure that the voting process is on the up and up, whether the claims are true or not.  I am including some questions about how voting machine testing is done, based on some concerns that came out in the thread.

I would definitely donate to a chipin of some sort to get this looked at by an independent party also.

----------


## drummergirl

> In my mind for validation it would have to be taken to an outside source, re-run the work re-checked the numbers by someone without a horse in the race.   This would ultimatley be a huge factor in proveing or disproving the results and your conclutions.


I don't really think there is such a thing as someone "without a horse in the race" when it comes to presidential politics.  If you wanted someone with no opinion, you'd probably need extraterrestrial assistance   And frankly, at this point in the campaign, Santorum, Gingrich, and Obama have as much or more to lose than Ron Paul.  This only started here because Ron Paul was affected first.  

Part of the point is the math is pretty easy; it's not rocket science.  Anyone who's completed stats 101 can do the math.  Most people hate math, so no matter how many times you say, "the math shouldn't do this", their emotions which scream, "this can't be happening because it would ruin my world" take over and they just simply refuse to see the truth.  

This is one of those times when the truth is excrutiatingly painful.  So, it's ok to have a cry, take some peptobismol, do some kickboxing, take a xanax, or whatever is legal that helps you to grieve - go do that.  Then please consider what you can do with this information to make a difference.

This needs to go to election administrators where primaries have yet to be conducted.  This needs to go to attorney generals where fraud has already happened.  If you wait for the media to tell you what to do, may your chains rest lightly upon you.

----------


## drummergirl

> I agree with jbauer, what is the next step?
> 
> 
> 
> I am currently emailing drummergirl's summary to the county clerks in Wisconsin, because it is voting next week.  I am trying to make it clear in the email that I am contacting them as a concerned citizen who wants to ensure that the voting process is on the up and up, whether the claims are true or not.  I am including some questions about how voting machine testing is done, based on some concerns that came out in the thread.


Thank you!

Really, all we know, is something is wrong.  We don't know who is behind this or exactly how it's done (we have a couple ideas, but they are speculative).  And just like you don't have to know every detail to report a theft (I don't know how they got in, but my stuff is gone), we don't need to have every piece of information that you'd put in a documentary to get this ball rolling.

----------


## jbauer

There has to be a firm out there that will do the independent analysis of your data without being given your conclutions.  If they come to the same synopsis that you did independantly from your observations then you have validation.  My guess is someone with the right connections (I don't have them) could get this infront of the right people.

Heck with our "younger" crowd there has to be someone that works or attends a university that would love to pour over the data.  Heck give it to some flaming Democrat, they'd be all over it if it meant they could destroy the Republicans.  My fear would be that if you just start emailing this report to every tom dick and harry its going to look exactly like it does as some sort of massive conspiracy theory.  Until it can be confirmed its a theory.  




> I don't really think there is such a thing as someone "without a horse in the race" when it comes to presidential politics.  If you wanted someone with no opinion, you'd probably need extraterrestrial assistance   And frankly, at this point in the campaign, Santorum, Gingrich, and Obama have as much or more to lose than Ron Paul.  This only started here because Ron Paul was affected first.  
> 
> Part of the point is the math is pretty easy; it's not rocket science.  Anyone who's completed stats 101 can do the math.  Most people hate math, so no matter how many times you say, "the math shouldn't do this", their emotions which scream, "this can't be happening because it would ruin my world" take over and they just simply refuse to see the truth.  
> 
> This is one of those times when the truth is excrutiatingly painful.  So, it's ok to have a cry, take some peptobismol, do some kickboxing, take a xanax, or whatever is legal that helps you to grieve - go do that.  Then please consider what you can do with this information to make a difference.
> 
> This needs to go to election administrators where primaries have yet to be conducted.  This needs to go to attorney generals where fraud has already happened.  If you wait for the media to tell you what to do, may your chains rest lightly upon you.

----------


## RonRules

> I am currently emailing drummergirl's summary to the county clerks in Wisconsin, because it is voting next week.  I am trying to make it clear in the email that I am contacting them as a concerned citizen who wants to ensure that the voting process is on the up and up, whether the claims are true or not.  I am including some questions about how voting machine testing is done, based on some concerns that came out in the thread.


Very good. I also submitted drummergirl's summary to my Registrar of Voters. I did this in person and made a one hour presentation along with a knowledgeable friend. I urge everyone to do the same, even if you are unsure of the evidence thus far. Let them decide. The staff that I met immediately "got it", and we are continuing the dialog. I'll soon do the same with three neighboring counties: Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino.

We have enough documentation. We have a good summary document. It's time to alert the people in charge. Forget the media for now, they'll spin this immediately. Check with people that know statistics.

Where vote has taken place, urge them to NOT certify the results. 
Where voting has not taken place, alert them to the problem, explain the possibility of vote flipping and if you are knowledgeable suggest additional checks.
1) For the states that have voted: Have them re-check the numbers between precincts and central tabulation. NOT JUST THE TOTALS, but each individual candidate. That's extremely important because currently this is not done in the places I have checked.
2) Tell them to load up the central tabulator software on a virgin computer or disk drive. Don't ever let that computer hooked up to the internet.
3) Check the machines with at least vote counts > 300. Thus far, in the procedures I have reviewed the vote count in test never exceeds 50.
4) Set the machine date to the election date and time before testing. This is not currently done! It's an easy way for a virus to hide and "wake up" on election day.
5) Think of more checks yourself and report here.

----------


## drummergirl

> The statistical argument assumes that the precinct size and vote percentage are independent variables.  If there's a correlation between precinct size and vote percentage, then the statistical argument is incorrect.


The central problem is that a correlation exists between precinct size and vote percentage.  The fact that this correlation exists is bizarre.  Historically, votes per precinct (size) and a candidate's percentage of the vote are independent variables.  This is why pollsters can conduct polls.  If it were normal for these to be dependent variables, polling would have to account for this or be meaningless.  Pollsters do try to account for known demographic variables - sex, age, race, religion.  The "number of votes in your precinct" is not a known demographic variable.

And, if you think a bit about what constitutes a small precinct or a large precinct, it shouldn't be.  A small precinct might be rural or it might be predominantly democrat or it may have had low turnout for an odd reason (weather, local problem, etc.).  A large precinct might be suburban or urban or highly republican or had a high turn out for an odd reason.  And in some cases here, the difference between "small" and "large" is about 20 votes.

I'm truly not sure from your posts if you don't understand the math (if so, please read the summary) or if you do understand the math but you just don't want to see what it is saying.  Please keep in mind, the reason that the lines should go flat is that the total number of votes is constantly increasing, so slight variations in vote totals from precinct to precinct will be less and less "noisy" as you approach 100% counted. (remember the first graph in the summary?)

----------


## Nirvikalpa

*If you have nothing positive to add to this discussion, do not post.  Stop derailing the thread.*

----------


## jbauer

What you say might be absolutley correct.  If the creators of this want to validate it, it needs to be tested by an outside unbiased source.  They'll either find out that its completley incorrect or that it has some legs.  If its as easy to disclaim as you say it is, then it should be a pretty short interview and thus quite cheap.

I don't think they've proven anything other than Romney won.  But what I can say is that they've put so much time and effort into this that they probably know the numbers better than anyone else.  If they take it to the PHD and he/she discredits it within minutes it isn't going to cost much and it can be put to rest.  However, if its taken to the PHD and there's something there then its could be earth shattering.

I'm a risk vs reward guy, the risk ($) of having it evaluated is very small.  The reward, even if its not what they want to hear finally puts this to bed....or they find out there's something to it and they all get to write books and movies and do leno and letterman etal.

Seems like a good investment to me.  





> It doesn't need an outside party to check it. Anyone that is a little bit math inclined and taken a few upper level university courses can tell you that they haven't produced one iota of proof about anything. Nothing they are doing is even nearly complicated or advanced enough to require an expert to look at it.   That's like saying you need to get a Ph.D mathematician to check your kids arithmetic homework.

----------


## arsenius

> Very good. I also submitted drummergirl's summary to my Registrar of Voters. I did this in person and made a one hour presentation along with a knowledgeable friend. I urge everyone to do the same, even if you are unsure of the evidence thus far. Let them decide. The staff that I met immediately "got it", and we are continuing the dialog. I'll soon do the same with three neighboring counties: Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino.
> 
> 1) For the states that have voted: Have them re-check the numbers between precincts and central tabulation. NOT JUST THE TOTALS, but each individual candidate. That's extremely important because currently this is not done in the places I have checked.
> 2) Tell them to load up the central tabulator software on a virgin computer or disk drive. Don't ever let that computer hooked up to the internet.
> 3) Check the machines with at least vote counts > 300. Thus far, in the procedures I have reviewed the vote count in test never exceeds 50.
> 4) Set the machine date to the election date and time before testing. This is not currently done! It's an easy way for a virus to hide and "wake up" on election day.
> 5) Think of more checks yourself and report here.


Unfortunately I'm overseas, so I'm limited to email.  But, here is the list of things I mentioned in the email I sent out.  Mostly the same, but number 6 is based on something I saw in that Bev Harris movie (name escapes me at the moment, obviously...).

1. Are voting machines and tabulators tested by setting the machines' dates to the date of the actual election?
2. Are voting machines and tabulators tested using a range of votes? (For example, under 50, more than 200, more than 1000?)
3. Are the voting machines and tabulators tested using actual candidate names?
4. Are recorded vote totals for each individual candidate reported back to precincts for checking, or only total votes recorded?
5. Are the voting machines and tabulators connected to the internet,
or other network?
6. Are voting machine vendors allowed to interact with machines or software at any point between testing and vote certification?

And this explanation:

Items 1 through 3 are critical in case any virus is programmed to only operate when those parameters are true.  In particular, item 2 is
critical to the phenomenon observed in the document.  It is my understanding that item 4 is a common practice, but it allows the
alleged flipping to go undetected. Also, it is critical to note that the alleged flipping can be performed using a relatively low number of
flipped votes per precinct, as low as 3-4 votes per precinct can add up to the effects shown.

----------


## dsw

> I'm truly not sure from your posts if you don't understand the math (if so, please read the summary) or if you do understand the math but you just don't want to see what it is saying. Please keep in mind, the reason that the lines should go flat is that the total number of votes is constantly increasing, so slight variations in vote totals from precinct to precinct will be less and less "noisy" as you approach 100% counted. (remember the first graph in the summary?)


I think I understand the math.  And we seemed to agree at one point that the argument that the line should go flat is only valid if there's no correlation between precinct size and vote percentage.  Right?

But there clearly is, in a lot of cases, exactly that correlation.  Given that, it's not surprising that the line doesn't go flat.

That's where the rigorous mathematical part ends.  The graph isn't flat exactly because this correlation exists, in some races.

The non-rigorous argument is that the correlation shouldn't exist.  That's based on "if you think about it" suggestions that are definitely in the "things that make you go hmmmm" category.  But that's not math.   (And your "if you think about it" here turns out not to be the case in the Va Beach data, where there's some very strong clustering of similar-sized precincts, so that the sorted precinct order is to a significant degree an ordering of different geographical neighborhoods.)    

I'm not disagreeing with the math part.  The summary doesn't, however, keep the non-math part distinct from the  math part.  It talks about the non-math part as if it were math, when it's more of a "something's not right here." 

You write: _Please keep in mind, the reason that the lines should go flat is that the total number of votes is constantly increasing, so slight variations in vote totals from precinct to precinct will be less and less "noisy" as you approach 100% counted._ 

And my point in a nutshell is that this argument ONLY makes sense if there's no correlation between precinct size and vote percent.  So for this mathematical argument to apply you would have to first show that there's no such correlation, because otherwise the math doesn't work.

But in fact there IS such a correlation.  So the math part of the argument doesn't apply.  And the real point of contention is the question of why the correlation exists.  That part of the argument has not been reduced to math.  Which is not to say that there aren't things going on there that make one go hmmm.

----------


## drummergirl

> My fear would be that if you just start emailing this report to every tom dick and harry its going to look exactly like it does as some sort of massive conspiracy theory.  Until it can be confirmed its a theory.


A valid concern.  As a matter of fact when this was first brought to my attention via a friend's facebook post, my first thought was literally, " Oh my God, more tinfoil hat stuff?  I know my statistics so this will take about 5 minutes to dismiss."  Then I started looking at the data.  Then I got sick to my stomach.  Now I'm here.

Honestly, if you know of a better way to disseminate this information please do it.  

So far the media hasn't picked it up, not even the alternative press.  I doubt it will get much press unless/until indictments start coming in.  Too much math.

Election administrators know about the math and they generally care about the integrity of the electoral process (their reputations and careers depend on fair elections).  So be a concerned citizen and politely ask questions.  Be appreciative of their time and volunteer to help out.  Hopefully, they will have some ideas about what is going on and how to prevent it in the future.

----------


## TheGrinch

I am not qualified to speak on this evidence, and obviously leave that to the statisticians and outside unbiased and qualified sources.

But I just wanted to applaud you all for the work you're doing... We all know that voting machines are not transparent or accountable by the public, so obviously the deck is stacked against you, and even with strong indications may never be able to prove enough hard evidence using them. It's obviously the risk you have to take to try, and that in no way means you should give up.. Quite the opposite....

No one should ever be so nasty and critical of those who are working on anything related to voting machines, which stand to greatly undermine democracy by being able to be so easily manipulated.  Whether or not this evidence comes to fruition, there is much need to try to hold accountable a system that has been set up to do the opposite. Hell, you even see these corrupt caucuses now claim they need to go to "more competent" voting machines, when all that does is more easily allow for corruption to be hidden.

I hope that doesn't get lost in this, that even if this isn't conclusive, that something like this certainly could happen this easily, and IMO, probably is after the damning testimony we've seen from one of the programmers. Whether they've covered their tracks or it's as widespread as this evidence might suggest does not preclude that in my mind.

----------


## cheapseats

> First I can say I stoped reading the 4k+ thread weeks ago.
> 
> Second, whether you disagree or agree with the methods is irrelevent here.  That horse has been beaten to death several times over.  So don't "tinkle" in their cheerios.
> 
> You guys have put a ton of work into this, work that you wouldn't have done if you didn't really beleive what you were working on would make a difference.  I'm not sure if its valid or not.  *In my mind for validation it would have to be taken to an outside source, re-run the work re-checked the numbers by someone without a horse in the race.*   This would ultimatley be a huge factor in proveing or disproving the results and your conclutions.    
> 
> Have you looked into the costs of having an outside source pour over your data and give their conclutions?  I'm not sure what that would cost or what ammount of time it would take.  What I do know is if Dr. Paul can raise $1M in a couple days.  Surley with properly asking and showing your need you could come up with the several $1k's to take this to the next logical step and if kept transparent you'd get what you're asking for.  
> 
> If the conclutions are right it would fundementally change the voting world.  If they're wrong it would only cost what people were willing to chip in.
> ...



Not only must corroboration come from outside, INTEREST/OUTRAGE must come from outside.

It's heartbreaking, I agree, but the notorious Silent Majority "simply" does not care if YOUR results are tweaked . . . whereas they WOULD care if THEIR results were tweaked. ("All" you have to do to get their knickers in a twist over electoral tomfoolery is to get 'em on your side, lol.)

Look to second-tier ACADEMICS, I think.  I can well imagine that MANY an ethical professor has HAD IT UP TO HERE with Ivy League Skullduggery.

As both conceptual and practical matters, ELECTION FRAUD is a much, much, much bigger deal than VOTER FRAUD.

----------


## TheGrinch

"I see absolutely nothing wrong with analyzing the legality, morality and rationality of everything our political enemies do. Lord knows they'll never give us a pass. For anything. Ever. "

-KingNothing

----------


## drummergirl

> I think I understand the math.  And we seemed to agree at one point that the argument that the line should go flat is only valid if there's no correlation between precinct size and vote percentage.  Right?


No, we agreed that there is a correlation.




> The non-rigorous argument is that the correlation shouldn't exist.  That's based on "if you think about it" suggestions that are definitely in the "things that make you go hmmmm" category.  But that's not math.   (And your "if you think about it" here turns out not to be the case in the Va Beach data, where there's some very strong clustering of similar-sized precincts, so that the sorted precinct order is to a significant degree an ordering of different geographical neighborhoods.)    
> 
> I'm not disagreeing with the math part.  The summary doesn't, however, keep the non-math part distinct from the  math part.  It talks about the non-math part as if it were math, when it's more of a "something's not right here." 
> 
> You write: _Please keep in mind, the reason that the lines should go flat is that the total number of votes is constantly increasing, so slight variations in vote totals from precinct to precinct will be less and less "noisy" as you approach 100% counted._ 
> 
> And my point in a nutshell is that this argument ONLY makes sense if there's no correlation between precinct size and vote percent.  So for this mathematical argument to apply you would have to first show that there's no such correlation, because otherwise the math doesn't work.


I think you are confusing my explanations of the math with the math itself.  The math is simple sampling statistics.  The lines ought to go flat.  I'm not making it up; it's the same statistics from stats 101 that political scientists have been using for decades.  The fact that a correlation exists between precinct size and vote percentage is in and of itself annomolous.  The fact that the correlations are strong, with R squared values greater than 0.99 in most cases, with t-test and F stats that are practically off the charts means each of these graphs are a set of giant, flashing neon, red flags.  If this correlation were present in one county or one race or one election, it would be cause for investigation.  What we are seeing is the same thing in state after state, multiple counties (but not all of them) again and again. (Well, the primary in Puerto Rico was clean)  You can look at graphs of this data from Germany, the UK, previous elections in the US, other races in the same primaries, and see expected statistical behavior.

Explanations of why the math is the way it is are just my simple attempts to teach math.



> But in fact there IS such a correlation.  So the math part of the argument doesn't apply.  And the real point of contention is the question of why the correlation exists.  That part of the argument has not been reduced to math.  Which is not to say that there aren't things going on there that make one go hmmm.


The math still applies.  The math is everything.  A correlation exists that shouldn't.  Please explain it.  You seem to think that the fact that a correlation exists between precinct size and vote percentage means that is the end of the story.  It's exactly the opposite; that fact is the beginning of the story.

----------


## kathy88

> "I see absolutely nothing wrong with analyzing the legality, morality and rationality of everything our political enemies do. Lord knows they'll never give us a pass. For anything. Ever. "
> 
> -KingNothing


Ah SNAP

----------


## RonRules

> Unfortunately I'm overseas, so I'm limited to email.  But, here is the list of things I mentioned in the email I sent out.  Mostly the same, but number 6 is based on something I saw in that Bev Harris movie (name escapes me at the moment, obviously...).


To add to your list, a must read for everyone here:

Top 5 Things You Can Do To Protect Election
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/toolkit.pdf

I'm glad I saw this part:
How to audit computerized voting systems

I suggest that besides drummergirl's summary that you submit this document to your county's election clerk or registrar of voters.

----------


## RonRules

> If they take it to the PHD and he/she discredits it within minutes it isn't going to cost much and it can be put to rest.  However, if its taken to the PHD and there's something there then its could be earth shattering.


I have personally taken it to two PhD's and they were both floored. One of them now tags along with me when I meet election officials.

Adopt a PhD. It's a worthwhile cause.

----------


## KingNothing

> Ah SNAP


I unignore your post only to reveal that?  Ugh.

----------


## kathy88

> We did.  That won't stop people who have made this their raison d'etre, though.
> 
> You know, never mind the fact that they've done nothing more than spot an "anomaly" that even exists in caucus states where votes are counted out loud, they still believe a "vote flipping algorithim" is stealing this thing from us.


 I believe a moderator asked you very succinctly to stop.

----------


## jbauer

Now here you go you're doing something with it.  Unless the PHD's got it in underwater basket weaving I think that lends some creditablity.

Again, find the organzation, get the donations, be transparent, publish the book.  





> I have personally taken it to two PhD's and they were both floored. One of them now tags along with me when I meet election officials.
> 
> Adopt a PhD. It's a worthwhile cause.

----------


## drummergirl

> You know, never mind the fact that they've done nothing more than spot an "anomaly" that even exists in caucus states where votes are counted out loud, they still believe a "vote flipping algorithim" is stealing this thing from us.


I realize that the problems with Iowa are positively freakish.  There is a serious wtf factor when you have people say, "but I was there, we watched the count, there were cameras everywhere, it's impossible".  But this is actually critical information.  It means the trouble is not in the ballot count but in the central tabulators.  

It would be great if every precinct count from Iowa (not just the vote totals; they will be the same) could be double checked.  I'm not in Iowa and have too many other things to do, but if someone wanted to go after that it would be really interesting.

----------


## kathy88

I think Ron Rules had a great idea. I'm going to go see our election guy for my county and let him take a peek at this. If they can do something to test the machines more thoroughly to prevent something from occurring, I'm sure he'd be willing. He's a super nice man.

----------


## Titus

I know many people report these are basic statistics, but can you do examples of the elections charts with simple, actual numbers? and then include them into the report?

Frankly, I don't have the time to read through massive amounts of thread to understand the methodology. You can bet someone investigating will not. If we get someone to investigate, the methodology has to be clear and repeatable. Right now, I'm just seeing someone claim that this is the number and we did t-tests, etc.

You have to remember your Ron Paul supporter is smarter than most. What you consider basic might not be.

----------


## cheapseats

> I know many people report these are basic statistics, but can you do examples of the elections charts with simple, actual numbers? and then include them into the report?
> 
> *Frankly, I don't have the time to read through massive amounts of thread to understand the methodology.* You can bet someone investigating will not. If we get someone to investigate, the methodology has to be clear and repeatable. Right now, I'm just seeing someone claim that this is the number and we did t-tests, etc.
> 
> You have to remember your Ron Paul supporter is smarter than most. What you consider basic might not be.





I was surely not the only Angeleno who thought O.J. Simpson got off for three reasons and three reasons ONLY:

1.  American idolatry of professional Athletes
2.  Race-based loyalty, turbocharged by Celebrity
3.  MARCIA CLARK BORED THE JURY TO DEATH, DRONING ON ABOUT DNA

Three words:

LOWEST. COMMON. DENOMINATOR.

----------


## The Free Hornet

Let's take two assumptions:

1) People's vote is independent of the size of the precinct in which they vote.
2) People's vote is independent of the time of day in which they vote.

Information presented to date on these threads suggests that precinct size is a definite factor (not unlike gender, religion, age, income).  Another area of interest are the spikes you see in some results.  For example, how likely is that Ron Paul beat Romney in one precinct but loses 20:1 in another in the same state on the same day?  Are these results typical for other elections?  In my opinion, proper resolution of these issues can use people with experience in demographics, past election results (for comparison), and statistics.  I might call such people "expert"s.  *shrug*

You claim to have an opinion that "Anyone" (or do you mean "Everyone") will agree with that meets these two criteria:

1) "little bit math inclined"
2) "taken a few upper level university courses"

First, half the planet is "little bit math inclined".  The other half is "little bit math declined".  Second, most upper lever university courses do not deal with math, statistics, demographics, or election results.  As a BS, MS, PhD, I have read a few course catalogs in my time.  Math and stats may be important to a large fraction of the courses, but they are the subject of a much smaller subset.

You mention "one iota of proof about anything".  Proof is a tricky word in issues of mathematics.  No doubt with your extensive academic background, you can think of one famous example where proof of a relatively simple proposition eluded mathematicians for centuries.  In this sense, proof or no proof is not germane.  The issue is probabilities which is why so many - yourself included - use the word "statistics".  It is also why this thread is entitled "Evidence" not "proof".

Why not applaud these efforts even if you are skeptical?*  There are two things the liberty movement must learn:

1) How are elections rigged?
2) How are elections won?

You may not care about winning elections or the TPTB rigging elections, but I do.  How can we win going forward without knowing the nature of how we lost?

* Don't tell me there are more important issues.  You can waste your time wherever you choose including any of the many fine threads on the Trayvon-Zimmerman thing.

----------


## drummergirl

> 3.  MARCIA CLARK BORED THE JURY TO DEATH, DRONING ON ABOUT DNA
> 
> Three words:
> 
> LOWEST. COMMON. DENOMINATOR.


Exactly.

----------


## drummergirl

I'm working on a technical summary for those who want more math (and I know some of you don't want more math any more than George HW Bush wants more broccoli).  If you just can't wait for it, here is a link to my notes or you can search through the previous thread because Liberty1789's mathematical proof posts are the core of it.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...xR4TzZq8E/edit

oh yeah, 260 pages of notes so far, but it's really condensed compared to the threads

----------


## RonRules

> I know many people report these are basic statistics, but can you do examples of the elections charts with simple, actual numbers? and then include them into the report?
> 
> Frankly, I don't have the time to read through massive amounts of thread to understand the methodology. You can bet someone investigating will not. If we get someone to investigate, the methodology has to be clear and repeatable. Right now, I'm just seeing someone claim that this is the number and we did t-tests, etc.


You don't have to read though 400 pages in the two main threads. You can however try the analysis yourself and it should take you about one hour to reproduce my steps below and start producing charts yourself.

Let me walk you through the process, step by step. I'd do one county that I have not done before, step by step, but please promise me that you will also try one.
It's when I did this myself that I really gained confidence in this analysis. I recommend everyone try a county and analyze it.

1) Pick a state/county you want to analyze. The easiest ones are were Primaries were held and where SOS voting equipment was used because the data is formatted in a way that's easy to use.

Let's try South Carolina. 

2) Go to the Secretary of State website and find the elections results page. Select "Results by County:
http://www.enr-scvotes.org/SC/36831/...n/summary.html

3) I'm randomly picking Richland County. I've never heard of that county and it's smack in the middle of that state. I don't know what the results will be. With a name like that Romney should do well.

4)  Richland County's results are all in: Precincts Completely Reported:	 2117 of 2117; Precincts Percent Reported: 100.00 %

5) Click on Richland County and get the results (http://www.enr-scvotes.org/SC/Richla...n/summary.html)

6) Select the "Reports" tab and download the "detailsxls.zip" file and extract the contents.

7) Here you have a choice:
a) You can produce a .csv file from the xls and use Program4Liberty's Java program to analyse. That's what I now use.
b) You can use the .xls file and process the data with Liberty's1796 method and make the chart.

8) First using Program4Liberty's Java program:
a) Open the .xls file and go to the last tab, in this case "2".
b) Remove unnecessary columns to produce this format:


You should end up with a data sheet that looks like this for this specific county:
Precinct Michele Bachmann Herman Cain Newt Gingrich Jon Huntsman Gary Johnson Ron Paul Rick Perry Mitt Romney Rick Santorum
Ward #1	0	13	41	3	0	52	1	84	17
Ward #2	0	2	5	2	0	10	1	7	5
Ward #3	0	10	63	0	0	45	0	61	19
Ward #4	0	20	67	2	0	55	0	56	27
....

9) Remove the Totals line at the end.

10) Save this worksheet (only the worksheet you are working on) in ".csv" format and name it something meaningful like: 2012_SC_Richland.csv
(You may want to pull it up in a text editor like WordPad to see if it looks OK and that proper "," separators are there.

11) Move the "2012_SC_Richland.csv" file to the "votes2012" directory in VoteAnalyze's directory structure.

12) Run the Java VoteAnalyze program as per the instructions provided in the README.txt file and find the resulting charts in this directory: VoteAnalyze1.3\votes2012-output\charts


You can edit the "candidates.txt" file to include also-rans like Bachman, Cain, etc.

What's interesting in this particular chart is that Romney appears to be taking votes from Ron Paul only. We need horizontal grids in these charts to help determine that.

Anyway, chart on!

Edit: Here's the same data plotted with Liberty1789 Excel method:



I'm still quite puzzled as to why Gingrich and Santorum are untouched. It appears that the algorithm was tweaked and operates differently when looking at results from Tennessee and Louisiana.

----------


## Liberty Rebellion

Statistics are definitely not my forte, but just wondering if anyone has tried reaching out to forums that relate to statistics?

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sa=X&ei...w=1280&bih=843

----------


## RonRules

This deserves to be copied here:
Posted by dr.k.research  New Member
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...pping./page223

Direct Conversations with Workers at the Board/Bureau of Elections, IL and MI

A conversation with one of the assistants to the Lake County Clerk (Illinois)

I just talked to the Election Bureau in Lake County, IL. The agent there confirmed that SOE software was purchased by them this year "because it is so easy to use." She claims it streamlines their efforts. When I asked her about the vote counting, she claimed "Clarityelections doesn't have anything to do with the count." Pressing her further, she said the following:

--the count is done by the grey box machines (made by the Rothschild-owned ES&S)
--SOE software doesn't count votes (a call to SOE in Tampa yields the same response)

Then, asked about the servers, if they were on-site or off-site. She claimed the servers to count Lake County votes are in their building. 
Here is the curious part. I asked her if she or her boss ever sees the counts after they have arrived from the machines? She responded, "We don't recount here." I asked her if she or her boss see or confirm those results from the grey boxes at the precincts. She said in a curt tone, "Why should we?" 

Pressing the issue, I said, then no one sees the results before they are counted into the tabulator (server)? She said that she didn't see results and "I highly doubt that Ms. Helander does, either." Remember, "WHY SHOULD WE?"

There was no confirmation by her and also by the Michigan Bureau of Elections of any off-shore servers. Yet, only you computer people would know what could happen electronically. What both these Bureaus claim (or believe) is that the unknown results from their precincts are processed in their own "tabulators." Note: when I asked the head of Michigan's Bureau about Scytl and off-shore servers, he laughed, also claiming that the counting was done on Michigan's own servers.

Perhaps the investigation can focus on who is involved in handling these machines within each county. More, later.

----------


## jct74

Some negative derailing posts were deleted earlier from this thread.  If anyone has criticisms of this project, please post them here or in other previous threads making the case against vote flipping such as here or here.

This was the solution suggested by one of the administrators to the heated arguments and disruptions that were occurring in earlier threads about this topic that were distracting from the work that was trying to be done, so this thread is to be kept free of that.  It is a practice that has been adopted in the past to avoid these type of problems.  I will update the OP with links to the other "anti" threads.

----------


## drummergirl

> Statistics are definitely not my forte, but just wondering if anyone has tried reaching out to forums that relate to statistics?
> 
> http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sa=X&ei...w=1280&bih=843


I'm not sure which forum it was without looking way back, but early on in the South Carolina thread, there was a guy who did that.  However, he really didn't know what he was talking about, so he just came off sounding silly.  The statisticians got off on a tangent about time dependency, which was completely off topic because there is no time dependency; our elections are held on a single day and no results are released to the press until all of the votes are in.  The Ron Paul supporter apparently did not know this.  So they pretty much just tore him apart.

----------


## drummergirl

> Again, find the organzation, get the donations, be transparent, publish the book.


Maybe someday there'll be a book.  If we hold back and wait for that the title could be "How they stole the election of 2012".  I'd rather get the foxes out of the hen house before the chickens are all dead.  We aren't making a Michael Moore documentary, we are reporting something we've seen.  You know, "see something, say something."

----------


## affa

> Some negative derailing posts were deleted earlier from this thread.  If anyone has criticisms of this project, please post them here or in other previous threads making the case against vote flipping such as here or here.
> 
> This was the solution suggested by one of the administrators to the heated arguments and disruptions that were occurring in earlier threads about this topic, so this thread is to be kept free of that.  It is a practice that has been adopted in the past to avoid these type of problems.  I will update the OP with the link to the other threads.


Great solution, thanks!

----------


## Carson

> Statistics are definitely not my forte, but just wondering if anyone has tried reaching out to forums that relate to statistics?
> 
> http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sa=X&ei...w=1280&bih=843


Not forums that related to statistics but I have, and I would imagine others have tried to reach out to others. If people keep the topic buried it makes it hard for others to join in. I think we will see if this pans out faster by keeping it out in the open. 

Maybe if we had a post with links to all of the old threads. Pro and Con. That might help get us to a solution faster.


Here are links to the ones I know about;

First ?;

Flipping the vote against Ron Paul in South Carolina?


Second ?;

We NEED more hands on deck. Significant evidence of Algorithmic vote flipping.

----------


## dr.k.research

This, by an Iowan, a Blogger, might prove helpful:

Before & After Iowa GOP Certified Caucus Results Compared. Appear to still be inaccurate in many areas. Additional count changes by Romney & Santorum Supporters?


by Shawn Hyde19. January 2012 15:06

2012-IowaCaucusResults_Certifiedvs.xlsx (452.58 kb)

----------


## dr.k.research

> This deserves to be copied here.


RonRules: you did a synopsis of the ownership of ES&S, which was excellent. What happened to that post? It included info on Robert Ahmanson, Hunts, etc. And how do you post directly to the thread in question?

----------


## RonRules

Let me explain a fundamental issue related to this alleged algorithm and how it operates so precisely to create smooth upward gradients benefiting Romney.

What seems to confuse people is the X-Axis in most of our charts, described as: "Cumulative Precinct Vote Tally" (sometimes expressed as a percentage)

What is "Cumulative Precinct Vote Tally"?  It is the *prior sum of ALL precincts up to that point* and the related candidate percentage of the vote on the Y-Axis for *all votes accumulated thus far*. 

This may be totally obvious to some people here, but I believe that there are posters (and impostors) that don't understand that.

Here's a visual description of what I believe is often misunderstood: In this chart below, the *very last point* on the chart of Mitt Romney's line represents the *final percentage* achieved by Mitt Romney when all 34299 votes are counted. 

That single last point represents ALL 100% (34299) votes reported. *That point includes all demographics.*

The previous point (to the left of the last point) represents 95.47% of ALL votes (32746 votes) and the correspondng Y-Axis is Mitt percentage (38.4%) when 95.47% of the values are included. My emphasis here is that 95.47% of all demographics is included in that point.



In order to produce this nice smooth slope, here's what REALLY happening underneath it all. Here's how the sausage is made:

This chart below describes what Mitt Romney has to score as a function of precinct size in order to make the above chart smooth. Those are the actual numbers as precinct sizes increase. This Romney line below is certainly not smooth and progressive. Besides why would Newt do so much worse, especially at the last point? This should put cold water on arguments that Romney does better the larger the precincts or that there are more important factors at play such as voter turnout % per precinct.

Cumulative Precinct Vote Tally is the best independent variable to explain the upward smooth lines on the charts.

What's *fascinating and important to understand* is that these seemingly random variations precisely sum up, or stating differently, the integration of these values under the curve, produces a near perfect, smoothly increasing line. (I know that the integration has an averaging effect, but the straight linear increase is what concerns most of us) The above sloped resulting line typically correlates to the X-Axis with as much as 0.993 correlation. 



To make sure I'm fully understood:  Accumulation does tend to average things. The average of a large sequence of vote percentages should normally cause a smooth out horizontally, not as an upward slope. 

The reason why it should not be a slope is that these last few points (and specifically the very last single point) *includes all demographics* for the entire state/county being charted and needs to match the final vote.

This is why, as we have seen multiple times in prior American and European elections, a nice flat-line as expected, once we're past 20-30% on the X-Axis. Exceptions found thus far, Louisiana(88,92,96 where fraud indictments were made), some 2008 results and of course every single state in the continental US in 2012.

That's what's amazing and that's why we're here.

----------


## RonRules

> RonRules: you did a synopsis of the ownership of ES&S, which was excellent. What happened to that post? It included info on Robert Ahmanson, Hunts, etc. And how do you post directly to the thread in question?


It may have been deleted inadvertently when housekeeping came by earlier today. Here's the data again:

Election Systems & Software (ES&S):
* 1. Company founded by: *Brothers Todd and Bob Urosevich*. The brothers now run competing election companies (*Todd is with ES&S, Bob is with Global Election Systems, now part of Diebold.*) Together, these two companies count about two-thirds of the votes in America. Think of it like this: Suppose Bill Gates owns Microsoft and his brother Bob Gates owns Apple. (Hypothetical brother.) 

* 2. Vested interests: ES&S was given its grubstake (while operating under the name American Information Systems) in 1984 when the* billionaire Ahmanson family* injected enough cash to get ahold of a 68 percent ownership. (2) This wealthy family has been instrumental in making the Republican Party take a hard right turn — pouring money into conservative Christian candidates and right-wing agendas.(3) 

Other ES&S owners: In 1997-98 American Information Systems acquired Business Records Corp., a Texas-based election company originally called Cronus Industries. Twenty percent of the stock of the merged company was given to BRC owners. Among the owners of BRC/Cronus: 

Caroline Hunt, of the* Hunt Oil family*, through her investment group (Rosewood Financial Partners) 

Alex Sheshunoff, a financial data publisher 

The late P.E. Esping, formerly of Omaha, founded First Data Merchant Services 

Charter Oak Partners, an affiliate of Rothschild Realty Inc., which is an affiliate of *Rothschild*, Inc. 

And here:
http://www.thelandesreport.com/PressRelease.htm

ES&S claims to have counted 56% of the vote in the last four presidential elections. Bob and Todd Urosevich founded its predecessor AIS in the 1980's. Bob is now president of Diebold-Global, while brother Todd is a vice president at ES&S. Business Records Corp. which was merged with AIS to become ES&S, was partially owned by Cronus, a company that seems to have a lot of connections to the* infamous Hunt brothers* from Texas, as well as other individuals and entities, including  Rothschild, Inc.. Right wing Republicans *Howard Ahmanson* (who financed AIS) and *Nelson Bunker Hunt* have both heavily contributed to The Chalcedon Institute, an organization that mandates Christian "dominion" over the world.



If the post gets deleted again, then really start worrying.

----------


## RonRules

Anybody care to do Hawaii? I wonder if this algorithm does not cross oceans.

----------


## dsw

> The math still applies.  The math is everything.  A correlation exists that shouldn't.  Please explain it.  You seem to think that the fact that a correlation exists between precinct size and vote percentage means that is the end of the story.  It's exactly the opposite; that fact is the beginning of the story.


I agree that it's the beginning of the story.  A much clearer beginning would be obtained by using standard stats, not slopes of cumulative graphs, and not conflating the correlation with an attempted explanation of it.  

The claim that the correlation shouldn't exist is not a mathematical claim.  Just for one example, Math says nothing about how precincts are divvied up, because it's a human decision and may (and in va beach, does) introduce a pattern related to size.  If that's possible, then a correlation between votes and size is possible, without fraud.

I'm not saying it's NOT fraud, just that there's no mathematical argument that the only human activity that can result in a correlation is fraud.  Your math argument ASSUMES no correlation, and it's a valid and straightforward argument under that assumption.  It's just the law of large numbers, really.  Elementary stats.  For which the assumption of random sampling (i.e., no correlation) is necessary, or else the law of large numbers simply does not apply.

Typing on a ipad.  I can go into this further when I'm back home.

----------


## Tocqueville

Drummergirl,

There were posts a few weeks ago arguing that Romney's performance in larger precincts coincided with higher turnout. You may want to double-check this. High correlation between Romney and Turnout would seem logical as middle-ground candidates always benefit from higher turnout, admittedly to an extent which has yet to be established. 
If confirmed, you would still have to explain the correlation between turnout and precinct size. Not straightforward...

Clearly, political scientists would have more to say about this than pure statisticians.

----------


## RonRules

> There were posts a few weeks ago arguing that Romney's performance in larger precincts coincided with higher turnout. You may want to double-check this. High correlation between Romney and Turnout would seem logical as middle-ground candidates always benefit from higher turnout, admittedly to an extent which has yet to be established. 
> If confirmed, you would still have to explain the correlation between turnout and precinct size. Not straightforward...


This has been suggested before and Liberty1789 did a specific analysis to disprove that. You are welcome to check more places:



Please also have a look at my prior post on this thread (#58). I believe it counters any demographics or voter turnout explanation.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...iling-up/page6

----------


## RonRules

Here's another discovery:

The last point in the chart below is the absentee precinct for the ENTIRE county!  Why would Romney's statistics be SO much better  in this large absentee precinct against Gingrich, WHO WON THE STATE by a wide margin?!!!

Romney got 53.8% of the vote in the absentee precinct, but got 27.85% of the vote state wide!! Explain that!


The final results state wide were:

Newt Gingrich	244,113	40.43%
Mitt Romney	168,152	27.85%

The absentee precinct is mostly averaged over the entire county.  It should reflect the average vote across the entire county more than anything else! This added to the fact that that military voters (who favor Ron Paul) largely vote absentee. There's a lot of military voters in South Carolina.

The % difference favoring Romney in Absentee ballots is one more piece of evidence favoring fraud.

Occam's razor: The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Vote flipping occurred as a function of increasing precinct size.

I'll analyze this state wide. We've got another gem of evidence here!

----------


## bbwarfield

> Here's another discovery:
> 
> The last point in the chart below is the absentee precinct for the ENTIRE county!  Why would Romney's statistics be SO much better against Gingrich, WHO WON THE STATE, in this large precinct?!!!
> 
> Romney got 53.8% of the vote in the absentee precinct, but got 27.85% of the vote state wide!! Explain that


Newt was loosing a few days before...... Absentee were all sent before his big surge from the debate and wife story.... I bet you Herman Caine and perry did better n absentee ballots as well..... Not saying flipping didn't happen..... Just that the majority of absentees were cast long before newt was in first

----------


## bbwarfield

I said some were a ling time ago if you recount a absantee precinct you'd have a fraud indicator (but unreliable cause they may have been smart enough to turn it off in SC when counting. The absantee precinct)

----------


## RonRules

> Newt was loosing a few days before...... Absentee were all sent before his big surge from the debate and wife story.... I bet you Herman Caine and perry did better n absentee ballots as well..... Not saying flipping didn't happen..... Just that the majority of absentees were cast long before newt was in first


You may be contradicting yourself here.

Newt won the state:
Newt Gingrich	244,113	40.43%
Mitt Romney	168,152	27.85%

The dirt on Newt a few days before election day should make a stronger case for him for absentee ballots, which often arrive months before. California is already receiving absentee ballots and the election in in more than two months.

Remember how well Newt was doing a couple of months before SC's elections.

----------


## bbwarfield

No.... Newt surged like a shooting star.... He hadn't been first in any polling I remember seeing till that week.... Perry on the other hand had first till he became a no one after Iowa..... So he may be really good in the absantee precincts.... Absantee precincts have there purpose but newt had a meteoric rise after the turn on the media debate he had. He really was just an annoyance until a few days before

----------


## bbwarfield

The last time newt did well was 12/18 poll.... By the time Iowa was done he was way down...... So more than likely he got some very earlies but the majority would be after he slipped.... Since there all sent in at different times theres no telling... I guess weighing huntsman and perry polling vs. absentees would be a way of gaging it.... Since they dropped out after the absantee deadline.... So would be full candidates at this point

----------


## drummergirl

> Your math argument ASSUMES no correlation,


No.  The opposite is true.  It is standard statistics 101.

----------


## drummergirl

duplicate

----------


## drummergirl

> The claim that the correlation shouldn't exist is not a mathematical claim. 
> 
> Your math argument ASSUMES no correlation, and it's a valid and straightforward argument under that assumption. It's just the law of large numbers, really.  Elementary stats.  For which the assumption of random sampling (i.e., no correlation) is necessary, or else the law of large numbers simply does not apply.
> 
> Typing on a ipad.  I can go into this further when I'm back home.


You do realize that your second and third paragraphs are in direct contradiction to one another?

----------


## RonRules

How much evidence do you need?


Since I have all the Virginia data in one spreadsheet, I decided to chart absentee ballots only throughout the state. Note at how Romney's line slope clearly climbs upwards at around 240 votes tallied per precincts. We've seen that magic 240 count mark in many other states/counties.

This is so clear to me.

For sake of making the chart easier to see, I omitted Fairfax county, which has a very large absentee ballot count. The missing data point is here:

FAIRFAX COUNTY:	
Total: 1203  
Ron Paul 379  31.5%	
Romney  824  68.5%
Ratio Romney/Ron Paul 2.17

I ommitted that point from the chart because it causes most results on the chart to be on the left 1/4 of the page and leaves a lot of blank space up to Fairfax. 

It certainly strengthen the case by just looking at the values above. Romney earns a whooping 68.5% of the vote in that absentee ballot county.

----------


## RonRules

I'm going to start looking at Canada. We need more flat lines to show the naysayers! 

http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/results.html

I like their counting system already!

Counting ballots and verifying results:

"On election night, *the ballot papers are counted one at a time*.  When all the ballots are counted for one polling station, the results are submitted electronically to Elections Canada. *These are broadcast to the public as they come in.*  When all the ballots are counted on election night, these totals are known as the "preliminary results".  Over the *next seven days the process of verifying the results occurs*.  In each riding, the totals for every polling stations are checked and added up once more, before being submitted to Elections Canada; these are known as the "validated results." "

How about something like that HERE?!!

----------


## affa

> How much evidence do you need?
> 
> 
> Since I have all the Virginia data in one spreadsheet, I decided to chart absentee ballots only throughout the state. Note at how Romney's line slope clearly climbs upwards at around 240 votes tallied per precincts. We've seen that magic 240 count mark in many other states/counties.
> 
> This is so clear to me.
> 
> For sake of making the chart easier to see, I omitted Fairfax county, which has a very large absentee ballot count. The missing data point is here:
> 
> ...


So we see the divide / Romney increase even just looking at absentee ballots from precincts across counties, which are a conglomeration of people from all precincts glommed into one.  Man.

----------


## RonRules

Canadians like charts! 


In Canada, the government makes the charts: These are just polls:








Get familiar with the parties here:
http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/parties.html

Including these guys:

http://www.marijuanaparty.ca/index.en.php3

And even these guys:

----------


## bbwarfield

[QUOTE=affa;4321863]So we see the divide / Romney increase even just looking at absentee ballots from precincts across counties, which are a conglomeration of people from all precincts glommed into one.  Man.

Okay, these are impressive.... Just saying sc had a quirk with newts sudden comeback

----------


## row333au

You either have voted legally and have been counted correctly - that resulted with the sum of voters that have voted for the candidate which should be equal to the election result, no matter what any statistics tells ya what should be the result. With acceptable legal identification combine with paper and normal ink pen marking method voting, which are then inserting to each respective candidate's box which is securely guarded in an open public views against probable illegal swapping and tampering, and at the end is openly counted transparent to the public views, as well as being under open public scrutiny and multiple double checking of votes.... all tallied publicly with knowing thousands of people can confirm the records should add up.... at the end this is the only way to secure America's liberty and freedom.

Cheap, cost effective, accurate, secure, logic rational, reliable, open and honest.... 
....whereas e-voting via machines are complex, very expensive, faulty, unreliable, manipulable, tamper prone, private or close data and can be open to interpretations

----------


## affa

> Okay, these are impressive.... Just saying sc had a quirk with newts sudden comeback


Yea, I've been trying to wrap my head around the absentee precinct chart.  I'd think whatever demographic captures absentee votes would be different.  Part would be more homogenized - a selection from the entire county, regardless of precinct, and part would be a very specific demographic (military, etc) so for it to act just like any other 'large voting precinct' seems strikingly odd.

----------


## dsw

> You do realize that your second and third paragraphs are in direct contradiction to one another?


How so?  If there's no correlation, then you can argue validly that the graph should flatten out.  That argument follows straightforwardly from the "law of large numbers" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers).  There's a graph in the wikipedia article showing a line flattening out, in fact.  This is not only very basic, the conclusion is rock solid.  "Virtual certainty" as the wikipedia article points out.

But the argument doesn't apply -- you can't draw the conclusion that here is being expressed as the graph flattening out -- UNLESS you satisfy the condition of independence, or in the terms being used here, unless there's no correlation between precinct size and vote percentage.  If there is such a correlation you can't apply the law of large numbers, and the graph may or may not flatten out.   

So the mathematical argument is valid; it just doesn't apply in this case if there's a correlation.  And there obviously is a correlation.  So the mathematical argument doesn't apply.

You have a separate argument that says the fact that there's a correlation at all is evidence of a problem.  But that argument isn't a mathematical argument.  It's a conclusion drawn from observing a bunch of election graphs, which may be very suggestive of something (and would be more influential if the correlations were demonstrated in standard statistical terms), and it's definitely a "things that make you go hmmm" kind of thing, but it isn't mathematical proof.  

Where do you think I'm contradicting myself?

----------


## RonRules

As expected, Canadian charts for election 2011 flat-line.

I got the data here:
http://www.elections.ca/scripts/resv...prov=35&lang=e
Province: Ontario, pollbureau10001 and pollbureau59036  
(10001 was the first in the list, 59036 was the largest)
They provide .csv files, but the row/column format is opposite of what we need. I could modify the Java program to process those types of files, in day or two. I could then process ALL of Canada quickly.

I feel these charts are enough for now. Verdict: Canada flat-lines.





There is a slight slope for candidate "fuchs", but bear in mind that the largest precinct there only had 322 votes.

----------


## drummergirl

> Where do you think I'm contradicting myself?


Elections follow the law of large numbers.

----------


## drummergirl

It's good to know the law of large numbers is alive and well in Canada

----------


## RonRules

I want to head to Hawaii, but I don't have any data. Can anybody track that down for me?

Thanks

----------


## dsw

I tried (by eye) to add a straight line from the origin to the endpoint for Fairfax.  Correct me if I got that wrong but, when you see the overall trend, and when you take into account that the overall slope is because the number of votes is being plotted rather than percentage, is there anything particularly remarkable about the "crime" point?   

To me what it looks like is that the "crime" point, is significantly lower (i.e., worse for Romney) than it's two neighbors, both of which are unremarkably consistent with the overall trend.  So that you get a dip down to "crime" point, followed by going right back up to the trend.    But I think what's going on here would be a lot clearer if it the y-axis were % of vote.







> How much evidence do you need?
> 
> 
> Since I have all the Virginia data in one spreadsheet, I decided to chart absentee ballots only throughout the state. Note at how Romney's line slope clearly climbs upwards at around 240 votes tallied per precincts. We've seen that magic 240 count mark in many other states/counties.
> 
> This is so clear to me.
> 
> For sake of making the chart easier to see, I omitted Fairfax county, which has a very large absentee ballot count. The missing data point is here:
> 
> ...

----------


## RonRules

You're doin't wrong.  

You can't make an honest curve fit with two points (origin and Fairfax) when you have 119 points available. 

What my graph showed was that after 112 precincts counted, a strange thing started to happen. Creeepy Romney started creeping way too fast.

The proper way to extend that line is to do a linear, least-squares fit on those first 112 points.  See where the extrapolated line should be:

[IMG][/IMG]

----------


## dsw

> Elections follow the law of large numbers.


Some things are correlated and some aren't.  And some things that are correlated in some cases, aren't in others.  There are MANY ways you could sort the precincts in order to have a graph that doesn't flatten out, you just need to pick any sorting variable that correlates with % votes.  And when that happens you've got a case where the law of large numbers doesn't apply.   

Suppose someone sorts the precincts by %republican for national presidential races and finds that the graphs do not flatten out (none of them!) and so they cite the law of large numbers and the fact that "elections follow the law of large numbers" to prove that every presidential election of our generation has been fraudulently manipulated because the odds of the graph not flattening out are infinitesimal.  They're wrong (at least in their reasoning, if not in their conclusion) because there's no mathematical law that says their graph should flatten out.  They've sorted the precincts in an order that introduces a correlation, then tried to apply a mathematical law that only applies if there is no correlation.   The math doesn't say what they think it says, and their argument, or at least the mathematical portion of it, does not prove fraud.

----------


## dsw

You left out the other points, but the extrapolated line ends at (500,300), compared to the actual of about (500,320) there.  Are you just looking at the slope from the "crime" point to the next one, even though that's just how it's going to look for the next point any time the preceding point was lower than average?  There's an even sharper slope a few points back from there, around 130.  

Show the rest of the points, and plot it as a percentage rather than the number of votes.  Does it still look suspicious?   





> You're doin't wrong.  
> 
> You can't make an honest curve fit with two points (origin and Fairfax) when you have 119 points available. 
> 
> What my graph showed was that after 112 precincts counted, a strange thing started to happen. Creeepy Romney started creeping way too fast.
> 
> The proper way to extend that line is to do a linear, least-squares fit on those first 112 points.  See where the extrapolated line should be:
> 
> [IMG][/IMG]

----------


## RonRules

> You left out the other points, but the extrapolated line ends at (500,300), compared to the actual of about (500,320) there.  Are you just looking at the slope from the "crime" point to the next one, even though that's just how it's going to look for the next point any time the preceding point was lower than average?  There's an even sharper slope a few points back from there, around 130.


We suspect that funky things start happening at around 240 votes. We have seen that many times in the past. To confirm that effect, I did a linear least-squares fit using all the 112 precincts up to precinct vote tally ~=240. (the actual X-Axis number at the crime point is 234). Obviously, I should not include points beyond that if I want to make the case that Romney departs from that line at around the 240 point. 

If I add the remaining numbers to the linear fit, I will mix in the non-flipped votes with the flipped votes and produce a meaningless line.

----------


## arsenius

I don't know how much should be read into Romney's absentee ballots. Here is an article on how his campaign tried to get as many as possible:

http://mobile.slate.com/articles/new...a_chance_.html

----------


## drummergirl

> Suppose someone sorts the precincts by %republican for national presidential races and finds that the graphs do not flatten out (none of them!)


Actually, if you sort them that way, they do flatten out.  Over and over, year after year, election after election.  That is the point.

----------


## drummergirl

> I tried (by eye) to add a straight line from the origin to the endpoint for Fairfax.  Correct me if I got that wrong


We don't eyeball; we use linear regression (least squares).

----------


## dsw

> We suspect that funky things start happening at around 240 votes. We have seen that many times in the past. To confirm that effect, I did a linear least-squares fit using all the 112 precincts up to precinct vote tally ~=240. (the actual X-Axis number at the crime point is 234). Obviously, I should not include points beyond that if I want to make the case that Romney departs from that line at around the 240 point. 
> 
> If I add the remaining numbers to the linear fit, I will mix in the non-flipped votes with the flipped votes and produce a meaningless line.


Can you plot it with percentages though?  

Doing the regression you've done begs the question of whether the later results are flipped.  But okay, how about just plotting percentages and drawing a horizontal line at the overall percentage.  If there's a bias with large precincts that will help make that clear visually.  The way you've got it drawn just makes it hard to visually separate the effect of the number of votes increasing with the size of the precinct from any percentage adjustment that may have occurred.

----------


## dsw

> Actually, if you sort them that way, they do flatten out.  Over and over, year after year, election after election.  That is the point.


To make it a better example of someone misunderstanding the math and suspecting fraud, let's suppose this person sorts by increasing % registered Democrat, and looks at McCain vs. Obama.  Elections obey the law of large numbers, so it should flatten out, they think.  But it doesn't!  And they think it's proof of fraud.

Clearly it doesn't flatten out.  Early on McCain on this graph is going to be absolutely *smearing* Obama.  He's going to start out near 100% in precincts that have negligible Democrat registration.  His cumulative percentage is going to be heading downward, though, and Obama's heading up.  By the time we get closer to the right and start to hit Democratic strongholds where there are few or not Republicans, Obama's graph will still be climbing (and McCain falling) because Obama consistently has a higher percentage in such precincts than he does overall, so each time you add one of those precincts you increase the cumulative average.  You hit the overall average only when you hit the right hand side of the graph. 

If you sort the graph that way it won't flatten out.  The math doesn't say it should flatten out.  And the fact that it doesn't flatten out doesn't prove fraud.

----------


## drummergirl

> I want to head to Hawaii, but I don't have any data. Can anybody track that down for me?
> 
> Thanks


It appears that since the hawaii caucus was actually a state GOP run primary election, the HRP is the only source of data.  At the moment all they have published are the totals and totals by congressional district (not useful for our purposes).  

I put in a call to the HRP, but they were not in (probably after 5 hawaii time).

----------


## drummergirl

> To make it a better example of someone misunderstanding the math and suspecting fraud, let's suppose this person sorts by increasing % registered Democrat, and looks at McCain vs. Obama.


I'd love to see that chart.  I think if you looked at a few of those, you might learn something interesting.

----------


## RonRules

> Can you plot it with percentages though?


OK, next time you do you own charts, mmmkay?


Question for the gang: Why does Romney do so well in all those small absentee precincts?

Could it be related to the story that Arsenius posted?
http://mobile.slate.com/articles/new...a_chance_.html

It would make sense to spread out these absentee ballots a few at a time in all precincts, including the very small ones.

If the Romney team fraudulently submitted about 5-6 ballots in each precincts, the early very small precincts would exhibit this kind of early peaking followed by downard slope against an honest candidate that did not stuff the ballot box.

Here's a few where Romney was doing exceptionally well early on:

County Total Paul Romney
GALAX CITY	6	1	5
CHARLES CITY COUNTY	7	1	6
GRAYSON COUNTY	7	1	6
ESSEX COUNTY	9	1	8
NOTTOWAY COUNTY	9	4	5
LEXINGTON CITY	9	0	9
SMYTH COUNTY	10	3	7
ALLEGHANY COUNTY	11	1	10
GILES COUNTY	12	2	10
PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY	12	1	11
LEE COUNTY	13	3	10

----------


## dsw

> I'd love to see that chart.  I think if you looked at a few of those, you might learn something interesting.


Well, here's a quick-and-dirty approximation.  I took the congressional district percentages from here:
http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/4161/
I didn't have % registered Democrat for those districts, so I used something else that illustrates the same point.  I sorted them by the %gore vote, which is probably a good approximation (not that it matters, any variable with a correlation will do the same).   I didn't bother with district sizes, which would move some points around a bit, and I apologize for the lack of labels but this shows the (completely unsurprising) shape of the graph.



There's noise early on, as expected, then it smooths out.  And it doesn't level off.  None of this is in the slightest surprising.   

And so if someone looked at this and said that math requires that this flatten out, they'd be wrong; if they said that the odds of it not flattening out are infinitesimal they'd be wrong; if they said the law of large numbers applies to the sampling when done in this order, they'd be wrong; if they said this proved fraud or proved anything other than the correlation we already knew about, they'd be wrong.

----------


## dsw

Thanks, I appreciate that.  The "crime" point is a lot more subtle now, but it only looked more significant before because the way it was graphed was misleading.  It looks more like a depression in the middle than a boost starting at "crime" and continuing to the right ... but you address that by hypothesizing more crime on the left hand side, too.   Just so.  (Why would it make sense to spread out those absentee ballots, i.e., to spread out completely legitimate absentee votes that demonstrate the success of a campaign operation Romney is proud of?)




> OK, next time you do you own charts, mmmkay?
> 
> 
> Question for the gang: Why does Romney do so well in all those small absentee precincts?
> 
> Could it be related to the story that Arsenius posted?
> http://mobile.slate.com/articles/new...a_chance_.html
> 
> It would make sense to spread out these absentee ballots a few at a time in all precincts, including the very small ones.
> ...

----------


## affa

> I tried (by eye) to add a straight line from the origin to the endpoint for Fairfax.  Correct me if I got that wrong but, when you see the overall trend, and when you take into account that the overall slope is because the number of votes is being plotted rather than percentage, is there anything particularly remarkable about the "crime" point?


You 'tried by eye' and drew a line clearly mapping -above- all but one of the highest possible points on the left side of the graph?  C'mon.

----------


## RonRules

> The "crime" point is a lot more subtle now, but it only looked more significant before because the way it was graphed was misleading.   i.e., to spread out completely legitimate absentee votes that demonstrate the success of a campaign operation Romney is proud of?)


My absentee ballot chart was certainly not "misleading". It is the most basic chart you can make. Precinct vote vs total vote. Just the raw data charted.

We have generally plotted the X-Axis as a function of Cumulative Precincts Vote Tally to express the upward slope and linearity of that curious relationship. Those lines should be horizontal. Instead they are sloped, very straight, as if programmed to do that. That's why we're here!

I personally believe that the vote flipping algorithm is tuned to smooth out this gradient on the Y-Axis as a function of Cumulative Precinct Vote Tally as to not raise suspicion while the results are announced during the election night. As you may remember, I do believe that there is a relationship with the time-based election data reported on election night to the Cumulative Precinct Vote Tally because small precincts are quicker to count.

Now, how do you know happen to know that absentee GOTV "campaign operation Romney is proud of" ?

----------


## affa

> Well, here's a quick-and-dirty approximation.  I took the congressional district percentages from here:
> http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/4161/
> I didn't have % registered Democrat for those districts, so I used something else that illustrates the same point.  I sorted them by the %gore vote, which is probably a good approximation (not that it matters, any variable with a correlation will do the same).   I didn't bother with district sizes, which would move some points around a bit, and I apologize for the lack of labels but this shows the (completely unsurprising) shape of the graph.
> 
> There's noise early on, as expected, then it smooths out.  And it doesn't level off.  None of this is in the slightest surprising.   
> 
> And so if someone looked at this and said that math requires that this flatten out, they'd be wrong; if they said that the odds of it not flattening out are infinitesimal they'd be wrong; if they said the law of large numbers applies to the sampling when done in this order, they'd be wrong; if they said this proved fraud or proved anything other than the correlation we already knew about, they'd be wrong.


Are you seriously coming up with a fabricated chart that intentionally crosses lines to 'prove' that some charts can have crossing lines?  I can make a chart spell my name, too, if I want.   Doesn't add much to the conversation, though.

If your point is that 'there is no mathematical law' that says all charts must flatline, well, yea.   But our point is that when we analyze election results from history and other countries via the method, they all flatline.

Edited to add:

----------


## RonRules

> Are you seriously coming up with a fabricated chart that intentionally crosses lines to 'prove' that some charts can have crossing lines?  I can make a chart spell my name, too, if I want.   Doesn't add much to the conversation, though.
> 
> If your point is that 'there is no mathematical law' that says all charts must flatline, well, yea.   But our point is that when we analyze election results from history and other countries via the method, they all flatline.


I was going to address that, but you did it more succinctly than I could. I'm definitely past my bedtime.

I hope we're done trying to explain why the lines should be horizontal and they're not.

----------


## drummergirl

I'm not trying to offend you dsw; I do not think you have a handle on the basic mathematics here.

This is definitely a "quick and dirty" chart.  It is not even remotely related to the charts in this thread.  here is the data you reference.  THERE ARE NO VOTE TOTALS.  You can't chart cumulative percentages without vote totals, so I have no idea what your x axis is.  You didn't label it and it is not even remotely related to the X axes of other charts in this thread.  

I appreciate that you are trying, but you can't just make up data.


Click Column Headers to Sort 
(all numbers use 2006 district lines)
State	CD	Member	Party	Obama	McCain	Kerry	Bush '04	Gore ▾	Bush '00
UT	3	Chaffetz	(R)	29	67	20	77	24	75
TX	19	Neugebauer	(R)	27	72	23	77	25	75
AL	6	Bachus	(R)	23	76	22	78	25	74
TX	11	Conaway	(R)	24	76	22	78	25	75
NE	3	Smith, Adrian	(R)	30	69	24	75	25	71
TX	13	Thornberry	(R)	23	77	22	78	26	74
UT	1	Bishop, Rob	(R)	33	64	25	73	27	68
AK	AL	Young, Don	(R)	38	59	36	61	28	59
WY	AL	Lummis	(R)	33	65	29	69	28	69
ID	2	Simpson	(R)	36	61	30	69	28	67
ID	1	Labrador	(R)	36	62	30	69	28	68
KS	1	Huelskamp	(R)	30	69	26	72	29	67
GA	9	Graves, Tom	(R)	24	75	23	77	29	71
IN	5	Burton	(R)	40	59	28	71	30	69
TX	3	Johnson, Sam	(R)	42	57	33	67	30	70
LA	1	Scalise	(R)	26	73	28	71	31	67
TX	8	Brady, Kevin	(R)	26	74	28	72	31	69
TX	7	Culberson	(R)	41	58	36	64	31	69
GA	7	Woodall	(R)	39	60	30	70	31	69
TX	21	Smith, Lamar	(R)	41	58	34	66	31	69
FL	1	Miller, Jeff	(R)	32	67	28	72	31	69
CO	5	Lamborn	(R)	40	59	33	66	31	63
UT	2	Matheson	(D)	39	57	31	66	31	67
TX	24	Marchant	(R)	44	55	35	65	32	68
TX	17	Flores	(R)	32	67	30	70	32	68
NC	6	Coble	(R)	36	63	30	69	32	67
GA	6	Price, Tom	(R)	37	62	29	70	32	68
IN	4	Rokita	(R)	43	56	30	69	32	66
TX	31	Carter	(R)	42	58	33	67	32	69
MS	4	Palazzo	(R)	32	68	31	68	33	65
SC	4	Gowdy	(R)	38	60	34	65	33	64
GA	3	Westmoreland	(R)	35	64	29	70	33	67
ND	AL	Berg	(R)	45	53	36	63	33	61
NC	5	Foxx	(R)	38	61	33	66	33	66
IN	3	Stutzman	(R)	43	56	31	68	33	66
MT	AL	Rehberg	(R)	47	49	39	59	33	58
TX	1	Gohmert	(R)	31	69	31	69	33	68
CA	22	McCarthy, Kevin	(R)	38	60	31	68	33	64
TX	22	Olson	(R)	41	58	36	64	33	67
CA	2	Herger	(R)	43	55	37	62	33	61
TX	6	Barton	(R)	40	60	34	66	34	66
TX	5	Hensarling	(R)	36	63	33	67	34	66
TX	10	McCaul	(R)	44	55	38	62	34	67
TX	4	Hall	(R)	30	69	30	70	34	66
OH	2	Schmidt	(R)	40	59	36	64	34	63
OK	3	Lucas	(R)	27	73	28	72	34	65
NC	10	McHenry	(R)	36	63	33	67	34	65
WA	4	Hastings, Doc	(R)	40	58	35	63	34	62
FL	4	Crenshaw	(R)	38	61	31	69	34	66
PA	9	Schuster	(R)	35	63	33	67	34	64
MS	3	Harper	(R)	38	62	34	65	35	64
OH	4	Jordan	(R)	38	60	34	65	35	62
GA	11	Gringrey	(R)	33	66	29	71	35	66
OR	2	Walden	(R)	43	54	38	61	35	60
SC	3	Duncan, Jeff	(R)	35	64	34	66	35	63
WI	5	Sensenbrenner	(R)	41	58	36	63	35	62
NC	3	Jones	(R)	38	61	32	68	35	64
MD	6	Bartlett	(R)	40	58	34	65	36	61
CA	4	McClintock	(R)	44	54	37	61	36	59
PA	16	Pitts	(R)	48	51	38	61	36	62
TX	12	Granger	(R)	36	63	33	67	36	64
TX	14	Paul	(R)	33	66	33	67	36	64
OH	8	Boehner	(R)	38	60	35	64	36	61
NE	1	Fortenberry	(R)	44	54	36	63	36	59
PA	19	Platts	(R)	43	56	36	64	36	61
MO	7	Long	(R)	35	63	32	67	36	62
NC	9	Myrick	(R)	45	55	36	63	36	63
TX	32	Sessions	(R)	46	53	40	60	36	64
VA	6	Goodlatte	(R)	42	57	36	63	37	60
KY	2	Guthrie	(R)	38	61	34	65	37	62
NV	2	Amodei	(R)	49	49	41	57	37	57
CA	21	Nunes	(R)	42	56	34	65	37	61
OK	1	Sullivan	(R)	36	64	35	65	37	62
KY	4	Davis, Geoff	(R)	38	60	36	63	37	61
TX	2	Poe	(R)	40	60	37	63	37	63
AZ	6	Flake	(R)	38	61	35	64	37	61
CO	4	Gardner	(R)	49	50	41	58	37	57
AR	3	Womack	(R)	34	64	36	62	37	60
CO	6	Coffman	(R)	46	53	39	60	37	60
KS	4	Pompeo	(R)	40	58	34	64	37	59
OH	5	Latta	(R)	45	53	39	61	37	59
AL	4	Aderholt	(R)	23	76	28	71	37	61
VA	7	Cantor	(R)	46	53	38	61	37	61
GA	10	Broun	(R)	38	61	35	65	37	63
AL	1	Bonner	(R)	39	61	35	64	38	60
AL	2	Roby	(R)	36	63	33	67	38	61
TX	26	Burgess	(R)	41	58	35	65	38	62
TN	1	Roe	(R)	29	70	31	68	38	61
OK	5	Lankford	(R)	41	59	36	64	38	62
PA	5	Thompson, Glenn	(R)	44	55	39	61	38	59
MI	3	Amash	(R)	49	49	40	59	38	60
SC	1	Scott, Tim	(R)	42	57	39	61	38	59
MI	2	Huizenga	(R)	48	51	39	60	38	59
SD	AL	Noem	(R)	45	53	38	60	38	60
OK	4	Cole	(R)	34	66	33	67	38	61
GA	1	Kingston	(R)	36	63	34	66	38	62
CA	19	Denham	(R)	46	52	38	61	39	58
VA	1	Wittman	(R)	48	51	39	60	39	58
FL	14	Mack	(R)	42	57	38	62	39	61
MO	2	Akin	(R)	44	55	40	60	39	59
TN	2	Duncan, John	(R)	34	64	35	64	39	59
CO	3	Tipton	(R)	47	50	44	55	39	54
NE	2	Terry	(R)	50	49	38	60	39	57
CA	49	Issa	(R)	45	53	36	63	39	59
SC	2	Wilson, Joe	(R)	45	54	39	60	39	58
MO	8	Emerson	(R)	36	62	36	64	39	59
CA	42	Miller, Gary	(R)	45	53	37	62	39	59
CA	48	Campbell	(R)	49	49	40	58	40	58
WA	5	McMorris Rodgers	(R)	46	52	41	57	40	56
NC	11	Shuler	(D)	47	52	43	57	40	58
IA	5	King, Steve	(R)	44	54	39	60	40	57
MD	1	Harris	(R)	40	58	36	62	40	57
LA	5	Alexander	(R)	37	62	37	62	40	57
TN	7	Blackburn	(R)	34	65	33	66	40	59
MO	4	Hartzler	(R)	38	61	35	64	40	58
IN	6	Pence	(R)	46	53	35	64	40	59
MS	1	Nunnelee	(R)	38	62	37	62	40	59
MN	7	Peterson	(D)	47	50	43	55	40	54
KY	1	Whitfield	(R)	37	62	36	63	40	58
CA	52	Hunter	(R)	45	53	38	61	40	57
OH	18	Gibbs	(R)	45	52	43	57	41	55
CA	40	Royce	(R)	47	51	39	60	41	56
CA	41	Lewis, Jerry	(R)	44	54	37	62	41	56
VA	10	Wolf	(R)	53	46	44	55	41	56
IL	19	Shimkus	(R)	44	54	39	61	41	56
TN	3	Fleischmann	(R)	37	62	38	61	41	57
VA	5	Hurt	(R)	48	51	43	56	41	55
CA	3	Lungren	(R)	49	49	41	58	41	55
AZ	2	Franks	(R)	38	61	38	61	41	57
PA	10	Marino	(R)	45	54	40	60	41	56
PA	17	Holden	(D)	48	51	42	58	41	56
KS	2	Jenkins	(R)	43	55	39	59	41	54
KY	5	Rogers, Hal	(R)	31	67	39	61	42	57
CA	46	Rohrabacher	(R)	48	50	42	57	42	55
OH	16	Renacci	(R)	48	50	46	54	42	53
IL	13	Biggert	(R)	54	45	45	55	42	55
WI	6	Petri	(R)	50	49	43	56	42	53
IL	8	Walsh	(R)	56	43	44	56	42	56
FL	21	Diaz-Balart	(R)	49	51	43	57	42	58
GA	8	Scott, Austin	(R)	43	56	39	61	42	58
LA	7	Boustany	(R)	35	63	39	60	42	55
CA	25	McKeon	(R)	49	48	40	59	42	56
KS	3	Yoder	(R)	51	48	44	55	42	53
VA	9	Griffith	(R)	40	59	39	60	42	55
MN	6	Bachmann	(R)	45	53	42	57	42	52
FL	6	Stearns	(R)	43	56	39	61	42	58
MO	9	Luetkemeyer	(R)	44	55	41	59	42	55
KY	6	Chandler	(D)	43	55	41	58	42	56
IN	8	Bucshon	(R)	47	51	38	62	42	57
IN	9	Young, Todd	(R)	49	50	40	59	42	56
OH	7	Austria	(R)	45	54	43	57	42	56
AZ	5	Schweikert	(R)	47	52	45	54	43	54
WI	8	Ribble	(R)	54	45	44	55	43	52
NJ	11	Frelinghuysen	(R)	45	54	42	58	43	54
IL	16	Manzullo	(R)	53	45	44	55	43	54
IL	15	Johnson, Tim	(R)	48	50	41	59	43	54
IL	14	Hultgren	(R)	55	44	44	55	43	54
NY	29	Reed	(R)	48	51	42	56	43	53
CA	24	Gallegly	(R)	51	48	43	56	43	54
VA	2	Rigell	(R)	51	49	42	58	43	55
WV	1	McKinley	(R)	42	57	42	58	43	54
AZ	3	Quayle	(R)	42	57	41	58	43	55
CA	50	Bilbray	(R)	51	47	44	55	43	54
LA	4	Fleming	(R)	40	59	40	59	43	55
NM	2	Pearce	(R)	49	50	41	58	43	54
LA	6	Cassidy	(R)	41	57	40	59	43	55
FL	18	Ros-Lehtinen	(R)	51	49	46	54	43	57
SC	5	Mulvaney	(R)	46	53	42	57	43	55
AL	5	Brooks	(R)	38	61	39	60	44	54
NY	20	Gibson	(R)	51	48	46	54	44	51
IL	18	Schock	(R)	48	50	42	58	44	54
OH	14	LaTourette	(R)	49	49	47	53	44	52
CA	26	Dreier	(R)	51	47	44	55	44	53
OR	4	DeFazio	(D)	54	43	49	49	44	49
VA	4	Forbes	(R)	50	49	43	57	44	54
IL	6	Roskam	(R)	56	43	47	53	44	53
NY	26	Hochul	(D)	46	52	43	55	44	51
WV	2	Capito	(R)	44	55	42	57	44	54
CA	44	Calvert	(R)	50	49	40	59	44	53
MO	6	Graves, Sam	(R)	45	54	42	57	44	53
OH	15	Stivers	(R)	54	45	50	50	44	52
MI	4	Camp	(R)	50	48	44	55	44	54
MN	2	Kline	(R)	48	50	45	54	44	51
MI	1	Benishek	(R)	50	48	46	53	45	52
WI	1	Ryan, Paul	(R)	51	48	46	54	45	51
MN	1	Walz	(D)	51	47	47	51	45	49
MI	6	Upton	(R)	54	45	46	53	45	52
FL	12	Ross, Dennis	(R)	49	50	42	58	45	55
OH	3	Turner	(R)	47	51	46	54	45	52
IN	2	Donnelly	(D)	54	45	43	56	45	53
LA	3	Landry	(R)	37	61	41	58	45	52
MI	10	Miller, Candice	(R)	48	50	43	57	45	53
NJ	5	Garrett	(R)	45	54	43	57	45	52
VA	11	Connolly	(D)	57	42	49	50	45	52
FL	25	Rivera	(R)	49	50	44	56	45	55
CA	11	McNerney	(D)	54	44	45	54	45	53
FL	8	Webster	(R)	53	47	45	55	46	54
AZ	8	Giffords	(D)	46	52	46	53	46	50
FL	7	Mica	(R)	46	53	43	57	46	54
PA	4	Altmire	(D)	44	55	45	54	46	52
FL	13	Buchanan	(R)	47	52	44	56	46	55
FL	15	Posey	(R)	48	51	43	57	46	54
FL	5	Nugent	(R)	43	56	41	58	46	54
NC	2	Ellmers	(R)	52	47	46	54	46	53
MI	7	Walberg	(R)	52	46	45	54	46	51
OH	1	Chabot	(R)	55	44	49	51	46	51
OH	12	Tiberi	(R)	53	46	49	51	46	52
NH	1	Guinta	(R)	53	47	48	51	46	49
NC	8	Kissell	(D)	53	47	45	54	46	54
AZ	1	Gosar	(R)	44	54	46	54	46	51
FL	9	Bilirakis	(R)	47	52	43	57	46	54
WA	3	Herrera Beutler	(R)	52	46	48	50	46	48
MN	3	Paulson	(R)	52	46	48	51	46	50
MI	8	Rogers, Mike J.	(R)	53	46	45	54	47	51
OK	2	Boren	(D)	34	66	41	59	47	52
MI	9	Peters	(D)	56	43	49	51	47	51
FL	16	Rooney	(R)	47	52	46	54	47	53
PA	3	Kelly	(R)	49	49	47	53	47	51
FL	2	Southerland	(R)	45	54	46	54	47	53
MI	11	McCotter	(R)	54	45	47	53	47	51
FL	24	Adams	(R)	49	51	45	55	47	53
NY	19	Hayworth	(R)	51	48	45	54	47	49
OH	6	Johnson, Bill	(R)	48	50	49	51	47	49
TX	23	Canseco	(R)	51	48	43	57	47	54
TX	25	Doggett	(D)	59	40	54	46	47	53
NY	24	Hannah	(R)	51	48	47	53	47	48
AL	3	Rogers, Mike D.	(R)	43	56	41	58	47	52
CA	45	Bono Mack	(R)	52	47	43	56	47	51
OR	5	Schrader	(D)	54	43	49	50	47	48
PA	18	Murphy, Tim	(R)	44	55	46	54	47	52
NY	23	Owens	(D)	52	47	47	51	47	49
IL	11	Kinginger	(R)	53	45	46	53	48	50
WI	7	Duffy	(R)	56	43	50	49	48	47
NC	7	McIntyre	(D)	47	52	44	56	48	52
NH	2	Bass, Charlie	(R)	56	43	52	47	48	47
WA	2	Larsen	(D)	56	42	51	47	48	46
ME	2	Michaud	(D)	55	43	52	46	48	45
AR	2	Griffin	(R)	44	54	48	51	48	49
IA	4	Latham	(R)	53	45	48	51	48	49
NJ	7	Lance	(R)	51	48	47	53	48	49
NM	1	Heinrich	(D)	60	40	51	48	48	47
TN	4	DesJarlais	(R)	34	64	41	58	49	50
PA	15	Dent	(R)	56	43	50	50	49	48
MN	8	Cravaack	(R)	53	45	53	46	49	44
PA	6	Gerlach	(R)	58	41	52	48	49	49
AR	4	Ross, Mike	(D)	39	58	48	51	49	48
NV	3	Heck	(R)	55	43	49	50	49	48
WA	8	Reichert	(R)	57	42	51	48	49	47
WI	3	Kind	(D)	58	41	51	48	49	46
IA	3	Boswell	(D)	54	44	50	50	49	48
NC	13	Miller, Brad	(D)	59	40	52	47	49	50
TN	6	Black	(R)	37	62	40	60	49	49
OR	1		(D)	61	36	55	44	50	44
ME	1	Pingree	(D)	61	38	55	43	50	43
KY	3	Yarmuth	(D)	56	43	51	49	50	48
TX	28	Cuellar	(D)	56	44	46	54	50	50
CO	7	Perlmutter	(D)	59	40	51	48	50	49
TX	27	Farenthold	(R)	53	46	45	55	50	50
AR	1	Crawford	(R)	38	59	47	52	50	48
NJ	4	Smith, Chris	(R)	47	52	44	56	50	46
IL	10	Dold	(R)	61	38	53	47	51	47
NY	22	Hinchey	(D)	59	39	54	45	51	42
VT	AL	Welch	(D)	68	31	59	39	51	41
PA	8	Fitzpatrick	(R)	54	45	51	48	51	46
WV	3	Rahall	(D)	42	56	46	53	51	47
NY	25	Buerkle	(R)	56	43	50	48	51	45
PA	7	Meehan	(R)	56	43	53	47	51	47
TN	8	Fincher	(R)	43	56	47	53	51	48
FL	10	Young, Bill	(R)	51	47	49	51	51	49
NY	3	King, Peter	(R)	47	52	47	52	52	44
CT	5	Murphy, Chris	(D)	56	42	49	49	52	43
GA	2	Bishop, Sanford	(D)	54	46	50	50	52	48
GA	12	Barrow	(D)	54	45	49	50	52	48
CO	2	Polis	(D)	64	34	58	41	52	43
IA	1	Braley	(D)	58	41	53	46	52	45
NY	13	Grimm	(R)	49	51	45	55	52	44
WA	6	Dicks	(D)	57	41	53	45	52	43
NY	1	Bishop, Tim	(D)	52	48	49	49	52	44
CA	1	Thompson, Mike	(D)	66	32	60	38	52	39
NM	3	Lujan	(D)	61	38	54	45	52	43
FL	22	West	(R)	52	48	52	48	52	48
WA	1	Inslee	(D)	62	36	56	42	53	42
CA	18	Cardoza	(D)	59	39	49	50	53	44
IA	2	Loebsack	(D)	60	38	55	44	53	43
NY	27	Higgins	(D)	54	44	53	45	53	41
WA	9	Smith, Adam	(D)	59	40	53	46	53	43
OH	13	Sutton	(D)	57	42	56	44	53	44
CT	4	Himes	(D)	60	40	52	46	53	43
NC	4	Price, David	(D)	63	36	55	44	53	46
OH	10	Kucinich	(D)	59	39	58	41	53	42
MO	3	Carnahan	(D)	60	39	57	43	54	43
CA	23	Capps	(D)	66	32	58	40	54	40
TX	15	Hinojosa	(D)	60	40	49	51	54	46
CT	2	Courtney	(D)	59	40	54	44	54	40
IL	17	Schilling	(R)	56	42	51	48	54	44
NJ	2	LoBiondo	(R)	54	45	49	50	54	43
NJ	3	Runyan	(R)	52	47	49	51	54	43
IL	12	Costello	(D)	54	44	52	48	54	43
MA	10	Keating	(D)	55	44	56	43	54	39
PA	11	Barletta	(R)	57	42	53	47	54	43
DE	AL	Carney	(D)	62	37	53	46	55	42
MD	3	Sarbanes	(D)	59	39	54	45	55	41
CA	20	Costa	(D)	60	39	51	48	55	44
OH	9	Kaptur	(D)	62	36	58	42	55	41
CA	10	Garamendi	(D)	65	33	59	40	55	41
HI	1	Hanabusa	(D)	70	28	53	47	55	39
PA	12	Critz	(D)	49	50	51	49	55	44
NJ	12	Holt	(D)	58	41	54	46	56	40
IN	1	Visclosky	(D)	62	37	55	44	56	42
MA	1	Olver	(D)	64	34	63	35	56	33
PA	13	Schwarz	(D)	59	41	56	43	56	42
CA	47	Sanchez, Loretta	(D)	60	38	49	50	56	42
HI	2	Hirono	(D)	73	25	56	44	56	36
NV	1	Berkley	(D)	64	34	57	42	56	41
NY	21	Tonko	(D)	58	40	55	43	56	39
IN	7	Carson	(D)	71	28	58	42	56	43
MA	6	Tierney	(D)	58	41	58	41	57	36
TX	29	Green, Gene	(D)	62	38	56	44	57	43
VA	8	Moran	(D)	69	30	64	35	57	38
TN	5	Cooper	(D)	56	43	52	48	57	42
CA	36	Hahn	(D)	64	34	59	40	57	39
NC	12	Watt	(D)	70	29	63	37	57	42
GA	13	Scott, David	(D)	71	28	60	40	57	43
CA	51	Filner	(D)	63	35	53	46	57	41
NC	1	Butterfield	(D)	62	37	57	42	57	42
MS	2	Thompson, Bennie	(D)	66	34	59	40	57	41
MA	5	Tsongas	(D)	59	39	57	41	57	36
MN	4	McCollum	(D)	64	34	62	37	57	37
NY	2	Israel	(D)	56	43	53	45	57	39
MD	2	Ruppersberger	(D)	60	38	54	45	57	41
MD	5	Hoyer	(D)	65	33	57	42	57	41
CA	53	Davis, Susan	(D)	68	30	61	38	58	38
IL	3	Lipinski	(D)	64	35	59	41	58	40
AZ	7	Grijalva	(D)	57	42	57	43	58	38
TX	20	Gonzalez	(D)	63	36	55	45	58	42
MA	2	Neal	(D)	59	39	59	40	58	35
WI	2	Baldwin	(D)	69	30	62	37	58	36
NY	18	Lowey	(D)	62	38	58	42	58	39
CA	29	Schiff	(D)	68	30	61	37	58	38
SC	6	Clyburn	(D)	64	35	61	39	58	40
NY	4	McCarthy, Carolyn	(D)	58	41	55	44	59	38
MA	3	McGovern	(D)	59	39	59	40	59	35
TX	16	Reyes	(D)	66	34	57	44	59	41
NJ	8	Pascrell	(D)	63	36	59	41	60	37
MO	5	Cleaver	(D)	64	35	59	40	60	37
OH	17	Ryan, Tim	(D)	62	36	63	37	60	35
CA	17	Farr	(D)	72	26	66	33	60	33
MI	15	Dingell	(D)	66	33	62	38	60	38
NY	28	Slaughter	(D)	69	30	63	36	60	35
CA	5	Matsui	(D)	70	28	61	38	60	35
RI	2	Langevin	(D)	61	37	57	41	60	33
CA	27	Sherman	(D)	66	32	59	39	60	36
CA	15	Honda	(D)	68	30	63	36	60	36
MA	9	Lynch	(D)	60	39	63	36	60	33
CT	3	DeLauro	(D)	63	36	56	42	60	34
MI	12	Levin	(D)	65	33	61	39	61	37
OR	3	Blumenauer	(D)	71	26	67	33	61	32
FL	11	Castor	(D)	66	33	58	41	61	39
MI	5	Kildee	(D)	64	35	59	41	61	37
NJ	6	Pallone	(D)	60	39	57	43	61	35
CO	1	DeGette	(D)	74	24	68	31	61	33
CA	6	Woolsey	(D)	76	22	70	28	62	30
CT	1	Larson	(D)	66	33	60	39	62	33
CA	39	Sanchez, Linda	(D)	65	32	59	40	62	36
CA	14	Eshoo	(D)	73	25	68	30	62	34
TN	9	Cohen	(D)	77	22	70	30	63	36
NJ	9	Rothman	(D)	61	38	59	41	63	34
RI	1	Cicilline	(D)	65	33	62	36	63	31
AZ	4	Pastor	(D)	66	33	62	38	63	35
MN	5	Ellison	(D)	74	24	71	28	63	29
NJ	1	Andrews	(D)	65	34	61	39	63	34
MA	7	Markey	(D)	65	33	66	33	64	29
CA	16	Lofgren	(D)	70	29	63	36	64	33
CA	43	Baca	(D)	68	30	58	41	64	34
FL	3	Brown	(D)	73	26	65	35	65	35
MA	4	Frank	(D)	64	35	65	33	65	29
VA	3	Scott, Bobby	(D)	76	24	66	33	66	32
MD	8	Hollen	(D)	74	25	69	30	66	31
CA	7	Miller, George	(D)	72	27	67	32	66	31
IL	5	Quigley	(D)	73	26	67	33	66	34
WI	4	Moore	(D)	75	24	70	30	66	30
AL	7	Sewell	(D)	72	27	64	35	66	33
CA	12	Speier	(D)	74	24	72	27	67	29
CA	13	Stark	(D)	74	24	71	28	67	30
NY	9	Turner	(R)	55	44	56	44	67	30
IL	9	Schakowsky	(D)	72	26	68	32	67	31
CA	32	Chu	(D)	68	30	62	37	67	31
NY	5	Ackerman	(D)	63	36	63	36	67	30
CA	30	Waxman	(D)	70	28	66	33	68	28
NY	17	Engel	(D)	72	28	67	33	69	27
TX	9	Green, Al	(D)	77	23	70	30	69	31
FL	20	Wasserman Schultz	(D)	63	36	64	36	69	31
NY	14	Maloney	(D)	78	21	74	25	70	23
GA	4	Johnson, Hank	(D)	79	21	71	28	70	30
CA	38	Napolitano	(D)	71	27	65	34	70	28
PA	14	Doyle	(D)	70	29	69	30	70	28
TX	18	Jackson-Lee	(D)	77	22	72	28	72	28
CA	34	Roybal-Allard	(D)	75	23	69	30	72	26
MO	1	Clay	(D)	80	19	75	25	72	26
NJ	13	Sires	(D)	75	24	69	31	72	25
WA	7	McDermott	(D)	84	15	79	19	72	21
GA	5	Lewis, John	(D)	79	20	74	26	73	27
FL	19	Deutch	(D)	65	34	66	34	73	27
MA	8	Capuano	(D)	86	14	79	19	73	15
MD	7	Cummings	(D)	79	20	73	26	73	25
CA	28	Berman	(D)	76	22	71	28	73	24
TX	30	Johnson, E.B.	(D)	82	18	75	25	74	26
NY	8	Nadler	(D)	74	26	72	27	74	18
NY	7	Crowley	(D)	79	20	74	25	75	21
CA	37	Richardson	(D)	80	19	74	25	76	22
LA	2	Richmond	(D)	74	25	75	24	76	22
CA	8	Pelosi	(D)	85	12	85	14	77	15
MD	4	Edwards	(D)	85	14	78	21	77	21
NY	12	Velazquez	(D)	86	13	80	19	77	15
CA	31	Becerra	(D)	80	18	77	22	77	19
CA	9	Lee	(D)	88	10	86	13	79	13
OH	11	Fudge	(D)	85	14	81	18	79	18
IL	4	Gutierrez	(D)	85	13	79	21	79	20
FL	23	Hastings, Alcee	(D)	83	17	76	24	80	20
MI	13	Clarke, Hansen	(D)	85	15	81	19	80	19
MI	14	Conyers	(D)	86	14	83	17	81	18
CA	35	Waters	(D)	84	14	79	20	82	17
NY	11	Clarke, Yvette	(D)	91	9	86	13	83	9
IL	2	Jackson	(D)	90	10	84	16	83	17
NJ	10	Payne	(D)	87	13	82	18	83	16
IL	7	Davis, Danny	(D)	88	12	83	17	83	16
CA	33	Bass, Karen	(D)	87	12	83	16	83	14
PA	1	Brady, Bob	(D)	88	12	84	15	84	15
IL	1	Rush	(D)	87	13	83	17	84	16
FL	17	Wilson, Frederica	(D)	87	12	83	17	85	15
NY	15	Rangel	(D)	93	6	90	9	87	7
NY	6	Meeks	(D)	89	11	84	15	87	11
PA	2	Fattah	(D)	90	10	87	12	87	12
NY	10	Towns	(D)	91	9	86	13	88	8
NY	16	Serrano	(D)	95	5	89	10	92	5
DavidNYC :: Presidential Results by Congressional District, 2000-2008




> Well, here's a quick-and-dirty approximation.  I took the congressional district percentages from here:
> http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/4161/
> I didn't have % registered Democrat for those districts, so I used something else that illustrates the same point.  I sorted them by the %gore vote, which is probably a good approximation (not that it matters, any variable with a correlation will do the same).   I didn't bother with district sizes, which would move some points around a bit, and I apologize for the lack of labels but this shows the (completely unsurprising) shape of the graph.
> 
> 
> 
> There's noise early on, as expected, then it smooths out.  And it doesn't level off.  None of this is in the slightest surprising.   
> 
> And so if someone looked at this and said that math requires that this flatten out, they'd be wrong; if they said that the odds of it not flattening out are infinitesimal they'd be wrong; if they said the law of large numbers applies to the sampling when done in this order, they'd be wrong; if they said this proved fraud or proved anything other than the correlation we already knew about, they'd be wrong.

----------


## drummergirl

> If your point is that 'there is no mathematical law' that says all charts must flatline, well, yea.   But our point is that when we analyze election results from history and other countries via the method, they all flatline.


Any graph of election data (from a large enough election; your homeowner's association election with 140 votes is kinda small) plotted as precincts counted (cumulative) versus cumulative % vote ought to flatten out more and more as it approaches 100% of precincts counted.  This is how news outfits call elections on election night with only 20% (sometimes MUCH less) of the votes counted.  Unless the candidates are neck and neck, you can call it.  And, if it's "too close to call" you know it's going to be close at the end too.

For example, consider the 2010 Texas governor's race

Rick Perry(I)	REP	2,737,481	54.97%
Bill White	DEM	2,106,395	42.29%
Kathie Glass	LIB	109,211	2.19%
Deb Shafto	GRN	19,516	0.39%
Andy Barron	W-I	7,267	0.14%
-----------	
Race Total	4,979,870	

Imagine that this is what is up on CNN late at night with over 99% precincts reported and a precinct total comes in from a large precinct so heavily democratic that all 2432 votes were for Bill White, 0 votes for all other candidates.

You'd then have a race Total of 4,982,302 votes, Rick Perry 54.94%, Bill White 42.33%.  As you can see, the cumulative percentages change less than 0.04%; you'd need a magnifying glass to see that on a chart.

----------


## dsw

> You 'tried by eye' and drew a line clearly mapping -above- all but one of the highest possible points on the left side of the graph?  C'mon.


I explained the line, so you could check and see if I did what I said.  The right-most endpoint was specified.  I got the slope of a line from the origin to that point, tried to match it up against the right side of the graph and checked a few easy-to-calculate midpoints.  The point of this was simply that (as you can also see from the percentage plot) what looks like a big jump when you plot it this way looks more like a dip in the middle when you aren't looking at total vote count and trying to make inferences about percentage change.

----------


## dsw

> My absentee ballot chart was certainly not "misleading". It is the most basic chart you can make. Precinct vote vs total vote. Just the raw data charted.


Trying to make inferences about percentage changes from a graph of the count, especially when the precincts are sorted by size, is hard.  It's much clearer now with percentages, and in fact as I suggested what it looks like now is a dip in the middle.  (What I didn't expect was that seeing it as a dip in the middle would just turn into a new hypothesis that there must be crime to the left, in addition to crime to the right.)





> Now, how do you know happen to know that absentee GOTV "campaign operation Romney is proud of" ?


The link you posted.  They're not hiding it.  They got a puff piece written about how the Romney campaign was so "canny" and "competent" about this as to have pretty much locked up the nomination.  The "only modern, professional campaign against a field of amateurs".   Just read the article you linked to.  Read the quote from Romney’s political director bragging about how smart they were to work hard on the absentee vote.  

Your hypothesis (to explain the dip in the graph) is that the points on the left are due to fraudulently trying to spread out and hide these votes that Romney’s political director is bragging about having been so smart to go get, when it's that absentee vote that is the tangible proof of what he's bragging about.

----------


## dsw

> This is definitely a "quick and dirty" chart.  It is not even remotely related to the charts in this thread.  here is the data you reference.  THERE ARE NO VOTE TOTALS.  You can't chart cumulative percentages without vote totals, so I have no idea what your x axis is.  You didn't label it and it is not even remotely related to the X axes of other charts in this thread.  
> 
> I appreciate that you are trying, but you can't just make up data.


I used congressional districts because they are much closer in size than precincts.  They're defined that way!  They range roughly from 500k to 900k with a mean of 650k.  

As I said, I didn't take district size into account.  I just graphed it as if each one had 650k people in it.   More accurately accounting for the exact size of each one would move some points left or right a bit, but wouldn't change the overall shape of the graph, or the fact that it has a crossover, doesn't flatten out, is initially noisy then smooth, etc.  

The variable I used to sort was %gore, which is in that table.  Clicking on the header lets you see the ordering when sorted on that variable.  My hypothetical example was %democrat for sorting, but I had it all in one table here and %gore is good enough to show the result.  

So I plotted the percent for Obama and McCain from 2008, cumulatively for districts sorted in that order, under the assumption that all the districts had the average population rather than the actual population.  But again, because of the way districts are apportioned, the sizes are comparable and vary from the mean by at most 30%, so the approximation I used is not going to change the shape of the graph.

The crossover isn't contrived.  The crossover is easily predicted.  Click on the %gore header and look at the districts that will be plotted for Obama and McCain on the left side of the graph.  They're as far apart as they can be!   But Obama got more votes so even though Obama starts out far, far below McCain on the left (thanks to the correlation, from the variable used to sort) he's going to end up above McCain on the right, so of course there has to be a cross-over.  

The fact that it doesn't flatten out is what really happens with this data.  And how could it be otherwise?  The points toward the far left have Obama getting close to zero percent of the vote.  The points toward the far right have Obama getting close to 100% of the vote.  You don't start to get to Obama's final percentage until the last bit of the graph where he's getting close to 100% of the vote from the districts.

I hope I've explained how I generated the graph well enough that if anyone wanted, they could duplicate it.  This is real election data, not made-up data.  This is what the cumulative graph of Obama vs. McCain looks like using congressional districts, and sorting by %gore (but sorting by %Democrat would do much the same thing, obviously).   This is what any cumulative election graph is going to look like when there's a strong correlation between the percentage of vote received and the variable used to sort the precincts or districts or whatever.

EDIT:  just to make it even more clear and easy to replicate, here's how I did the graph.  I clicked on the %gore header in that table to sort on that variable.  Copy-and-pasted into a text file.  Edited out the %obama and %mccain columns in a text editor.  Wrote a little ten-line program to calculate the cumulative totals and the percentages (assuming for simplicity that the districts are all the same size), and generated a CSV file with that data.  Graphed it using a spreadsheet program.

----------


## dsw

> EDIT:  just to make it even more clear and easy to replicate, here's how I did the graph.  I clicked on the %gore header in that table to sort on that variable.  Copy-and-pasted into a text file.  Edited out the %obama and %mccain columns in a text editor.  Wrote a little ten-line program to calculate the cumulative totals and the percentages (assuming for simplicity that the districts are all the same size), and generated a CSV file with that data.  Graphed it using a spreadsheet program.


The skepticism is so baffling that you've got me wondering if I'm making some elementary mistake.  I'm prepared for deep embarrassment.  So here's more detail:

Here's the district data:
http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/4161/
Click on the "gore" header to sort.  Copy and paste.  Edit out everything except the obama and mccain columns into a CSV format.

I ran it through this python program (forgive the awful coding style):


```
import sys
MEANPOP = 650000
data = sys.stdin.readlines()
data = [[float(x) for x in line.strip().split(', ')] for line in data]

otot = mtot = 0.0
for (o,m) in data :
    otot += o*MEANPOP
    mtot += m*MEANPOP
    tot = otot+mtot
    print "%.2f, %.2f" % (100.0*otot/tot, 100.0*mtot/tot)
```

and saved the output as a new csv file (below), opened it in a spreadsheet and did a line plot.  If I went wrong somewhere, please let me know.

I see two mistakes in what I said earlier.  One, Obama doesn't start out at zero, the worst he did was a 40% deficit.  And two, it's not a ten-line program, it's eleven lines.  :-)

The plot from the output of the program, and the CSV output itself, are below for comparison in case anyone really does care to replicate this graph.  But if I didn't make some stupid mistake somewhere, there's nothing surprising about this graph at all, the fact that it doesn't flatten out, the crossover, etc.  This is just what the math says it should look like *given* the correlation that exists.  So there it is in gore-y detail, fire away!





```
30.21, 69.79
28.72, 71.28
29.25, 70.75
27.92, 72.08
26.98, 73.02
26.31, 73.69
27.39, 72.61
28.59, 71.41
29.75, 70.25
30.45, 69.55
30.74, 69.26
30.20, 69.80
30.20, 69.80
31.08, 68.92
31.71, 68.29
32.32, 67.68
31.96, 68.04
32.37, 67.63
32.85, 67.15
33.23, 66.77
32.88, 67.12
32.86, 67.14
33.19, 66.81
33.36, 66.64
33.32, 66.68
33.66, 66.34
34.02, 65.98
34.40, 65.60
34.46, 65.54
34.61, 65.39
35.06, 64.94
35.17, 64.83
35.42, 64.58
35.67, 64.33
35.75, 64.25
35.74, 64.26
36.01, 63.99
36.15, 63.85
36.05, 63.95
35.92, 64.08
35.70, 64.30
35.91, 64.09
35.92, 64.08
35.93, 64.07
36.02, 63.98
36.12, 63.88
36.11, 63.89
35.99, 64.01
36.04, 63.96
36.13, 63.87
36.07, 63.93
36.18, 63.82
36.21, 63.79
36.20, 63.80
36.24, 63.76
36.38, 63.62
36.42, 63.58
36.42, 63.58
36.49, 63.51
36.64, 63.36
36.58, 63.42
36.74, 63.26
36.73, 63.27
36.76, 63.24
36.88, 63.12
37.06, 62.94
37.15, 62.85
37.27, 62.73
37.44, 62.56
37.46, 62.54
37.59, 62.41
37.60, 62.40
37.57, 62.43
37.62, 62.38
37.74, 62.26
37.70, 62.30
37.73, 62.27
37.54, 62.46
37.60, 62.40
37.76, 62.24
37.82, 62.18
37.83, 62.17
37.93, 62.07
37.93, 62.07
37.99, 62.01
38.12, 61.88
38.16, 61.84
38.20, 61.80
38.27, 61.73
38.35, 61.65
38.33, 61.67
38.44, 61.56
38.42, 61.58
38.37, 61.63
38.27, 61.73
38.28, 61.72
38.32, 61.68
38.40, 61.60
38.50, 61.50
38.57, 61.43
38.69, 61.31
38.65, 61.35
38.63, 61.37
38.69, 61.31
38.77, 61.23
38.86, 61.14
38.92, 61.08
38.99, 61.01
39.01, 60.99
39.07, 60.93
39.07, 60.93
39.12, 60.88
39.11, 60.89
39.20, 60.80
39.19, 60.81
39.25, 60.75
39.24, 60.76
39.19, 60.81
39.27, 60.73
39.34, 60.66
39.39, 60.61
39.38, 60.62
39.43, 60.57
39.47, 60.53
39.54, 60.46
39.52, 60.48
39.61, 60.39
39.65, 60.35
39.69, 60.31
39.80, 60.20
39.86, 60.14
39.93, 60.07
39.97, 60.03
40.03, 59.97
40.11, 59.89
40.20, 59.80
40.27, 59.73
40.30, 59.70
40.32, 59.68
40.29, 59.71
40.32, 59.68
40.38, 59.62
40.38, 59.62
40.44, 59.56
40.48, 59.52
40.59, 59.41
40.61, 59.39
40.65, 59.35
40.75, 59.25
40.69, 59.31
40.75, 59.25
40.76, 59.24
40.80, 59.20
40.87, 59.13
40.96, 59.04
41.00, 59.00
41.06, 58.94
41.13, 58.87
41.19, 58.81
41.28, 58.72
41.28, 58.72
41.30, 58.70
41.35, 58.65
41.35, 58.65
41.43, 58.57
41.47, 58.53
41.52, 58.48
41.52, 58.48
41.57, 58.43
41.63, 58.37
41.71, 58.29
41.77, 58.23
41.81, 58.19
41.84, 58.16
41.92, 58.08
42.00, 58.00
42.04, 57.96
42.09, 57.91
42.11, 57.89
42.16, 57.84
42.20, 57.80
42.18, 57.82
42.19, 57.81
42.28, 57.72
42.34, 57.66
42.38, 57.62
42.42, 57.58
42.43, 57.57
42.47, 57.53
42.52, 57.48
42.57, 57.43
42.63, 57.37
42.66, 57.34
42.72, 57.28
42.76, 57.24
42.74, 57.26
42.75, 57.25
42.78, 57.22
42.83, 57.17
42.88, 57.12
42.93, 57.07
42.98, 57.02
43.03, 56.97
43.08, 56.92
43.13, 56.87
43.18, 56.82
43.18, 56.82
43.20, 56.80
43.22, 56.78
43.22, 56.78
43.28, 56.72
43.30, 56.70
43.32, 56.68
43.32, 56.68
43.39, 56.61
43.35, 56.65
43.39, 56.61
43.45, 56.55
43.49, 56.51
43.54, 56.46
43.58, 56.42
43.63, 56.37
43.67, 56.33
43.71, 56.29
43.73, 56.27
43.76, 56.24
43.76, 56.24
43.78, 56.22
43.82, 56.18
43.84, 56.16
43.85, 56.15
43.86, 56.14
43.92, 56.08
43.92, 56.08
43.97, 56.03
44.02, 55.98
44.07, 55.93
44.14, 55.86
44.18, 55.82
44.21, 55.79
44.26, 55.74
44.32, 55.68
44.36, 55.64
44.41, 55.59
44.46, 55.54
44.51, 55.49
44.49, 55.51
44.45, 55.55
44.50, 55.50
44.56, 55.44
44.62, 55.38
44.59, 55.41
44.65, 55.35
44.68, 55.32
44.75, 55.25
44.76, 55.24
44.81, 55.19
44.78, 55.22
44.83, 55.17
44.90, 55.10
44.94, 55.06
44.93, 55.07
45.03, 54.97
45.02, 54.98
45.07, 54.93
45.10, 54.90
45.14, 54.86
45.18, 54.82
45.24, 54.76
45.27, 54.73
45.33, 54.67
45.38, 54.62
45.42, 54.58
45.45, 54.55
45.50, 54.50
45.52, 54.48
45.53, 54.47
45.61, 54.39
45.68, 54.32
45.71, 54.29
45.72, 54.28
45.77, 54.23
45.80, 54.20
45.86, 54.14
45.91, 54.09
45.96, 54.04
46.01, 53.99
46.07, 53.93
46.12, 53.88
46.16, 53.84
46.19, 53.81
46.23, 53.77
46.28, 53.72
46.35, 53.65
46.38, 53.62
46.42, 53.58
46.47, 53.53
46.49, 53.51
46.53, 53.47
46.56, 53.44
46.60, 53.40
46.66, 53.34
46.67, 53.33
46.71, 53.29
46.77, 53.23
46.85, 53.15
46.91, 53.09
47.00, 53.00
47.04, 52.96
47.10, 52.90
47.14, 52.86
47.19, 52.81
47.23, 52.77
47.31, 52.69
47.36, 52.64
47.40, 52.60
47.46, 52.54
47.50, 52.50
47.54, 52.46
47.58, 52.42
47.64, 52.36
47.71, 52.29
47.74, 52.26
47.80, 52.20
47.87, 52.13
47.90, 52.10
47.95, 52.05
48.03, 51.97
48.08, 51.92
48.10, 51.90
48.14, 51.86
48.21, 51.79
48.26, 51.74
48.32, 51.68
48.37, 51.63
48.41, 51.59
48.43, 51.57
48.48, 51.52
48.52, 51.48
48.58, 51.42
48.63, 51.37
48.66, 51.34
48.69, 51.31
48.73, 51.27
48.79, 51.21
48.85, 51.15
48.89, 51.11
48.95, 51.05
48.98, 51.02
49.05, 50.95
49.09, 50.91
49.16, 50.84
49.20, 50.80
49.24, 50.76
49.29, 50.71
49.35, 50.65
49.43, 50.57
49.47, 50.53
49.52, 50.48
49.55, 50.45
49.59, 50.41
49.64, 50.36
49.72, 50.28
49.79, 50.21
49.83, 50.17
49.91, 50.09
49.95, 50.05
50.00, 50.00
50.04, 49.96
50.07, 49.93
50.14, 49.86
50.18, 49.82
50.24, 49.76
50.29, 49.71
50.33, 49.67
50.39, 49.61
50.46, 49.54
50.51, 49.49
50.58, 49.42
50.64, 49.36
50.70, 49.30
50.77, 49.23
50.78, 49.22
50.83, 49.17
50.89, 49.11
50.95, 49.05
50.98, 49.02
51.05, 48.95
51.10, 48.90
51.15, 48.85
51.22, 48.78
51.25, 48.75
51.32, 48.68
51.39, 48.61
51.45, 48.55
51.49, 48.51
51.57, 48.43
51.63, 48.37
51.69, 48.31
51.76, 48.24
51.84, 48.16
51.87, 48.13
51.94, 48.06
52.01, 47.99
52.08, 47.92
52.16, 47.84
52.21, 47.79
52.29, 47.71
52.36, 47.64
52.43, 47.57
52.48, 47.52
52.56, 47.44
52.63, 47.37
52.72, 47.28
52.80, 47.20
52.88, 47.12
52.96, 47.04
53.04, 46.96
53.12, 46.88
53.19, 46.81
53.27, 46.73
53.35, 46.65
53.43, 46.57
53.51, 46.49
53.59, 46.41
53.68, 46.32
53.77, 46.23
53.85, 46.15
53.93, 46.07
54.01, 45.99
54.09, 45.91
54.17, 45.83
54.27, 45.73
54.35, 45.65
54.45, 45.55
```

----------


## affa

> I explained the line, so you could check and see if I did what I said.  The right-most endpoint was specified.  I got the slope of a line from the origin to that point, tried to match it up against the right side of the graph and checked a few easy-to-calculate midpoints.  The point of this was simply that (as you can also see from the percentage plot) what looks like a big jump when you plot it this way looks more like a dip in the middle when you aren't looking at total vote count and trying to make inferences about percentage change.


I don't need to check a line you said you 'drew by eye' to see if you did it.  It's a meaningless line.  If we drew a line only taking Romney's worst points into consideration, we'd get a line that made everything look even more fraudulent, but it would be just as irrelevant a line.

----------


## affa

> This is what any cumulative election graph is going to look like when there's a strong correlation between the percentage of vote received and the variable used to sort the precincts or districts or whatever.


I'm absolutely flabbergasted at what you're trying to do here.

You're charting 'worst to best' for one candidate, and 'best to worst' for an opposing candidate, and showing that the lines cross.

Um, as even yourself admit, that will happen EVERY TIME, assuming candidates have better areas than others, and one candidates best is better than the other's worst.  None of which has anything to do with what we're discussing.  Nobody is suggesting that every candidate must do equally well in every area of the country, state, congressional district, or even county.   

Furthermore, you're charting data at the district level (which is a conglomerate of counties), even though what we're discussing is an anomaly has to do with correlation to precinct size.  This is completely eliminated from your chart by the data you chose (district level), though you're charting it in such a way to force lines to cross, so it doesn't really matter.

What is the point of this? I mean, seriously.    It's like putting up a chart showing that candidates go from 0 to total votes, and using that as an example that 'slopes' are okay in charts.  True, but irrelevant and distracting.

----------


## dsw

> I don't need to check a line you said you 'drew by eye' to see if you did it.  It's a meaningless line.  If we drew a line only taking Romney's worst points into consideration, we'd get a line that made everything look even more fraudulent, but it would be just as irrelevant a line.


No problem, the whole point was that if you do ANYTHING to help separate out the slope that was due to graphing actual vote count rather than percentage, the "crime" point looks like more of a dip in the  middle than the only point at which the trend changes.   Seeing it graphed as percentages made the same point about it being a dip in the middle even clearer.  I probably should have anticipated that when it was graphed in a way that made that clear, the hypothesis would change to seeing crime at both ends in order to explain it!

----------


## dsw

> You're charting 'worst to best' for one candidate, and 'best to worst' for an opposing candidate, and showing that the lines cross.


I did NOT sort the obama points and the mccain points separately, if that's what you're thinking.    Read the description again.  I sorted the districts.  Each point included in the cumulative graph is a single district with whatever Obama and McCain got in that district.

Edit:  and the point, in case I'm not being clear, which apparently I'm not, is to address the claim that "elections obey the law of large numbers" in such a way that there's a mathematical proof of extreme improbability simply due to a cumulative graph not flattening out.  It's a proof (in an awkward non-standard way) of correlation, and nothing more.  

But once you know this kind of correlation exists, as in the example I apparently wasted my time demonstrating, the fact that the graph doesn't flatten out is completely unsurprising.  You can't use the  math to prove that the graph shouldn't flatten out unless you FIRST prove that you haven't introduced this kind of correlation by the way you've sorted the data.   If you prove the right kind of independence first, THEN (and only then) the math argument is rock solid.

----------


## drummergirl

> EDIT:  just to make it even more clear and easy to replicate, here's how I did the graph.  I clicked on the %gore header in that table to sort on that variable.  Copy-and-pasted into a text file.  Edited out the %obama and %mccain columns in a text editor.  Wrote a little ten-line program to calculate the cumulative totals and the percentages (assuming for simplicity that the districts are all the same size), and generated a CSV file with that data.  Graphed it using a spreadsheet program.


You assumed the number of votes from each congressional district is the same?  All that means is your chart is about as meaningful as a load of barn manure.

Look, a lot of folks have taken the time and effort to do serious analytical work - real linear regressions, R^2, t-tests, f stats, java apps, etc.  "Eyeballing" and "assuming" are just putting your thumb on the scale to try to support a hand waving argument.

Please look through the original thread.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?363915

The truth is the truth whether you can bear to acknowledge it or not.

----------


## drummergirl

> But once you know this kind of correlation exists, as in the example I apparently wasted my time demonstrating


You demonstrated only that you do not understand the math.  Unfortunately, the chart you produced has nothing to do with the ones we've been discussing since the x and y axes are different data types.  You can label an apple "orange" but that doesn't make it one.

----------


## Liberty1789

Louisiana offers tons of historical data, with all historical data for primaries back to 1988. I have skipped 2004 as Bush was on his own. So we get to plot 1,328 candidate results.

The distribution of slopes is again very "peakish", and not Gaussian.



By construction, the average slope is 0% (the data is "centered").

The standard deviation is huge in Louisiana: 6.0%, vs 2.4% in New Hampshire.



Incidentally, even though I do not know what it means in terms of political science, the standard deviation of slopes across time in a given county is positively correlated to the county's population in New Hampshire (+0.45) and negatively in Louisiana (-0.20). That is not easily reconciled with the idea of a proportional vote-flipper at work in Louisiana.

----------


## drummergirl

> The skepticism is so baffling that you've got me wondering if I'm making some elementary mistake.


I appreciate your transparency.  Unfortunately, you are making a basic mistake in that you don't have any actual vote totals.  You are creating data by assuming the vote total is proportional to the population (number of people) in a congressional district.  Knowing how many people live there does not tell you how many registered to vote or voted on a given day.

For instance (I just happen to have a tab still up with Texas 2010 SOS data), Texas had 32 congressional districts in 2010 and in the general election in district 29 there were 66,948 total votes cast in the congressional race; in district 21 there were 236,545 votes cast in the congressional race.  The other districts had various values in between.  That's a pretty wide range, so assuming they are the same just doesn't work.

----------


## RonRules

> No problem, the whole point was that if you do ANYTHING to help separate out the slope that was due to graphing actual vote count rather than percentage, the "crime" point looks like more of a dip in the  middle than the only point at which the trend changes.   Seeing it graphed as percentages made the same point about it being a dip in the middle even clearer.  I probably should have anticipated that when it was graphed in a way that made that clear, the hypothesis would change to seeing crime at both ends in order to explain it!


OK, this is my LAST reply to DSW's arguments, but I will make this reply WORTHWHILE.

DSW stated:
"To me what it looks like is that the "crime" point, is significantly lower (i.e., *worse for Romney*) than it's two neighbors, both of which are unremarkably consistent with the overall trend. So that you get a dip down to "crime" point, followed by going right back up to the trend. But I think what's going on here would be a lot clearer if it the y-axis were % of vote."

Here DSW drew a line from the origin (0,0) to a single point (Fairfax, which is probably highly pro-Romney) that was WAY off the chart at 1203 on the X-Axis.


*Here's what DSW is REALLY saying* using an accountant analogy (allegedly, allegedly) committing fraud at a small business. Enjoy the chart.

----------


## Liberty1789

Now, how did Romney's slopes look like in Louisiana in 2012 ?



The answer is: not spectacularly differently from what has been seen historically over there.

If I use again the chart of Cumulative Distribution Functions, it becomes even more patent than Romney's trajectory is not unusual in the historical context of that state. Ditto for Paul.



So I would dare conclude: no slope anomaly detection in Louisiana.

But now onto something much more important in my eyes. Remember the distribution of slopes in New Hampshire?  And how Louisiana is much more spread out than NH? What about looking at it "normalized", ie with the data divided by its average standard deviation. I obtain the following result:



My jaw dropped when the chart appeared on the screen: those distributions are amazingly similar. And that is a VERY BIG chart because it shows that the underlying mathematical law at work behind the slope distribution IS IDENTICAL in NH and LA. The local state context is only modifying the standard deviation.

So I would theorize: Romney's data is not anomalous in Louisiana. Data behavior is identical in LA and NH. Ergo NH data behavior is not anomalous.

What I need now is a 3rd state with history to solidify all that.

----------


## drummergirl

I had an interesting conversation with my county GOP chair yesterday.  I mentioned the state elections admin there that had pleaded guilty to kickbacks in the late 90s.  Apparently "everyone" knows that Louisiana elections are as corrupt as the day is long.  Even with poll watchers, etc. there have been lots of problems there with corruption, box stuffing, etc.  




> Louisiana offers tons of historical data, with all historical data for primaries back to 1988. I have skipped 2004 as Bush was on his own. So we get to plot 1,328 candidate results.
> 
> The distribution of slopes is again very "peakish", and not Gaussian.
> 
> 
> 
> By construction, the average slope is 0% (the data is "centered").
> 
> The standard deviation is huge in Louisiana: 6.0%, vs 2.4% in New Hampshire.
> ...


and yeah, those are some much larger standard deviations.  Just goes to show you do have to consider more than just the graph.

----------


## RonRules

> The distribution of slopes is again very "peakish", and not Gaussian.


Hey Liberty, I have a math question here. Since we are cumulating the votes on the X-Axis and this accumulation has a smoothing, centering effect, is it not reasonable to think that you will NOT get a Normal Gaussian distribution, even with nothing but honest nuns at the precinct?

----------


## Liberty1789

> Hey Liberty, I have a math question here. Since we are cumulating the votes on the X-Axis and this accumulation has a smoothing, centering effect, is it not reasonable to think that you will NOT get a Normal Gaussian distribution, even with nothing but honest nuns at the precinct?


Sure. I make no claim that it SHOULD be Gaussian. Just illustrating against a well known (and mathematically very convenient!) distribution.

----------


## RonRules

> Now, how did Romney's slopes look like in Louisiana in 2012 ?
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is: not spectacularly differently from what has been seen historically over there.


I beg to differ, Romney has a clear bias to the right.

For proper comparison, since we have evidence of tainted elections back to 1988 in the US, it would be best to do your histograms using a different county. I recommend Canada. These guys shoot straight like a curling rock.

Here is where you get Canadian data:
http://www.elections.ca/scripts/resv...prov=35&lang=e

Pick the "Download compressed CSV files in ZIP format, by province or territory" option. Use another province than Ontario, I did part of that one already.

----------


## dsw

If nobody reading this thinks I have a valid point in any of what I've posted then obviously I'm wasting my time and everyone else's, and I regret that.  If there is a vote flipping algorithm at work, and it covers as many races over as long a time period as many here believe (including Iowa where the count was done by hand, witnessed in public in many cases by Ron Paul supporters, with individual precinct results reported in real time), then it's one of the biggest and most important stories in our nation's history and I wish you nothing but success in making a clear and compelling case that will get some national attention.

----------


## RonRules

> 


Looking at your CDF's VERY carefully, the four leftmost curves have colors in the chart that appear to be Robertson 88, Duke 92 Buchanan 92, and Buchanan 96, all four of which you indicated were victims of vote flipping in your previous Louisiana charts.

Likewise the "winners" on the right side are Bush 92 and Dole 96, both establishment candidates.

Please confirm that I've got the colors right.

Hey COLORBLIND people, don't try this at home!

----------


## drummergirl

> If nobody reading this thinks I have a valid point in any of what I've posted then obviously I'm wasting my time and everyone else's, and I regret that.  If there is a vote flipping algorithm at work, and it covers as many races over as long a time period as many here believe (including Iowa where the count was done by hand, witnessed in public in many cases by Ron Paul supporters, with individual precinct results reported in real time), then it's one of the biggest and most important stories in our nation's history and I wish you nothing but success in making a clear and compelling case that will get some national attention.


Please do not consider it a waste of time.  For one thing, there are tons of lurkers who were probably asking the same questions as you.  Anything that makes us clarify and refine the analysis is productive. (Even if it does drive me to drink lol)

----------


## jjockers

> You can't use the  math to prove that the graph shouldn't flatten out unless you FIRST prove that you haven't introduced this kind of correlation by the way you've sorted the data.   If you prove the right kind of independence first, THEN (and only then) the math argument is rock solid.


Yup, absolutely correct.  The flippers seem to have a very difficult time understanding this rudimentary concept.  If they want to 'prove' or substantiate the claim of fraud, they first must demonstrate that precinct size is not correlated with any variables that would produce the phenomenon (such as DEM % in your graphs).  

I'm just as baffled by the flipper direction, as this concept is simple and yet continues to be ignored.

----------


## RonRules

> Yup, absolutely correct.  The flippers seem to have a very difficult time understanding this rudimentary concept.  If they want to 'prove' or substantiate the claim of fraud, they first must demonstrate that precinct size is not correlated with any variables that would produce the phenomenon (such as DEM % in your graphs).  
> 
> I'm just as baffled by the flipper direction, as this concept is simple and yet continues to be ignored.


You are welcome to make charts to prove/disprove points. I have made charts that show practically zero correlation between "Republicaness" and precinct size, and you mean to tell me that you have proven "Romneyenss" as a function of precinct size is a fact without flipping? 



The big problem you're going to have is to figure out how to first remove the OBVIOUS vote flipping that has flipped over the entire 2012 primaries in favor of Romney. You first need to use historical data or other country's data (like I have) to establish a solid baseline from which you can either show or disprove that these cumulative charts should be horizontal. We will watch your statistics like a hawk and the confidence claims you make.

With sufficient data, you will inevitably come to the conclusion that if a US GOP establishment candidate is present, the chart exhibits a steady sloping in favor of that person and to the detriment of other Republicans.

The simple explanation is vote flipping. The complex, difficult to prove explanation is demographics. Generally the simplest explanations are the correct ones.

Even if you were to find an statistically discernible effect favoring Romney as a function of precinct size, please do a deep brain search and wonder why:
1) Gingrich in particular (which I allege, has similar demographics to Romney) is not affected positively, but rather suffers from this effect, while other are not at all affected. That's the key. If Romney naturally did better, the others would do worse, but we see sometimes that only one candidate is affected.
2) Why 5 other candidates are likewise affected depending on the state and their relative success against Romney.

This chart alone should end the discussion with reasonable people:


You're going to have to figure out what proportion does this Romney-specific effect contributes to all charts we have seen thus far, without reverting to silly games like measuring precincts with 7-8 Libertarian votes.

I'll grant you a couple of Romney specific effects:  
1) Mormon population percentage. However, in my experience living in Utah for a couple of years. Mormons are rural dwellers, to a large extent.
2) Rich bankers in rich suburbs. However, rich people have homes on large lots in sparsely populated suburbs. The corresponding precincts are small.

I make the claim that overall, if we could magically erase vote flipping, you would see Romney do BETTER in small precincts populated by Mormons and bankers. We'll see how Utah turns out.

So meanwhile, we need more hands on deck, and we need to produce tons of data so the cherry pickers have a forest of lemon trees to look at. 

The Java program is not too difficult to use, but a few minutes of hand holding will save you time. PM me if you've got problems using it.
There's been 64 downloads just this week. Somebody must be using it. Don't be shy, post your charts.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/voteanalyze/?_test=b

----------


## jjockers

> You are welcome to make charts to prove/disprove points. I have made charts that show practically zero correlation between "Republicaness" and precinct size, and you mean to tell me that you have proven "Romneyenss" as a function of precinct size is a fact without flipping? 
> 
> 
> 
> The big problem you're going to have is to figure out how to first remove the OBVIOUS vote flipping that has flipped over the entire 2012 primaries in favor of Romney. You can also use historical data or other country's data (like I have) to demonstrate the solid baseline that these cumulative charts are horizontal, unless a US GOP establishment candidate is in the race.
> 
> Even if you were to find an statistically discernible effect favoring Romney as a function of precinct size, please do a deep brain search and wonder why:
> 1) Gingrich in particular (which I allege, has similar demographics to Romney) is not affected positively, but rather suffers from this effect.
> 2) Why 5 other candidates are likewise affected
> ...


I've made and distributed a comprehensive tool for SC that shows dynamic charts and analysis for most of the key demographics.  It's posted and linked all over these threads.  I've posted the conclusion a dozen times: *2/3 of the phenomenon can be explained by county-level demographics* in SC (remainder by precinct size).  However, no one has attempted to perform any similar deep-dive type demographic analysis (except da32130).  

The next step should be focused on finding a state that has precinct level demographics available.  Precinct "demographics" should/could include Income/wealth, average age, % female, % white, % mormon, % GOP vote in 08, pop density, dollars donated per candidate, campaign visit (yes/no), and anything else that might explain the phenomenon.

*edit* Here you go.  The only posted comprehensive Demographic analysis thus far: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/63868969/RPF..._Analysis.xlsx

Note that the Exhibit_Pivot worksheet will allow you to create pretty much any demographic breaks you want.  Very easy to use to see how income, age, etc creates some of the phenomenon in SC.

----------


## affa

> I've made and distributed a comprehensive tool for SC that shows dynamic charts and analysis for most of the key demographics.  It's posted and linked all over these threads.  I've posted the conclusion a dozen times: *2/3 of the phenomenon can be explained by county-level demographics* in SC (remainder by precinct size).  However, no one has attempted to perform any similar deep-dive type demographic analysis (except da32130).  
> 
> The next step should be focused on finding a state that has precinct level demographics available.  Precinct "demographics" should/could include Income/wealth, average age, % female, % white, % mormon, % GOP vote in 08, pop density, dollars donated per candidate, campaign visit (yes/no), and anything else that might explain the phenomenon.
> 
> *edit* Here you go.  The only posted comprehensive Demographic analysis thus far: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/63868969/RPF..._Analysis.xlsx
> 
> Note that the Exhibit_Pivot worksheet will allow you to create pretty much any demographic breaks you want.  Very easy to use to see how income, age, etc creates some of the phenomenon in SC.


A couple questions/comments:

1) I don't understand how you can evaluate precincts based on 'county level' demographics.  I know from other posts you concede it's unfortunate you don't have better data, but I simply don't understand how you can even begin to evaluate a precinct level phenomenon with county level data to begin with.   Just like you can't figure out anything about a specific state with country level demographics - that is, can you establish anything of value regarding Alaskan voting habits if I only hand you overall United States demographics?  Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding you, so please clarify... because I view the county/precinct divide as similar, just on a different scale, given how large some counties are.  

2) If there IS flipping going on, any factor the flippers decide to flip on could very easily correlate with demographics.  Correct?  I mean, it's not hard to believe that areas with large voter turnout, say, are different demographics than areas with low voter turnout.  So, for example, if the flippers flipped on voter turnout (which I'm not saying they do), any flip would be somewhat 'hidden' within the demographics that define 'high voter turnout' areas.  The same is potentially true of -any- factor the flippers flip on, including precinct total vote tally.   This doesn't negate your study, I'm just pointing out why this is so difficult to both prove and disprove.

3) The reason many of us haven't dug into 'precinct level' demographics is because so far, I, at least, haven't found them.  I've scoured on zip codes, housing/realty sites, and other general indicators, but none so far divvy up any area (understandably) into the political precincts.  I've actually done hours upon hours of examining previous elections at the precinct level to try to eek out demographic data, and come to the conclusion that I don't think 2008 is even remotely representative of common/established voting habits of a precinct (or even county, really). This is looking at both precinct votes in primaries, general elections, senate, governor, and house of rep for precincts pre AND post 2008).  And that's assuming 2008 data is pure, an assumption I'm not sure is true in the first place.

----------


## jjockers

> A couple questions:
> 1) I don't understand how you can evaluate precincts based on 'county level' demographics.  I know from other posts you concede it's unfortunate you don't have better data, but I simply don't understand how you can even begin to evaluate a precinct level phenomenon with county level data to begin with.   Just like you can't figure out anything about a specific state with country level demographics.  
> 2) If there IS flipping going on, any factor the flippers decide to flip on could very easily correlate with demographics.  Correct?  I mean, it's not hard to believe that areas with large voter turnout, say, are different demographics than areas with low voter turnout.  So, for example, if the flippers flipped on voter turnout (which I'm not saying they do), any flip would be somewhat 'hidden' within the demographics that define 'high voter turnout' areas.  The same is potentially true of -any- factor the flippers flip on, including precinct total vote tally.   This doesn't negate your study, I'm just pointing out why this is so difficult to both prove and disprove.
> 3) The reason many of us haven't dug into 'precinct level' demographics is because so far, I, at least, haven't found them.  I've scoured on zip codes, housing/realty sites, and other general indicators, but none so far divvy up any area (understandably) into the political precincts.


1) - it's the best data we have, and it actually works decently to explain the phenomenon in SC.  It's not a bad approximation, just not ideal.  How it works: precincts are assigned their county demographics.  Median Income, % White, % Female and % Over 65 at the county level are decent predictors of Romney vote % in a precinct.  Even precinct level data is an approximation -- what we really want is demographic info for only those that voted :P
2) - Yes, I agree, that _could_ be the case.  We've discussed this earlier.  The regression analysis is essential information, regardless.  It's the first thing an outsider would request.  Disregarding demographics on the basis of the point you make is a mistake, as others will then disregard the analysis in its entirety.  Once the key factors are identified, then it would be time to question whether the proposed flipper depends on these factors.
3) Same here, plus time constraints.  I'm best suited analyzing data, not collecting it.  I've got to believe that some state has detailed precinct demographic info, and with the manpower we have investigating this phenomenon, someone will volunteer to take on the task.  Is it possible that the campaign has voter info at the precinct level that could be of some help?

----------


## Liberty1789

> The four leftmost curves have colors in the chart that appear to be Robertson 88, Duke 92 Buchanan 92, and Buchanan 96.
> 
> Likewise the "winners" on the right side are Bush 92 and Dole 96, both establishment candidates.
> 
> Please confirm that I've got the colors right.


100% right!

----------


## RonRules

> 2) If there IS flipping going on, any factor the flippers decide to flip on could very easily correlate with demographics.  Correct?  I mean, it's not hard to believe that areas with large voter turnout, say, are different demographics than areas with low voter turnout.  So, for example, if the flippers flipped on voter turnout (which I'm not saying they do), any flip would be somewhat 'hidden' within the demographics that define 'high voter turnout' areas.  The same is potentially true of -any- factor the flippers flip on, including precinct total vote tally.   This doesn't negate your study, I'm just pointing out why this is so difficult to both prove and disprove.


Point of information!

*I am a flipper,* which means that I believe that votes are flipped solely in favor of Romney in 2012 through some fraudulent method that we have not yet discovered.

The people you refer to in the above paragraph are "anti-flippers". If people believe that demographics, large voter turnouts, religion, etc., are the probable cause for the observed effect, then we should refer to them as "anti-flippers" not "flippers". 

This is confusing enough, we don't want anybody to flip out.

May I suggest that we call them "anti-flippers" or "aflippers", much like we have Theists and Atheists.

If you don't like that, we could call them "flip deniers" or "flipniers".

"jjockers" appears to be a hybrid flipper. He believes that demographics explains part of the flip. Maybe he could be described as a "part-flipper", "Agnostic flipper", or "Agflipper"

Other possibilities for those that don't believe that flipping happens though fraud could be termed as: "contraflippers",  "dissaflippers", "negaflippers" (maybe not this one), "refutaflippers", "rejectaflipppers" or the lame "nonflippers"

This is important guys/gals. We're soon going to make the news in a big way and these words will become part of the American Lexicon.

----------


## affa

> Point of information!
> 
> I am a flipper which means that I believe that votes are flipped solely in favor of Romney through some fraudulent method that we have not yet discovered.
> 
> The people you refer to in the above paragraph are "anti-flippers". If people believe that demographics, large voter turnouts, religion, etc., are the probable cause for the observed effect, then we should refer to them as "anti-flippers" not "flippers". 
> 
> This is confusing enough, we don't want anybody to flip out.
> 
> May I suggest that we call them "anti-flippers" "aflippers", much like we have Theists and Atheists.
> ...


When I use the term 'flipper', I'm speaking about the person committing the flip.  The flipper flipped votes.  Provide a different word for me to use, and I'll give it a whirl.

----------


## Liberty1789

> If nobody reading this thinks I have a valid point in any of what I've posted then obviously I'm wasting my time and everyone else's, and I regret that.


You are not wasting anyone's time. I see your sober mathematical feedback/judgement as one of the best we've had so far. Some of your points really make me think long and hard, for which I am very grateful.

----------


## 40oz

> When I use the term 'flipper', I'm speaking about the person committing the flip.  The flipper flipped votes.  Provide a different word for me to use, and I'll give it a whirl.


trusters and fencers?

----------


## RonRules

> When I use the term 'flipper', I'm speaking about the person committing the flip.  The flipper flipped votes.  Provide a different word for me to use, and I'll give it a whirl.


I think you should refer to those people as "regressionists". 

Use in a sentence: "The regressionist flipped Romney .3%, as a function of Grecian Formula usage in the precinct."

There's a Wiki for everything:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grecian_Formula

Hey, check this out:
"The product is 98% clear liquid, 0.29-0.34% lead acetate and a small amount of sulfur."

No wonder Santorum and Romney seem so retarded. It's the lead poisoning stupid!

Gingrich is pretty smart. Ron's the smartest and you won't see a drop of that stuff used on his beautiful grey hair.

----------


## Scott_in_PA

Post #133 -> #137 LOL

Maybe this info will help.

http://www2.census.gov/census_2010/04-Summary_File_1/
http://www2.census.gov/census_2010/05-Summary_File_2/

I'm lurking and learning.

----------


## JVParkour

I'll be a pancakeflipper. The correlation to # of waffle houses in a precinct is clearly the determining factor.

Seriously though, this is interesting, and regardless of the end result it makes me realize that I should brush up on my stats!

----------


## dr.k.research

Note: this was written in 2008, in an attempt to pursue election fraud against Dr. Paul. Author: C. Ingram, RE: an indivdual named David Terr:

Wolfram Research is a firm which makes its own specialized software, known as Mathematica. This software is used for cryptography. Terrs specialty revolves around the development of *algorithms* for various mathematical calculations.

Raytheon is a monstrous military company. Depending on government contracts for income this company lobbies extensively for an active military. It is the companys goal to create or maintain wars. With Dr. Pauls plan this company would no longer be subsidized. Thus, it is attempting to undermine the doctors election bid. It can be no coincidence that the Raytheon-sponsored polling site, USAElectionpolls.com, gives its own political endorsement, while disparaging Dr. Paul. By electing these warmongers, Raytheon knows, there will be perpetual war and, therefore, endless profits. Thus, using its own proprietary mathematical software, Raytheon and its agents creates its own versions of polls to defraud voters and their bid for a Paul presidency.

Full material:

http://healthfreedom2012.com/HFblog/...05&action=edit

----------


## RonRules

> Note: this was written in 2008, in an attempt to pursue election fraud against Dr. Paul. Author: C. Ingram, RE: an indivdual named David Terr:


Are you referring to the book "Rigged"?

The Stealing of American Electionsand Who is Responsible

by Dr. Cass Ingram

http://www.scribd.com/doc/85563626/Rigged

----------


## row333au

note: 3rd Party option should only be brought in after the nomination, and not at this stage of the caucus and primaries, since it becomes counter-productive against Ron Paul with those unaware and not clear about conservative, libertarian, republican and establishment differences (and how its best to play the political game system without corrupting oneself). 

Best at the moment is to keep winning more delegations than anyone of the other candidates and turn GOP into Ron Paul movement. What all of the Ron Paul movement should do right now is put their weight and pressure on with case action People vs. GOP 'Election Fraud: results, ruling and tampering'; and should demand against GOP for new re-election on all suspected precincts and﻿ caucuses, as well as going back to paper/box/open public voting method, ..... this will force a more honest election and influence the national presidential election later on. This way will expose the wrong doing, preoccupy, counter and prevent GOP from doing any fraudulent, nasties and double crossing against Ron Paul supporters. Remember this is about electing a public official for a public office with almost unlimited access to power, influence, wealth and resources of the nation own by the public 'the people'. 

A public office and official gives the people the right and demand for open transparent accountable presidential election and voting, as GOP or any other political house or party make this decision exclusive to their private agenda for their own cronyism, corporatism, fascism, nepotism, theocraticsm, oligarchysm, globalism, monopolysm, lobbyist, etch.... .

----------


## drummergirl

> Best at the moment is to keep winning more delegations than anyone of the other candidates and turn GOP into Ron Paul movement. What all of the Ron Paul movement should do right now is put their weight and pressure on with case action People vs. GOP 'Election Fraud: results, ruling and tampering'; and should demand against GOP for new re-election on all suspected precincts and﻿ caucuses, as well as going back to paper/box/open public voting method, ..... this will force a more honest election and influence the national presidential election later on. This way will expose the wrong doing, preoccupy, counter and prevent GOP from doing any fraudulent, nasties and double crossing against Ron Paul supporters. Remember this is about electing a public official for a public office with almost unlimited access to power, influence, wealth and resources of the nation own by the public 'the people'.


+ rep!

----------


## drummergirl

Here is the first draft of the Extended Technical summary.  It's 48 pages, but there are lots of graphs, so it's really a quick read.  I'd appreciate your feedback.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...cuxJTo1iE/edit

----------


## Liberty1789

We are looking at the official Canadian data published here on their 41st General Election in 2011:

http://www.elections.ca/scripts/resv...prov=35&lang=e

More than 14 million votes, more than 70,000 precincts, more than 1,000 candidate races and therefore more than 1,000 slopes to analyze. Perfect.

Canadian slopes behave quasi-identically to the US ones.



I am now inclined to consider the broad slope anomaly argument as formally debunked.

----------


## RonRules

> We are looking at the official Canadian data published here on their 41st General Election in 2011:
> 
> http://www.elections.ca/scripts/resv...prov=35&lang=e
> 
> More than 14 million votes, more than 70,000 precincts, more than 1,000 candidate races and therefore more than 1,000 slopes to analyze. Perfect.
> 
> Canadian slopes behave quasi-identically to the US ones.
> 
> 
> ...


Does your US and (specifically Louisiana) data include Romney 2012, Robertson 88, Duke 92, Buchanan 92,96, Bush Sr. 92, Dole 96, McCain 2008?

If so, I believe your charts will be unreliable.

"broad slope anomaly argument" Not sure what you mean by that.

Also, please expand the names on the chart axes. I've been catching a lot of flack for your charts from people I send them too.  In the above charts the X-Axis "bin" and X-Axis "frequency" is really not enough.

Suggestion for X-Axis: "Deviation from final vote result expressed in Standard Deviations grouped in 7 bins."

We have to make this stuff extremely clear.

Salesman dictum: "A confused mind always says no"

You've been doing a lot a work, the last little bit at the end will help most people understand your work.

----------


## affa

> Here is the first draft of the Extended Technical summary.  It's 48 pages, but there are lots of graphs, so it's really a quick read.  I'd appreciate your feedback.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...cuxJTo1iE/edit


looks great.  will eventually need some 'tightening up' (perhaps all in a single voice) to be more presentable.  but maybe not.

i think an important addition would be a FAQ section, preferably one that hits all common kneejerk debunks.  Such as:
1) Doesn't a small precinct just mean 'rural' and a large precinct mean 'urban'?  Doesn't it make sense for a candidate to do better/worse in rural urban environments?  At which point, you can drop in the various charts of cities (Aden did some great work on this) showing that this phenomenon exists within entirely urban environments.  As well as absentee votes precincts too, now that i think about it.

----------


## dsw

> Here is the first draft of the Extended Technical summary.  It's 48 pages, but there are lots of graphs, so it's really a quick read.  I'd appreciate your feedback.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...cuxJTo1iE/edit


It's probably stupid to bring this up again but:  "Basic statistics told the pollsters that if they polled 1200 likely voters, they would have a margin of error of +-3%" is not quite true.  

Basic statistics told the pollsters that if they polled 1200 *randomly selected* likely voters, they would have a margin of error of +-3%.  Basic statistics doesn't say anything at all about the margin of error if you select those 1200 likely voters in a way that might have some correlation with the thing you're trying to measure.

----------


## The Man

> It's probably stupid to bring this up again but:  "Basic statistics told the pollsters that if they polled 1200 likely voters, they would have a margin of error of +-3%" is not quite true.  
> 
> Basic statistics told the pollsters that if they polled 1200 *randomly selected* likely voters, they would have a margin of error of +-3%.  Basic statistics doesn't say anything at all about the margin of error if you select those 1200 likely voters in a way that might have some correlation with the thing you're trying to measure.


I received this email reply from an exit polling company when asked how accurate an exit poll would be that used only the smallest precincts as polling subjects:
"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 withing 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."

----------


## drummergirl

> It's probably stupid to bring this up again but:  "Basic statistics told the pollsters that if they polled 1200 likely voters, they would have a margin of error of +-3%" is not quite true.  
> 
> Basic statistics told the pollsters that if they polled 1200 *randomly selected* likely voters, they would have a margin of error of +-3%.  Basic statistics doesn't say anything at all about the margin of error if you select those 1200 likely voters in a way that might have some correlation with the thing you're trying to measure.


thank you!

----------


## drummergirl

> I received this email reply from an exit polling company when asked how accurate an exit poll would be that used only the smallest precincts as polling subjects:
> "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 withing 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."


yes, standard deviation and margin of error are 2 different things; they get mixed up a lot because both are normally stated as +-X.

----------


## Carson

> thank you!


The last time I remember a news agency reporting exit polls they had them broke down into categories. Categories of groups of people that seemed to me that would give them the results they wanted to shout out and drown out the truth with.

Not just one exit poll mind you. Several bastardized groups.

----------


## dr.k.research

No, this was written by the author but not included in the book. It was extra material, unpublished.

----------


## RonRules

> No, this was written by the author but not included in the book. It was extra material, unpublished.


The problem is the link you provided requires a password.

----------


## program4liberty

I updated the program to v1.4 - Now it outputs the data it did before, in a folder labelled bytotalcounted, but also outputs charts and statistics for a candidate's vote % in a precinct vs. the precinct's size. http://sourceforge.net/projects/voteanalyze/

I'm at the point now where I'm trying to draw a conclusion from all of this data, and will put together a concise and to the point document to include with the program and data. I'm not sure either way yet what I will conclude.

I'm doing this with a formal argument point by point, and trying to determine the truth or falsity of each premise. I'm now currently looking at the demographic explanation - I know, I know, many of you will say it is completely put to bed. However, as far as I can tell myself, the information disproving it is spread across multiple threads, and I haven't seen anything large-ish scale yet. If you have demographic information, please email it to me at program4liberty@gmail.com. Source data is much appreciated.

Also, I have one possible demographic explanation, though, that I haven't seen mentioned or addressed in other threads. Someone please address this. There seems to be a correlation between vote % and precinct size occurring since 2008 that almost always (if not always) is bad for paul and good for someone else.

What if the explanation was not that Romney or whomever is benefitting does _better_ in larger precincts, but rather that Ron Paul and non-mainstream candidates generally do better in _small_ precincts? My idea would be that in a small precinct (and these are small in turnout, remember), there are only a few politically active people. One would expect that these people are generally more active and research more about their candidate choice, and are generally more die-hard as well. Also, these people would probably tell their friends and family to vote, and to vote for their candidate, when normally they otherwise would have not bothered like the rest of the precinct. This would have a dramatic effect in a small turnout precinct. One key idea here is that in a precinct with low voter turnout, it is generally because of the precinct geographical size and/or voter apathy/republican nomination apathy.

In a large turnout precinct, one would expect that more people are voting because perhaps the schools encourage it more or the kinds of people in those larger precincts just have a slightly more "political" disposition. This would, however, probably yield high numbers of casual voters - people who just vote because they think they should, but don't take a great effort to look deep into the issues of the candidate they are supporting, and are in this way swayed more easily by the mainstream media as well. Also, the effect of the same % of ron paul supporters in a large precinct might not be as great as those in a small precinct - again, think small town where everyone knows and agrees with each other vs. a large metropolitan city where everyone only has a smallish circle of friends that they can influence.

----------


## RonRules

Using the brand new Vote Analyze Java program Version 1.4 on 
Canada's 2011 elections in Quebec, Districts 24004 (Argenteuil, Papineau, Mirabel)

Data source:
http://www.elections.ca/scripts/resv...prov=35&lang=e


By Precinct Vote Tally:



By Cumulative Precinct Vote Tally

----------


## RonRules

> If you have demographic information, please email it to me at program4liberty@gmail.com. Source data is much appreciated.


California has phenomenal demographics data. I posted some in the very large second thread and someone else posted some a couple of pages back in this thread. It's huge, like 8GB when unzipped and to be used with MS Access. It looks like a pain to use because of Access size limitations.




> Also, I have one possible demographic explanation, though, that I haven't seen mentioned or addressed in other threads. Someone please address this. There seems to be a correlation between vote % and precinct size occurring since 2008 that almost always (if not always) is bad for Paul and good for someone else.


What I have found that's consistent is that the establishment candidate benefits. You can see that in Louisiana 88, 92, 96, IA 2008, NH 2008, and in all of 2012 the establishment candidate gains at the detriment of others. In LA88 Pat Robertson was the flip loser, LA92 was David Duke, LA 96 was Pat Buchanan, while the establishment candidates Bush 92 and Dole 96 gained. This is very clear from Liberty1789 Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) graphs. 

In 2008, Romney was benefiting until he was out and then McCain got the benefit (See Ohio)

In 2012, six different candidates got negatively flipped (Bachman, Gingrich, Huntsman, Perry, Paul, Santorum) but only Romney benefited. 

So, it's not just a Ron Paul thing.

----------


## affa

> What if the explanation was not that Romney or whomever is benefitting does _better_ in larger precincts, but rather that Ron Paul and non-mainstream candidates generally do better in _small_ precincts? My idea would be that in a small precinct (and these are small in turnout, remember), there are only a few politically active people.


Remember that 'small' is relative.  In some state/counties, what we'd call 'small' precincts differ only by a handful of votes from what we'd consider 'large' precincts.  In other state/counites, what we'd call 'small' precincts are larger than the largest precincts in other states.  Yet we still see the anomaly, relative to size.

If you go to drummergirl's recent 'tech document', read through the addendum till you get to liberty's section comparing, if i remember correctly, Clark County NV to NH to Iowa.

----------


## quizbe

Has anyone researched the campaign donations at fec.gov?  Does that contain enough information to make a chart like you guys do with votes?

----------


## RonRules

> Has anyone researched the campaign donations at fec.gov?  Does that contain enough information to make a chart like you guys do with votes?


That looks like a worthwhile project if you want to do it. The donors are all named, so you should be able to exactly zoom in down to the individual precincts.

----------


## RonRules

> What if the explanation was not that Romney or whomever is benefitting does _better_ in larger precincts, but rather that Ron Paul and non-mainstream candidates generally do better in _small_ precincts? My idea would be that in a small precinct (and these are small in turnout, remember), there are only a few politically active people. One would expect that these people are generally more active and research more about their candidate choice, and are generally more die-hard as well. Also, these people would probably tell their friends and family to vote, and to vote for their candidate, when normally they otherwise would have not bothered like the rest of the precinct. This would have a dramatic effect in a small turnout precinct. One key idea here is that in a precinct with low voter turnout, it is generally because of the precinct geographical size and/or voter apathy/republican nomination apathy.


I support ANY analysis that anybody wants to do, but once solidly disproved, I also expect people to move on. 

This particular project is a big project to do statewide, but if only a couple of counties are picked, which exhibit strong flipping, then the job is not too big. Anybody want to help here?

Many counties have Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and they include precinct maps. Here are a couple of examples:
In PA:
http://www.ccpa.net/index.aspx?NID=3518
Specific map showing a few precincts from Cumberland county

Are you curious as to why Ron Paul won Detroit? Maybe this will tell you
http://www.detroitmi.gov/Departments...s/GISMaps.aspx

This company makes precinct map software. Find out where there software is used:
http://www.caliper.com/Precinct/Default.htm

Here's an example of the Caliper Magnitude program being used in Kansas:
http://www.caliper.com/PDFs/Election...se%20Study.pdf

----------


## RonRules

More 2011 Ontario Canada charts.

Some have slight slopes and I'd like to know why.

----------


## drummergirl

> More 2011 Ontario Canada charts.
> 
> Some have slight slopes and I'd like to know why.


Some slight slopes here and there are to be expected; just looking you can't say for sure, but if I were in Vegas, I'd bet those slopes are within the 99.9% confidence interval for the graph.

----------


## program4liberty

in case people wanted to track what I'm doing, I've believe I've just dismissed the argument that the upwards trend is caused by a trend in republican to democrat populations in the precincts. I modified my program (not uploaded yet) to take democratic votes from precincts, and then calculate the relative vote totals in a precinct for democrats vs republicans, and plot that in the graph as well as output those numbers. In Georgia and Ohio, states whose upwards trend is distinct in 2012, there is little relation to the republican - democrat percentage.

The assertion that there are factors skewing the results both requires and is shown by the discounting of all plausible demographic factors. If we are to demand more transparency, we will need to comprehensively discount each possible demographic factor.

----------


## dsw

> The assertion that there are factors skewing the results both requires and is shown by the discounting of all plausible demographic factors. If we are to demand more transparency, we will need to comprehensively discount each possible demographic factor.


Is analyzing every possible demographic factor feasible?  For that matter, is it even reasonable to think that it's possible to come up with an exhaustive list of the possible factors to analyze?

Here are a few that have come to mind recently.  After someone posted a link to a Romney campaign guy bragging about the effectiveness of their GOTV efforts, I did a little searching for more details.  Starting in 2007, the Romney campaign claims to have adopted radical new campaign tools based on data mining large data sets about demographics, voting records, etc., working with a company called Targetpoint Consulting. What if they're targeting precinct captains for the precincts where they predict they can get the biggest bang for the buck, i.e., big turnout? Or what if they identify voters to phone based on both geographic (precinct) data and demographic data. What if predicted precinct turnout is one of the variables that Targetpoint uses to skew the spending of campaign money?  There are lots of ways that a correlation could be introduced, but because it's a campaign strategy secret it's hard to prove or disprove the degree to which this happens.

Other campaign strategies may introduce correlations as well.  Suppose that rather than using data mining to target specific precincts, the Santorum and Paul campaigns have adopted more of a "make sure we reach every corner" approach.  Precincts that Romney ignored could then be precincts that other campaigns targeted, tending to produce an inverse effect.

Don't forget that we know that ordering the precincts by turnout can result in geographical clustering, another factor that could introduce correlations.  I only know that happened for sure in the Va Beach data, but has anyone looked at other precincts to see if there are geographical correlations with the alleged "post-divide" precincts?   In Va Beach, for example, if Romney targeted that northeast neighborhood then because of the geographical clustering, he targeted 60% of the "post-divide" precincts.  If he targeted a second neighborhood to the southwest of that he'd have covered an even higher percentage of those precincts, without necessarily even having used a precinct-oriented strategy at all.  And those two areas might already be within Romney's demographic sweet spot, making them more likely to be pro-Romney anyway and more likely gotv targets selected by data mining.

(Looking at that map, I wonder if what they did was divide the map into several large areas, then divide each area to have roughly equal voter population within that area.   Or something along those lines that tends to make precincts of similar size within a small region.  If that's a common way to do it, then this kind of geographic correlation could be found elsewhere.)

Here's another one.  Someone over on dp was arguing that they could prove the Super Brochure was effective by looking at the percent saturation within a precinct and the pecent vote for Ron Paul.   I think they were looking at South Carolina there, but they said they had plenty of other data to show this happening in other areas.  I'm not a big fan of the SB, so I haven't paid a lot of attention to it, but from the web site it looks like you "buy" a precinct, and the more "super voters" (not sure what that is) there are the more it costs.  So I'm guessing that the degree of SB saturation correlates pretty well with precinct size.  If that's true, then here's another variable that introduces a correlation with precinct size, one favoring Ron Paul (if you believe the SB is effective) in the smaller precincts that have higher saturation.  

I'm *not* arguing that SB saturation explains the graphs.  If I'm right about SB saturation being inversely correlated with precinct size, then I think the known correlation between precinct size and %vote for Romney makes this a weak argument for the effectiveness of the Super Brochure, but maybe an SB fan would argue that not buying enough SB mailings to blanket the largest precincts is the reason that Romney tended to take those precincts away from Ron Paul.  Either way it's another example of linkage between precinct size and campaign focus.

And ruling out demographic effects one at a time isn't sufficient.  It could be the combination of Romney using data mining to get bang for the buck from his mailing and phone and gotv efforts, plus some degree of geographic clustering of precincts with similar sizes, plus Paul and/or Santorum doing the opposite and trying to have some presence in every little corner of a state; and all of that is before we start to consider how geographic clustering plus demographic factors could skew results.  These are, by the way, kinds of effects that could explain Iowa, with its public manual counting reported in real-time, just as easily as a machine-counted state.  

And then of course are the factors that nobody has thought of yet that could introduce correlation.  Those are even harder to rule out.

----------


## affa

Reposting a new post from Rev 9 from another thread, since I don't want to bump that one, but want others to read it.:




> It looks to me like they were Lerp-ing the totals as I get the same smooth curve when applying a Lerp from and to any positional data on the X,Y or Z axis. This will not give a straight flip but depending on the factor smoothly interpolate at varying speeds/curves towards he desired value and then ease off when getting close to the value and never quite reaching it. I wonder if the algorithm could be reverse engineered.
> 
> Rev9

----------


## RonRules

> Reposting a new post from Rev 9 from another thread, since I don't want to bump that one, but want others to read it.:


I had to lookup "Lerping". It's Linear Interpolation. 

So now do we have Truthers, Birthers, Flippers AND Lerpers?

----------


## RonRules

> What if they're targeting precinct captains for the precincts where they predict they can get the biggest bang for the buck, i.e., big turnout? Or what if they identify voters to phone based on both geographic (precinct) data and demographic data. What if predicted precinct turnout is one of the variables that Targetpoint uses to skew the spending of campaign money?  There are lots of ways that a correlation could be introduced, but because it's a campaign strategy secret it's hard to prove or disprove the degree to which this happens.


That would seem like a real ODD way to spend election money. A vote is a vote, and I have shown that "rebulicanness" has near zero correlation with precinct size. Why spend money that way?
1) First, I don't believe that they can target votes so precisely as to linearly improve vote for Romney as a function of precinct size to a 99% correlation.
2) Romney does a lot of TV ads, and these are spread statewide, pretty much equally. They may even affect rural areas even more, because there is less internet usage in rural areas. TV is very effective and would distort the a nice linear relationship as a function of precinct size.

It would make sense for a campaign to target Republican areas. That's good for campaign funding and GOTV and those demographics are available. Just look at the Republican/Democrat % registration per precinct and see if Romney (or any other) has made better use of that variable to fund their campaign.

So make a chart (scatter point) as follows: 
X-Axis Republican/Democrat voter registration %; 
Y-Axis Romney, Gingrich, Paul, Santorum % of vote

If you get a line that exceeds 99% correlation, I will give you a cookie.

I'm busy making another analysis right now, but I recommend checking that out. Ohio has a good store of statistics available. Go to the particular county, for example Cayuhoga county.

----------


## dsw

> A vote is a vote, and I have shown that "rebulicanness" has near zero correlation with precinct size.


What does "republicanness" have to do with spending in the primaries?  In the primaries the universe that matters is the universe of potential voters.  In a closed primary that's the Republicans.  It doesn't make sense to focus on areas that have a high % of registered Republicans in the primaries, because the Democrats are irrelevant.  It makes sense to focus on the areas that will have the highest turnout in the GOP primary relative to GOP turnout in other areas.  I.e., the precincts that end up on the right hand side of the graphs.

In any case, that's not the argument.  There's an observed correlation between precinct size and %vote for Romney.  There are a variety of factors that correlate with precinct size, especially if the geographical clustering by precinct size seen in Va Beach City is common elsewhere.  The question is how you rule out those correlations and their compounding effects.  It's not just demographics, because other things correlate with precinct turnout. And it's not just a question of whether any one demographic factor can explain the correlation, either.

Just to reiterate, in VBC if Romney focused any kind of spending on just two localized geographic areas, one in the northeast corner and one just southwest of there, then he would have been focusing on well over 60% of the "post-divide" precincts.   And it's not that he would have been doing any analysis in terms of precincts, necessarily. It's just a consequence of the way the largest precincts are geographically clustered.  If those two neighborhoods were already tending pro-Romney, and he spent heavily to go door-to-door or whatever in those two neighborhoods, then the impact would be seen on the graph starting at the 240 mark, when you hit the first of the precincts in that northeastern neighborhood cluster.  

Again, I'm not saying that's the explanation.  But when you start talking about ruling out demographics that's an example of the kind of thing you'd have to find a way to rule out.

----------


## RonRules

> What does "republicanness" have to do with spending in the primaries?  In the primaries the universe that matters is the universe of potential voters.


It does matter, if you want to spend money efficiently.

Your claim: Romney's marketing was finely tuned as function of Cumulative Precinct Vote Tally. I don't believe they can tune any marketing campaign anywhere that precisely and besides, it's not a WISE way to spend money that way. There is no correlation and they'd be wasting 1/2 the money.

The best bang for the buck in a campaign is to spend money on the people that are most likely to be on your side. That's why Ron Paul often speaks at colleges. (BTW, if you want to meet me, I'll be at UCLA's rally tomorrow night).

Romney's game, anybody's game for that matter, is to target likely 1) Republicans 2) Republicans that may vote for Romney.

Because Republicanness as a function of precinct size totally fails the correlation test, it's a non-starter approach.

However, even with that, Gingrich has a totally different effect, dropping as a function of increasing cumulative vote tally. Same for Paul, Santorum, Perry, Bachman and Huntsman in 2012.

You can't explain ALL the other candidates losses, in all counties and all states voted thus far, unless you seriously consider vote flipping. Start making charts to prove your point. Pull up Excel and start charting.

The simplest explanation, the one that makes all these pieces of evidence fall into place, like the pins on a lock, is vote flipping.

This explanation is also easy to accomplish if you accept the theory of a virus infecting the central tabulator. Only totals are manually checked from the central tabulator back to the individual precinct. THAT's why the scam has worked until now. That's the explanation that works, to 99.3%.

----------


## dsw

> Your claim: Romney's marketing was finely tuned as function of Cumulative Precinct Vote Tally. I don't believe they can tune any marketing campaign anywhere that precisely and besides, it's not a WISE way to spend money that way. There is no correlation and they'd be wasting 1/2 the money.


That's not the claim.  I was just pointing out that you've demonstrated a correlation between precinct turnout and %vote for Romney, and there are a variety of factors that also correlate with precinct size, making it difficult to rule out non-fraud explanations simply by looking at demographic data.  It was in specifically in response to what program4liberty was describing.

And I'm still not getting why you think that spending more in the precincts that deliver more votes in the primary isn't a good idea.  A region that has 70% Republicans, but a voting population of 50, is not as good an investment *especially in the GOP primary* as an area that has 30% Republican registration and a voting population of 1000.   Or more simply, the precincts that deliver the most GOP voters no matter what percentage of the population they are.  Or in other words, the precincts on the right hand side of the graph, because of the way the graph has been constructed.  

Where are we disagreeing on that?  





> The simplest explanation, the one that makes all these pieces of evidence fall into place, like the pins on a lock, is vote flipping.
> 
> This explanation is also easy to accomplish if you accept the theory of a virus infecting the central tabulator. Only totals are manually checked from the central tabulator back to the individual precinct. THAT's why the scam has worked until now. That's the explanation that works, to 99.3%.


And what about Iowa?

----------


## RonRules

> I was just pointing out that you've demonstrated a correlation between precinct turnout and %vote for Romney, and there are a variety of factors that also correlate with precinct size, making it difficult to rule out non-fraud explanations simply by looking at demographic data.


Not exactly, because at this point I need to be exact.

The correlation between increasing precinct vote turnout and %vote for Romney is pretty bad, almost imperceptible. Lets use the example of Iowa since you bring it up. 
(Note that this relationship is perceptible in cases like VA where Richmond was such an extreme case that you could easily see it.)

Where's the correlation, where's the crime you may ask?


Then, you place the key in the lock and turn the key. That key is *Cumulative* Precinct Vote Tally and it fits perfectly. 
Crime exposed:





> And I'm still not getting why you think that spending more in the precincts that deliver more votes in the primary isn't a good idea.  A region that has 70% Republicans, but a voting population of 50, is not as good an investment *especially in the GOP primary* as an area that has 30% Republican registration and a voting population of 1000.


Spending more on GOP rich areas is fine, it's a good strategy, but you won't do it EFFICIENTLY if your selection criteria is precinct size and Romney was certainly donin't wrong if you just look at the first chart above.

It's better in the case of Romney to find: 1) Mormons 2) Bankers 3) Young guys in white shirts riding bicycles.

----------


## dsw

> Not exactly, because at this point I need to be exact.
> 
> The correlation between increasing precinct vote turnout and %vote for Romney is pretty bad, almost imperceptible. Lets use the example of Iowa since you bring it up. 
> (Note that this relationship is perceptible in cases like VA where Richmond was such an extreme case that you could easily see it.)
> 
> Where's the correlation, where's the crime you may ask?
> 
> 
> Then, you place the key in the lock and turn the key. That key is *Cumulative* Precinct Vote Tally and it fits perfectly. 
> ...


The first graph sure looks like it has a strong correlation for Romney.  The second graph smooths the data, making that correlation more obvious, but correlation doesn't mean smoothness.   The reason the second graph keeps climbing for Romney *is* the correlation.  It keeps climbing because as you go to the right Romney has, overall, a higher and higher percentage of the vote on average, which is to say, the reason it keeps climbing is that there's a positive correlation between precinct size and %vote for Romney.

The point of bringing up Iowa was that you said the hypothesis that worked so well was a virus at the central tabulating computer.  But in Iowa the votes were manually counted in public *and reported in real time* independently of the central tabulation.  Also reported by Ron Paul supporters independently as well in some cases.   So how does that fit the virus hypothesis?

Again, I never said the selection criteria would be precinct size (used here to meaning number of votes cast, to be precise), and it certainly would not be that alone.  For localized gotv efforts and the like, Romney is going to want to go to areas where he can find the most votes for the fewest bucks.  That doesn't mean using precinct size as the criterion, just correlation with precinct size.  It's not going to correlate as well, if at all, with %GOP registration because that's going to be very high in some areas that don't have enough votes to be worth bothering with.  

In the Va Beach City case, for example,  if he targeted that northeastern area alone *for whatever reason his data mining consultants might have come up with* then he would have focused on *only* the post-240 precincts and he would have hit 60% of the post-240 precincts.  That could be the case even if the data mining used to target that area didn't look at precinct size at all.  It's just because the way you've ordered the precincts, those 14 or however many there were are clustered both geographically and in your precinct order, and you hit the first of them at 240.

----------


## affa

Generally speaking, it's very difficult to target specific areas of a city.  All tv ads will generally be seen by the entire city.  All newspaper ads.  All local newpaper ads.   All radio ads.   Any 'visit' will have people coming not just from anywhere in the city, but from outside the city.

How exactly do you propose Romney's people not only just targeted the NE corner of a city, but did this level of targeting for every city in the country?    

Are you talking pure phonebanking ninja skills being that effective?  That's some phenomenal return on investment for phonebanking - for the first time in history, skewing results completely out of whack for targeted precincts.

----------


## RonRules

> The point of bringing up Iowa was that you said the hypothesis that worked so well was a virus at the central tabulating computer.  But in Iowa the votes were manually counted in public *and reported in real time* independently of the central tabulation.


Sure people reported counts they saw in their own precincts. Announcing the count won't do much if you don't follow up the next day to confirm the individual candidate vote totals on the state/county website.

When that was done like in Maine, it did NOT match.

I have seen very few instances where the grass-roots reported counts (not the totals, but individuals) in each precincts were clearly compared side-by-side with the state tabulated results. That's work that the grass roots can do. Pick Virginia, that one is easy and call the precinct directors and ask them for their counts and compare with what the state published.

I just realized that I said a few days ago that I was not going to reply to you unless you ALSO did the math and put charts to make your case. Real charts, with real numbers, from real elections.

----------


## RonRules

duplicate

----------


## dsw

> Generally speaking, it's very difficult to target specific areas of a city.  All tv ads will generally be seen by the entire city.  All newspaper ads.  All local newpaper ads.   All radio ads.   Any 'visit' will have people coming not just from anywhere in the city, but from outside the city.
> 
> How exactly do you propose Romney's people not only just targeted the NE corner of a city, but did this level of targeting for every city in the country?    
> 
> Are you talking pure phonebanking ninja skills being that effective?  That's some phenomenal return on investment for phonebanking - for the first time in history, skewing results completely out of whack for targeted precincts.


Voter registration tables.  Billboards.   Door-to-door precinct walking.  Targeted mailings.  As for the ninja skills of Targetpoint Consulting, they sure seem to be impressed with themselves.   I haven't found much in the way about specifics for what they've done for Romney in 2008 and 2012, but here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
is an older article, talking about some things they did for Bush-Cheney.  Data mining "enabled those running direct mail, precinct walking and phone bank programs to target each voter with a tailored message."  

Again (and probably not for the last time) I'm not saying this "debunks" anything.  I was responding to program4liberty's comment about what he was planning to do, and the point is that if you want to rule out non-fraud explanations it's not sufficient just to look at demographic data, and certainly not sufficient to look at factors one at a time.  There are many ways that results can correlate with precinct size.  The Super Brochure mailings for Ron Paul, for example, look like they may have blanketed smaller precincts to a much greater degree than larger ones, because of the way the web site works.  It's hard to rule out every effect that could introduce a correlation with precinct size.  So the point is:  an argument based on analyzing demographic data won't be conclusive.   That's all.

----------


## program4liberty

Thank you dsw, RonRules, and affa for the information. Yes, dsw you have a point that it would be very difficult indeed, but I cannot think of a better way to come up with a conclusive argument.

As I would hope we all are, I want to find the truth. Part of doing this is investigating whatever possible arguments or counter examples seem most likely to negate one case, or confirm another. For this reason, I will begin looking at Iowa in depth now as it is very compelling (I wasn't aware of its exact voting methods for the primaries). It shows a fair positive trend for Romney and a negative trend for Paul, indicative of what we're seeing elsewhere, yet was done in public and by hand. Indeed, if its votes can be verified with independent reports (perhaps a more possible task to finish to completion than the anti-demographic one) then that would confirm the subtle-ish workings of demographics in producing the trend we see. If that's the truth, that's what I'd like to find out (I have a RepRap machine I want to get started on).

----------


## drummergirl

> Thank you dsw, RonRules, and affa for the information. Yes, dsw you have a point that it would be very difficult indeed, but I cannot think of a better way to come up with a conclusive argument.
> 
> As I would hope we all are, I want to find the truth. Part of doing this is investigating whatever possible arguments or counter examples seem most likely to negate one case, or confirm another. For this reason, I will begin looking at Iowa in depth now as it is very compelling (I wasn't aware of its exact voting methods for the primaries). It shows a fair positive trend for Romney and a negative trend for Paul, indicative of what we're seeing elsewhere, yet was done in public and by hand. Indeed, if its votes can be verified with independent reports (perhaps a more possible task to finish to completion than the anti-demographic one) then that would confirm the subtle-ish workings of demographics in producing the trend we see. If that's the truth, that's what I'd like to find out (I have a RepRap machine I want to get started on).


Best of luck to you.

----------


## dsw

> Thank you dsw, RonRules, and affa for the information. Yes, dsw you have a point that it would be very difficult indeed, but I cannot think of a better way to come up with a conclusive argument.
> 
> As I would hope we all are, I want to find the truth. Part of doing this is investigating whatever possible arguments or counter examples seem most likely to negate one case, or confirm another. For this reason, I will begin looking at Iowa in depth now as it is very compelling (I wasn't aware of its exact voting methods for the primaries). It shows a fair positive trend for Romney and a negative trend for Paul, indicative of what we're seeing elsewhere, yet was done in public and by hand. Indeed, if its votes can be verified with independent reports (perhaps a more possible task to finish to completion than the anti-demographic one) then that would confirm the subtle-ish workings of demographics in producing the trend we see. If that's the truth, that's what I'd like to find out (I have a RepRap machine I want to get started on).


Nevada might be an interesting one to look at.  The results were reported in real-time via twitter:
https://dev.twitter.com/docs/special...t-tweet-format
So you could not only see what the individual precincts were reporting, you could look at the timeline of when each result was reported.

Note that the precinct number isn't unique, you need the county number and precinct number for a unique identifier.  One "absolute proof of fraud" on dp made the mistake of only looking at the precinct number and assuming it was unique.  Also note that there were "corrected" vote results reported in some cases, so perhaps there's something potentially interesting to find in that as well.

----------


## drummergirl

> Nevada might be an interesting one to look at.  The results were reported in real-time via twitter:
> https://dev.twitter.com/docs/special...t-tweet-format
> So you could not only see what the individual precincts were reporting, you could look at the timeline of when each result was reported.
> 
> Note that the precinct number isn't unique, you need the county number and precinct number for a unique identifier.  One "absolute proof of fraud" on dp made the mistake of only looking at the precinct number and assuming it was unique.  Also note that there were "corrected" vote results reported in some cases, so perhaps there's something potentially interesting to find in that as well.


There were only 2 counties with flipping results in NV, but they comprised over 70% of the total votes.

----------


## dsw

> There were only 2 counties with flipping results in NV, but they comprised over 70% of the total votes.


Clark and Washoe?  I found a brief mention of Nevada in your document (something Liberty had posted) but it doesn't say what the flipping hypothesis would be, i.e., at what precinct size is the algorithm allegedly starting to flip votes.  If I can find out what hypothesis I'm testing I'll look at the Nevada official data (assuming I can find it, the state and county pages only have PDFs that I've found) and compare the real-time reporting from that evening to see if there were any discrepancies, and also to see how closely the order in which the precincts report follows the size.

----------


## drummergirl

> Clark and Washoe?  I found a brief mention of Nevada in your document (something Liberty had posted) but it doesn't say what the flipping hypothesis would be, i.e., at what precinct size is the algorithm allegedly starting to flip votes.  If I can find out what hypothesis I'm testing I'll look at the Nevada official data (assuming I can find it, the state and county pages only have PDFs that I've found) and compare the real-time reporting from that evening to see if there were any discrepancies, and also to see how closely the order in which the precincts report follows the size.


unfortunately I have a commitment and am about to head out the door, but yes I believe Liberty1789 did the original analysis on those 2 counties.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...q8E/edit?pli=1

here are my notes; liberty is in blue text.  might be faster than searching the original thread. HTH

----------


## dsw

> unfortunately I have a commitment and am about to head out the door, but yes I believe Liberty1789 did the original analysis on those 2 counties.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...q8E/edit?pli=1
> 
> here are my notes; liberty is in blue text.  might be faster than searching the original thread. HTH


Awesome, but in searching for a link to Liberty's data file, it looks like he may have already analyzed the twitter data:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/archive...t-358731.html?

I'll see what I can do.

----------


## arsenius

I forwarded drummergirl's summary to a friend with a PhD in statistics from Harvard.  He didn't have much time for it, but he had a couple of concerns.  If someone could respond to them, I'd appreciate it.

1. He said the distribution of slopes graph was suspicious, because it averages all (other) candidates over 10 years, and then compares that to a single year.

2. The summary only lists about 7 states where this has occurred.  I thought evidence had been found in every state analyzed so far except for one territory.  Is there an actual count of states where this happened?  He thought that if this pattern had happened everywhere it "would be something."  Also, he mentioned that this does not appear to uniformly benefit Romney in the charts, but as far as I can tell it does.  The charts included in program4liberty's program do seem unclear (to my eye), though.  Which one of us is wrong?

3. What actual mathematical demographic analysis has been done?  The summary says that this has stood up to demographic explanations, but it doesn't explain what those were.

4. Related to 3, he was concerned about larger precincts being in cities.  I think this has been cleared up (once, or maybe even twice!), but perhaps the summary could be updated to make it clear that cities have a mix of large and small precincts.

Also, he was concerned that the author was unnamed, and that it had not come from a statistician.  I think those are legitimate concerns as well, from an academic perspective.  I understand how much work has been done here, but other people may not.  I am going to start searching for a firm that would be able to analyze this independently, and if I can find someone, will setup a chipin for it, unless there are objections.

----------


## arsenius

Also, I had forwarded the summary to almost every county clerk and deputy county clerk in Wisconsin prior to the election.  I did not receive a SINGLE reply that had any indication that the summary had actually been read!  (If we find evidence of flipping in Wisconsin also, I will call affected counties and ask them not to certify.  I think certification will happen next week.)  I did receive a number of replies to these questions, though:

1. Are voting machines and tabulators tested by setting the machines' dates to the date of the actual election?
2. Are voting machines and tabulators tested using a range of votes?
3. Are the voting machines and tabulators tested using actual the candidates' names?
4. Are recorded vote totals for each individual candidate reported back to precincts for checking, or only total votes recorded?
5. Are the voting machines and tabulators connected to the internet, or other network? 
6. Are voting machine vendors allowed to interact with machines or software at any point between testing and vote certification?

I received a variety of answers for 1, 2, and 4.  The other answers were uniformly YES on 1 and 2, NO on 5 and 6.

The most common answer for 2 was that "every possible combination of votes" is tested.  No more and no less, if I understand correctly.  I do not think anyone tested with more than 50 votes, however.

Just thought people might be interested.  As far as I know, Wisconsin uses scanners and not touchscreen.

----------


## dsw

> I am going to start searching for a firm that would be able to analyze this independently, and if I can find someone, will setup a chipin for it, unless there are objections.


A statistics firm is likely to be expensive.  A starving statistics postdoc could be a lot cheaper.  Just a thought.

Here's one way to get in touch with some real statisticians and grad students and so on:  http://www.reddit.com/r/statistics/
I found it mentioned here:  http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/co...e_people_with/
Which links to this previous analysis in the /statistics board:  http://www.reddit.com/r/statistics/c...his_subreddit/
So they've seen this once just a month ago, which means that posting it again to /statistics probably won't do much good.  Attaching an offer of money to it would get some attention though, at least from starving PhD students and postdocs!

I think it's worth considering, however, that there are some very specific critiques that are made multiple times in those threads, and elsewhere, so offering to pay someone might just end up costing money to hear the same criticisms again.  Some of the points they raise there have been addressed (and could be addressed more clearly), and others are just snark, but that still leaves a few things that I suspect any statistician is going to point out first.

----------


## drummergirl

I'll do what I can here.




> I forwarded drummergirl's summary to a friend with a PhD in statistics from Harvard.  He didn't have much time for it, but he had a couple of concerns.  If someone could respond to them, I'd appreciate it.
> 
> 1. He said the distribution of slopes graph was suspicious, because it averages all (other) candidates over 10 years, and then compares that to a single year.


The purpose of that graph is to look at historical data for patterns.  If he/she has a better method for looking at the data, that would be great.



> 2. The summary only lists about 7 states where this has occurred.  I thought evidence had been found in every state analyzed so far except for one territory.  Is there an actual count of states where this happened?  He thought that if this pattern had happened everywhere it "would be something."  Also, he mentioned that this does not appear to uniformly benefit Romney in the charts, but as far as I can tell it does.  The charts included in program4liberty's program do seem unclear (to my eye), though.  Which one of us is wrong?


There are some states not in the summary just because I don't have a pretty graph for that state.  Everyone here is working in their spare time, and there are only 24 hours in a day.  There are lots more graphs and charts buried in the threads and we are definitely adding more to the collection each day.  We now have 3 more data sets to look at from the April 3 races too.  Personally, I've been so focused on the Alabama thread that I haven't even looked at Wisconsin yet.




> 3. What actual mathematical demographic analysis has been done?  The summary says that this has stood up to demographic explanations, but it doesn't explain what those were.


Just off the top, first one debunked was urban/rural.  Also noted was the fact that "large" precinct size varied greatly by state and that many times the difference between "large" (i.e. flipping) and "small" (i.e. flat lining) seemed arbitrary (one in particular was a difference of only 20 votes/precinct)  Others considered were "republicanness" of precincts (ratio of registered reps/dems), "libertarianness" of precincts (there were really insufficient numbers to analyze that one), and there was some analysis of property values in SC. 




> 4. Related to 3, he was concerned about larger precincts being in cities.  I think this has been cleared up (once, or maybe even twice!), but perhaps the summary could be updated to make it clear that cities have a mix of large and small precincts.


In this case "precinct size" is a shorthand for "number of votes cast in the republican primary".  Some geographically large precincts will be categorized as small because they are predominantly democrats, so not many votes in a republican primary.  Others might be small because they are rural or otherwise geographically isolated (odd corner of a county or something).  still others may have had low turnout for one reason or another.




> Also, he was concerned that the author was unnamed, and that it had not come from a statistician.  I think those are legitimate concerns as well, from an academic perspective.  I understand how much work has been done here, but other people may not.  I am going to start searching for a firm that would be able to analyze this independently, and if I can find someone, will setup a chipin for it, unless there are objections.


I'm unnamed just like everyone else on this forum, that is true.  So were the authors of The Federalist Papers.  For some of the same reasons, frankly.  And anyone who catches my "no guts, no sausage" references will know exactly where I went to school and who my statistics prof was.  I'm not a statistician; I've just done work where I've had to use basic statistics repeatedly.  (Word gets around; when the others find out you actually understand what we all had to pass tests on, stats problems just come to you like flies to a dung heap)  But I did place the "this is not an academic paper" disclaimer at the beginning for a reason.

It would be awesome to get some more analytical firepower in here; that's the point.  We've found something interesting; are there any statisticians willing to risk looking at this data, analyzing it, and putting their own name and reputation out there with the results?

EDIT: oh yeah, the clock is also ticking; time sensitive data as there are more primaries pretty much every week until the conventions, then the general election in November.  Analyses AFTER the general election run the risk of causing riots, civil unrest, and general chaos.

----------


## drummergirl

> I found it mentioned here:  http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/co...e_people_with/
> Which links to this previous analysis in the /statistics board:  http://www.reddit.com/r/statistics/c...his_subreddit/
> So they've seen this once just a month ago, which means that posting it again to /statistics probably won't do much good.


Unfortunately, the person who ran over to the stats board asking for help, had absolutely no clue what they were talking about.  The entire thread is so full of rabbit trails based on misinformation that it makes a bowl of spaghetti look organized.

For instance, there was a long series of rants about time based dependencies.  Time is not even a variable.  But, the person from these forums that started the question there did not understand what "variable" means, so it went poorly.

----------


## drummergirl

Here is the latest version of the summary with technical addendum.  I still do not have all the graphs as cleaned up as I'd like, but in the near future I have to wear a microphone and sound good.  So, good night y'all.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...1iE/edit?pli=1

----------


## drummergirl

Has anyone had any luck in finding Maryland data by precinct?

----------


## arsenius

> I'll do what I can
> 
> There are some states not in the summary just because I don't have a pretty graph for that state.  Everyone here is working in their spare time, and there are only 24 hours in a day.  There are lots more graphs and charts buried in the threads and we are definitely adding more to the collection each day.  We now have 3 more data sets to look at from the April 3 races too.  Personally, I've been so focused on the Alabama thread that I haven't even looked at Wisconsin 
> 
> ...


Thanks for your answers, drummergirl. Do you or anyone have a count of the states affected, though?

I just checked gab.wi.gov and it appears there are no official results for Wisconsin yet. Does anyone know differently?

----------


## arsenius

By the way, the technical addendum is great! Well done once again!

----------


## drummergirl

> Thanks for your answers, drummergirl. Do you or anyone have a count of the states affected, though?
> 
> I just checked gab.wi.gov and it appears there are no official results for Wisconsin yet. Does anyone know differently?


I have documented anomalies in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Vermont.  There may be more that I haven't added in my notes yet, and there are certainly places where we are still looking for data (Wisconsin, maryland, hawaii, etc.)

I don't know if you've been following the Alabama thread; the data there is just plain wild and, unfortunately, full of disturbing possibilities.

----------


## drummergirl

> By the way, the technical addendum is great! Well done once again!


thanks, some of the charts and graphs are not as pretty as I'd like to make them, but time is just too short to be a perfectionist.

----------


## RonRules

I'm working on Wisconsin. I'm doing all counties that have data, one-by-one.  I'm announcing this here so we don't duplicate efforts.

Please tell us what you're working on.

----------


## RonRules

Alex Jones wants to make a big report about election fraud in 2012:



Feed him good!

----------


## RonRules

Post deleted. Replaced with post #201 which has better looking charts with the same data.

----------


## RonRules

Some of you asked for Milwaukee data. The Election reps wrote me back:

"Please note that the results for the 2012 presidential primaries has not been posted to our website yet as this office is still in the process of certifying the results and the deadline to do so is not until Friday, April 13. "

xxx xxx, Administrator
MILWAUKEE COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION
Milwaukee County Courthouse, Room G-3
901 North 9th Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin  53233
Phone:  (414)278-4061
Fax:       (414)223-1866

----------


## drummergirl

> Some of you asked for Milwaukee data. The Election reps wrote me back:
> 
> "Please note that the results for the 2012 presidential primaries has not been posted to our website yet as this office is still in the process of certifying the results and the deadline to do so is not until Friday, April 13. "


Darn, I hate waiting.  Does this mean they've noticed something afoot?

----------


## RonRules

I've made 44 charts for Wisconsin. That's about all we've been able to get from the counties so far.

I've updated the look of the charts and made the colors consistent by numbering the candidates. Since we've traditionally made Romney green and RP red, I kept that. 
You will be able to access all my charts as follows: http://photobucket.com/flipping_WI; http://photobucket.com/flipping_SC, http://photobucket.com/flipping_VA.

The above short links will lead you to the slideshow
http://s269.photobucket.com/albums/j...view=slideshow

Let's start analyzing:

Is this a flat-liner?


Is this a dumb algorithm or what?  Why flip when you're ahead?!


Miss'ed it by _that_ much:



My favorite county in Wisconsin!


Little dodgy wouldn't you think?


This one's interesting. Note how Romney left alone Santorum but only flipped Ron Paul:


Pretty straight slopes would you say Mr. Demographics?


Romney nailed it here:

----------


## RonRules

Look how good those South Carolina charts look like now:


Or how bad they look, depending on your perspective:

----------


## drummergirl

Nice graphics  

Outagamie county ftw!  

Here's a one page flyer suitable for distribution at events.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...nfdkBzdBw/edit

----------


## RonRules

Independent analysis I was given this morning. A retired industrial engineer did this for us. 

He wanted to see if there was any correlation between the size of a county and Romney's success compared to Santorum.

state Romneyy	Santorm
MI	0.35	-0.18 (Correlation)
MO	0.24	-0.07
Oh	0.69	-0.56
FL	0.71	-0.49
CO	0.24	-0.05
GA	0.51	-0.36
MA	0.63	-0.59
IA	0.39	-0.13
ID	0.13	-0.06
MN	0.37	-0.28
NA	0.67	-0.388
NV	0.17	-0.255
OK	0.37	-0.024
TN	0.59	-0.46
SC	0.33	0.15
VA	0.13	-0.13
VT	0.2	-0.16

I think we've got another believer:
"I estimate the odds of this happening by chance at around a billion to one.  Each measure of correlation could be positive or negative.
So a simple way to estimate the odds is to treat it like flipping coins.
So odds become 2 raised to power 34 divided by 17. That's around a billion.  Next step: run the same test on other candidates in other elections.
I will also go back and add calculations for all the candidates in this report."

InB4 Parocks, DSW: "Romney does better in bigger counties."

----------


## tremendoustie

[deleted by mod - see note in OP]

----------


## drummergirl

> Independent analysis I was given this morning. A retired industrial engineer did this for us.


More eyes and more ayes; it's a good thing.

----------


## dsw

> Independent analysis I was given this morning. A retired industrial engineer did this for us. 
> 
> He wanted to see if there was any correlation between the size of a county and Romney's success compared to Santorum.
> 
> state Romneyy	Santorm
> MI	0.35	-0.18 (Correlation)
> MO	0.24	-0.07
> Oh	0.69	-0.56
> FL	0.71	-0.49
> ...


Can you ask him what odds he's calculating?  Not the odds of a candidate doing better in larger counties than in smaller ones, that's not a question you can answer theoretically.  Is he calculating the odds of the data showing these correlations, assuming that candidates don't do better in larger counties than in smaller ones?  That doesn't make any sense either because you're calculating the correlations from the complete data set, not from a sample.  What is the "this" that he's estimating to be a one-in-a-billion chance?

----------


## rb3b3

will someone be nice enough and tell me where we are at with this vote flipping algorythm? has it been proven further? or has it been disproven?

----------


## RonRules

I decided to go talk to the Math dept at University of California Riverside. They sent me off to talk to the "Statistical Consulting Collaboratory", but they wanted to be paid for this type of work, probably a lot of money.

So I went to the Political Science people. As I was walking through the halls, one of the professor's door was open and I immediately recognized someone I knew fairly well from another group I'm a member of. He's a graduate student and quantitative analyst. I had totally forgotten that he was part of Poli-Sci at UCR.

I spent over an hour with him. He definitely "got it" instantly and was amazed. He was explaining the charts to me faster than I could explain them to him. He asked all the right questions about demographics, etc.  He's got the computer skills too. I gave him my entire archive, and he's real excited about this. He's not a fan of the Republicans too, which is a good thing! 

He will show this to professor xxx, who is particularly interested in this sort of thing.

Time and funding may be an issue, I hope not. UCR has a whole statistics group and have a large political science department. 

Please go talk to your local university. The people in Social Sciences/Political Sciences are always struggling to get adequate statistical confidence in their studies.  The reaction I got today from the people at UCR was pure elation.

Try it, go see your university professors. You'll make their day.

----------


## affa

moved again. jeez.

----------


## Aden

> I decided to go talk to the Math dept at University of California Riverside. They sent me off to talk to the "Statistical Consulting Collaboratory", but they wanted to be paid for this type of work, probably a lot of money.
> 
> So I went to the Political Science people. As I was walking through the halls, one of the professor's door was open and I immediately recognized someone I knew fairly well from another group I'm a member of. He's a graduate student and quantitative analyst. I had totally forgotten that he was part of Poli-Sci at UCR.
> 
> I spent over an hour with him. He definitely "got it" instantly and was amazed. He was explaining the charts to me faster than I could explain them to him. He asked all the right questions about demographics, etc.  He's got the computer skills too. I gave him my entire archive, and he's real excited about this. He's not a fan of the Republicans too, which is a good thing! 
> 
> He will show this to professor xxx, who is particularly interested in this sort of thing.
> 
> Time and funding may be an issue, I hope not. UCR has a whole statistics group and have a large political science department. 
> ...


What did you give them?  Can you link to a .zip or something?  I know two professors who teach poli sci research methods at the graduate level.  One of them has co-authored a book on research methods.  What can I pass off to them?

----------


## RonRules

> What did you give them?  Can you link to a .zip or something?  I know two professors who teach poli sci research methods at the graduate level.  One of them has co-authored a book on research methods.  What can I pass off to them?


I was able to sit down on the computer with them for an hour and show them lots of charts (flipping/no-flipping). I recommend you start with the latest version of the "Extended Summary With Technical Information" that drummergirl put together. You may throw more charts at them, but here's what they asked me:
1) The source of all that data (I have kept a file with all the data sources and program4liberty's Java package includes that)
2) Prior year data where no flipping occurs. There's lots of the in NH, IA, FL, SC.

If you are capable of explaining the problem well, try to meet with them. If not get them to contact me and I'll be glad to explain and provide my entire archive of data, spreadsheets, programs (~300 MB thus far)

----------


## Aden

> I was able to sit down on the computer with them for an hour and show them lots of charts (flipping/no-flipping). I recommend you start with the latest version of the "Extended Summary With Technical Information" that drummergirl put together. You may throw more charts at them, but here's what they asked me:
> 1) The source of all that data (I have kept a file with all the data sources and program4liberty's Java package includes that)
> 2) Prior year data where no flipping occurs. There's lots of the in NH, IA, FL, SC.
> 
> If you are capable of explaining the problem well, try to meet with them. If not get them to contact me and I'll be glad to explain and provide my entire archive of data, spreadsheets, programs (~300 MB thus far)


OK.  Can you throw me a link to the Java package so I can get the vote data?  Thanks.

----------


## drummergirl

for quick reference:

Executive summary with technical addendum:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...1iE/edit?pli=1

my notes:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...xR4TzZq8E/edit

one page flyer:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...nfdkBzdBw/edit

----------


## RonRules

> OK.  Can you throw me a link to the Java package so I can get the vote data?  Thanks.


This is the Java package, including the data for about 20 states. It's the quickest way to analyze. You can run the entire country (at the state level) in a few seconds. With excel, it would take you weeks. The README file is now pretty good and if you follow it, you'll be up quickly.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/voteanalyze/

----------


## Pauling

> I decided to go talk to the Math dept at University of California Riverside. They sent me off to talk to the "Statistical Consulting Collaboratory", but they wanted to be paid for this type of work, probably a lot of money.
> 
> So I went to the Political Science people. As I was walking through the halls, one of the professor's door was open and I immediately recognized someone I knew fairly well from another group I'm a member of. He's a graduate student and quantitative analyst. I had totally forgotten that he was part of Poli-Sci at UCR.
> 
> I spent over an hour with him. He definitely "got it" instantly and was amazed. He was explaining the charts to me faster than I could explain them to him. He asked all the right questions about demographics, etc.  He's got the computer skills too. I gave him my entire archive, and he's real excited about this. He's not a fan of the Republicans too, which is a good thing! 
> 
> He will show this to professor xxx, who is particularly interested in this sort of thing.
> 
> Time and funding may be an issue, I hope not. UCR has a whole statistics group and have a large political science department. 
> ...



This is great news! It would be awesome if we could prevent the vote flipping from happening in Cali and Paul runs away with it. Is this possible? I'm from Cali too, by the way.

----------


## RonRules

> This is great news! It would be awesome if we could prevent the vote flipping from happening in Cali and Paul runs away with it. Is this possible? I'm from Cali too, by the way.


I've met with the Registrar of Voters of Riverside to warn them in advance and I gave them a list of what to watch for. I have to meet with them again to see what's implemented. I urge everyone to do the same in their own and surrounding counties. I'll probably also do San Bernardino, because that's not too far for me.

Do get academia support as quickly as you can. As soon as you've got a nod of approval, then go to your local election rep. If you can get them to publish an official scientific paper, that will have a lot of weight with local election reps, rather than our little group here.

----------


## jct74

I modified the note in the OP to emphasize that this is a subject which there are many dissenting views on and that this thread does not reflect the full spectrum of views among forum members on this topic.  I will repost it here since it is worth repeating.




> *MODERATOR NOTE: This is a contentious subject that members of this forum have expressed strong disagreement on.  A number of members do not think there is any evidence of vote flipping, but in the interest of avoiding flame wars and derailments to the work that is being done here this thread is to be kept free of any criticisms of this project.  To view arguments making the case against the occurrence of vote flipping or to post arguments yourself go here or in other previous threads making the case against vote flipping such as here or here.*

----------


## arsenius

I was just taking a look at the results for Dane County in Wisconsin.  One common argument against flipping is that Romney concentrates on urban areas, which have bigger precincts.  But, check out these (cherry picked) precinct sizes in Dane county.

In Madison, Wisconsin's second largest city, the smallest precincts had 0 (x3 precincts), 1, and 13 votes, respectively, and a dozen precincts with under 100 votes.  Largest precincts had 1054 (twice, strangely), 1149 and 1231 voters.  However, go a few miles south to Oregon Wisconsin, population 9,498.  They only have one precinct with 1022 votes.

What I see happening is that Madison actually has the precincts with the lowest turnouts, at least a dozen under 100 votes, because the small towns all have just one place to vote.

Does anyone want to check Romney's schedule and see how much time he spent in Oregon?

----------


## dr.k.research

> I agree with jbauer, what is the next step?
> 
> 
> I am currently emailing drummergirl's summary to the county clerks in Wisconsin, because it is voting next week.  I am trying to make it clear in the email that I am contacting them as a concerned citizen who wants to ensure that the voting process is on the up and up, whether the claims are true or not.  I am including some questions about how voting machine testing is done, based on some concerns that came out in the thread.
> 
> I would definitely donate to a chipin of some sort to get this looked at by an independent party also.


Arsenius: Who did you email it to? Just met with the County Clerk in Mil, WI and gave her a stack of papers. Told her NOT to certify; that there were anomolies. She was resistant and insisted that the process was "correct." 

Would you be so kind to tell me who you emailed the summary to? I am going back to resubmit more data to the Clerk. P.S. would also donate to any effort to confirm these results.

----------


## arsenius

One more note on the precincts in Dane county.  The average precinct size is 529 voters, but in Madison the average is 412 voters.   Assuming that trend holds true in other counties, I hope this lays to rest the argument that this is a rural vs. urban issue.


Data here: http://www.countyofdane.com/clerk/elect2012b.html

----------


## arsenius

I emailed all of them!  You can get a list of everyone here:

http://gab.wi.gov/clerks/directory

However, not a SINGLE person responded to the summary.  They only responded to some questions about their testing procedures.

Dr. K, I'm going to be calling the Dane county clerk later today.  I'd like to chat with you before, if you have time.  I'm living overseas, so earlier would be better, the next few hours if possible.  PM me your number if that works for you.

----------


## RonRules

To celebrate finally being able to upload a new avatar, here's the associated music for your enjoyment and to calm everybody down:
http://www.televisiontunes.com/Flipper.html

For those of you from North Korea who have no idea what I'm talking about**:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flipper_(1964_TV_series)
http://bussongs.com/songs/flipper.php

----------


## RonRules

> One more note on the precincts in Dane county.  The average precinct size is 529 voters, but in Madison the average is 412 voters.   Assuming that trend holds true in other counties, I hope this lays to rest the argument that this is a rural vs. urban issue.
> 
> 
> Data here: http://www.countyofdane.com/clerk/elect2012b.html


Dane county is clearly a flipper. I know this stuff:

----------


## dsw

> Dane county is clearly a flipper. I know this stuff:


How much slope does there have to be to make it "clearly a flipper"?

Here's Ron Paul in Dane county 2008 from http://www.countyofdane.com/clerk/elect2008a.html .  With 20% of the vote counted he has 10.1%, but by the end he has only 6.6%.  (McCain benefitted from this, gaining 4% over the same range.)  For that sample size (calculated as if it were a random sample) the margin of error would be 1.23%.  

What's the verdict?  Fraud, noise, or demographics?   And if it's not fraud, is there an objective way to tell?

----------


## RonRules

> How much slope does there have to be to make it "clearly a flipper"?


Here's what I confirmed yesterday by a university Quantitative Analyst (a Quant):

"With a sufficiently sized county, *those lines MUST be horizontal". * 

There can be little wiggles, but the average slope, past 20% data or so (depends on the sample size), MUST be zero.

So, *ANY slope* on a county like Dane, with 488,073 people (167,000 voters) indicates a problem.

In the 2008 chart you posted, please remember and go back to my Ohio charts, McCain was clearly benefiting from flipping. Earlier in 2008, Romney was the flipper, but when he pulled out, McCain became the benefactor.

Please remember that our charts are cumulative. The last few points on the right include ALL the demographics. It is practically impossible that a constant, high correlation line would result due to demographics.

----------


## RonRules

Here's an example of a county that probably not a flipper, but exhibits some small bumps. 
Those little bumps come out because the data size is smaller.

----------


## dsw

> Here's what I confirmed yesterday by a university Quantitative Analyst (a Quant):
> 
> "With a sufficiently sized county, *those lines MUST be horizontal". * 
> 
> There can be little wiggles, but the average slope, past 20% data or so (depends on the sample size), MUST be zero.


Wow!  Nothing ambiguous about that.  I would have said that it must be horizontal unless there's a correlation with the total number of votes at a precinct for some reason, but I guess that's why I'm not a Quantitative Analyst!

Check out the one below.  It's from the same Dane County web site.  If I'm getting the hang of reading these things, the vote flipping theory would say that flipping began where it suddenly starts taking a sharp dive down on the red line, shortly before 20k votes.  But then a little way past 120,000 votes, it finally flattens out, so did they give up on flipping at that point when they realized they couldn't drive that green line up enough to win?  Before leveling out that green line climbs from 35.6% (with 20% counted) to 43.8%.   Clear fraud?  I've got more examples too.

----------


## arsenius

Just got off the phone with a very stressed Dane County clerk.  It was an interesting conversation.  She was very upset because she gets a lot of these types of phone calls, but did not believe there could be anything going on.  She said she is not a math person, and was not interested in hearing any numbers.  When I said there is a 99% correlation between precinct size and Romney's count, she said she doesn't know how people vote, but that people are acting differently in this election because things are so polarized.  She insisted that the vote be certified, because she was certain there was nothing wrong with it.

Apparently they are using very old machines, 20 or 25 years old.  All the machines for the county are programmed by the deputy county clerk, in a room that only two (or three?) people have access to.  She said that in Wisconsin, there are two other counties (she thought they were Rock and LaCrosse) that program their own machines.  They are serviced by the company that made them once a year, but apparently this does not include software updates.  It's more of wear and tear type maintenance on rollers and such.

Anyways, I have to say that I am convinced of her sincerity.  She really did not believe anything could be going on, and if what she said is true, then it would be hard to pull something off there.

Here is LaCrosse County.  Santorum looks relatively flat, with Paul going down.  You know which way Romney goes.

----------


## RonRules

> Wow!  Nothing ambiguous about that.  I would have said that it must be horizontal *unless there's a correlation with the total number of votes at a precinct* for some reason, but I guess that's why I'm not a Quantitative Analyst!


No, I'm sorry, but you still don't understand our charts. The accumulation of votes as you go from left to right does not show a SINGLE precinct anywhere except the very FIRST point on the left.  The single point on the left is the smallest precinct, a trivial contribution to the chart. EVERY other point on the chart includes more than one precinct and the last point on the chart includes ALL precincts.

Please try real hard to understand that. I want to make you a believer because you can then take over and answer posts from other people like you.

----------


## RonRules

> Just got off the phone with a very stressed Dane County clerk. 
> Apparently they are using very old machines, 20 or 25 years old.  All the machines for the county are programmed by the deputy county clerk, in a room that only two (or three?) people have access to.  She said that in Wisconsin, there are two other counties (she thought they were Rock and LaCrosse) that program their own machines.  They are serviced by the company that made them once a year, but apparently this does not include software updates.  It's more of wear and tear type maintenance on rollers and such.


A couple of things. The individual voting machines are not "programmed" by the staff. They just enter the names of the candidates in the previously written "program"

But that's all irrelevant. It's not about the precinct machines. I am convinced those are fine.

*It's ALL about the central tabulator.*  You could vote with stone chisels at the precinct, it won't matter. It's the central tabulator that flips the votes. It does so when the precinct size is about 250 and does so linearly as a function of _cumulative_ precinct size.

----------


## dsw

> No, I'm sorry, but you still don't understand our charts. The accumulation of votes as you go from left to right does not show a SINGLE precinct anywhere except the very FIRST point on the left.  The single point on the left is the smallest precinct, a trivial contribution to the chart. EVERY other point on the chart includes more than one precinct and the last point on the chart includes ALL precincts.
> 
> Please try real hard to understand that. I want to make you a believer because you can then take over and answer posts from other people like you.


Well of course the last point includes all precincts.  I don't see how that explains why there can't be a naturally-occurring correlation between %vote and precinct size, i.e., the precincts that show up near the right side of one of these graphs would not have the same %vote that the candidate got overall.  But I'm not a Quantitative Analyst and there's more math that I don't understand than math I do understand!  So maybe if I keep looking at these kind of graphs it will sink in.

Anyway, more from Dane.  What's the story on one like this?  They waited until almost 60% of the vote has been counted and THEN start flipping?  Why would they do that?  Does that make any sense at all??   I mean, by the time you've got 60% counted what are the odds of your opponent dropping from 27% to 23% over the remaining precincts?  Seriously, how would you calculate the odds of something like that?

----------


## RonRules

Let me explain Dane county. I predict that Dane will be the center of all the attention, for several reasons.

To answer your question:
First: Check your chart, it doesn't look right. For Wisconsin, forget Ron Paul. The action is between Romney and Santorum. Please chart those and for consistency in the future, use the following colors:  Romney (ugly green); Santorum (Dark Blue); Ron Paul (Red); Gingrich (Indigo or Turquoise, if you care to chart him)

Second: 
a) There are 193 counties in Dane, and the average size in 109 and the median size is 88 votes. No flipping will occur with less than ~250 votes per precinct. (I need to do stats to find out exactly where the flipping starts)
b) There are only 14 precincts with votes > 250.

That's why the flipping does not always start at the same cumulative count on the X-Axis. If all the precincts were <250 votes (approximately) there would be no flipping at all. You have to look at the statistical distribution of the precinct counts.

Dane has some very odd irregularities that I am investigating.  I'm looking at Madison, where Ron Paul did great. In one precinct 6 times better than Romney. This of course shoots down the theory that "Romney does better in big cities".

Next about Dane county, it is one of those counties, which uses a central tabulator by ES&S. This information will come handy later, I promise.

----------


## drummergirl

> Anyway, more from Dane.  What's the story on one like this?  They waited until almost 60% of the vote has been counted and THEN start flipping?  Why would they do that?  Does that make any sense at all??   I mean, by the time you've got 60% counted what are the odds of your opponent dropping from 27% to 23% over the remaining precincts?  Seriously, how would you calculate the odds of something like that?


Good question.  The simplest way is to chart the data by deciles and use the standard deviation and z statistic (tables or with software like excel).  This one is from Iowa.



So, here if we look at Romney going from 18.2% with 30% of votes counted to 23.7% at the end and we are generous and use the 0.5% standard deviation, that 's a change of 11 standard deviations (z=11.0)

As to why start when 60% is already counted?  They are trying to hide.

Think of a couple of kids splitting up the candy they took in on halloween:

One for you, one for me...then (after little sister starts falling asleep), one for you, two for me, one for you, three for me...

*And if my sister is reading this thread, the example is purely hypothetical and never actually happened.

----------


## dsw

> First: Check your chart, it doesn't look right.


Doesn't look right in what sense?  I very well might have made a mistake, but those weren't from the 2012 presidential election.  I wrote a little program to parse all of the election data on the site (easy since they always used the same format).  Then generated the .csv files for cumulative graphs but rather than graphing immediately, I had the program compare the 20% value to the 100% value and flag the ones that had the largest change, because of course without any fraud they absolutely MUST have zero slope according to the Quantitative Analyst.  

The first one I posted was an RKBA referendum from 1998.  (If they were flipping, it was an attack on the second amendment but they failed.)   The other was 2002 race to elect a sheriff.  The math should still work though, right?  Is there some reason that the slope MUST be zero (past a certain point) in presidential elections, but not when people are voting on other things?   Because if the math should still work I've got more to share from 1998 to 2004 ballots, for Dane county races that have a large enough number of votes cast.

----------


## RonRules

Something else to be on the lookout for.

I charted the city of Madison only (I used all the precincts with the name "Madison WD (Ward) nn). 

Ron Paul did great in Madison and he got flipped really hard by Romney. Paul got flipped so hard that you barely see any flipping on Santorum in comparison.

Here's the new thing to be on the lookout when you want to see filipping evidence:

Notice the slow exponential downward curve at the beginning of the chart on Ron Paul's line. That's an *additional flipper identifier.* 

Now, you all tell me why I said that.



All the lines should have an early little wiggle and straighten horizontally pretty fast, just like my favorite county in Wisconsin: Outagamie.



BTW, what's there not to like about Outagamie, Wisconsin. Check out their website: http://www.outagamie.org/

----------


## drummergirl

> Just got off the phone with a very stressed Dane County clerk.  
> 
> Anyways, I have to say that I am convinced of her sincerity.  She really did not believe anything could be going on, and if what she said is true, then it would be hard to pull something off there.


That is one of the reasons all of this is so insidious.  It's being done in a way that is specifically designed to avoid detection.  (Well, most thieves want to avoid detection, but few are good enough at it to succeed.)

With the exception of a few bad apples (like that fella in Louisiana who copped a plea in the 90s), election administrators are as serious as serious can be about maintaining the integrity of their elections.

The trouble is, historically speaking, there have been 3 ways to rig an election.  1) stuff the ballot box.  2) bribe or strong arm voters. 3)pad the voter registration rolls (with dead people, those who've moved, etc) so your people can vote more than once.

There are numerous protections in place to prevent these from happening and to catch them quickly when they do.

The flippers have found a new way to steal votes; the vote totals remain the same (so they pass the canvass) and they don't mess with small vote total precincts where a change would be really noticeable.  They take a few votes here and there from the larger precincts; in a close race a little change is a big difference.

----------


## RonRules

> Doesn't look right in what sense?  I very well might have made a mistake, but those weren't from the 2012 presidential election.  I wrote a little program to parse all of the election data on the site (easy since they always used the same format).  Then generated the .csv files for cumulative graphs but rather than graphing immediately, I had the program compare the 20% value to the 100% value and flag the ones that had the largest change, because of course without any fraud they absolutely MUST have zero slope according to the Quantitative Analyst.  
> 
> The first one I posted was an RKBA referendum from 1998.  (If they were flipping, it was an attack on the second amendment but they failed.)   The other was 2002 race to elect a sheriff.  The math should still work though, right?  Is there some reason that the slope MUST be zero (past a certain point) in presidential elections, but not when people are voting on other things?   Because if the math should still work I've got more to share from 1998 to 2004 ballots, for Dane county races that have a large enough number of votes cast.


I didn't recognize the shapes because they were not 2012. By now, I think you can just show me the chart and I'll tell you what county it's from (in Wisconsin, and most of VA).

" because of course without any fraud they absolutely MUST have zero slope according to the Quantitative Analyst. "  Yes.

A race for Sheriff, county wide will probably have pretty small precinct vote totals.  If they're over 250 each and you ignore the little bumps on the road, it should be a horizontal line.

Note that in Ohio in 2008, I show a chart of a Republican Attorney general race that flips a Democratic attorney's race. It's a GOP trick, not necessarily a Romney thing. McCain used it quite a bit in 2008, after Romney quit.

If your Sheriff is a strong Republican, he may flip up. Check Joe Arpaio's last election. That would be fun to look at.

----------


## dsw

> A race for Sheriff, county wide will probably have pretty small precinct vote totals.  If they're over 250 each and you ignore the little bumps on the road, it should be a horizontal line.


I'm going to go back and double-check everything, now that I have confirmation that it *should* be flat if there's no fraud (according to flipping theory, I mean, not according to math as I understand it).  But for that sheriff race, what I have is 192 precincts with only about 35 or so under 250, and 144k total votes.  
http://www.countyofdane.com/clerk/el...lect2002d.html
Sheriff, Hamblin vs Benedetto, near the bottom of that page.

----------


## dr.k.research

> Dr. K, I'm going to be calling the Dane county clerk later today.  I'd like to chat with you before, if you have time.  I'm living overseas, so earlier would be better, the next few hours if possible.  PM me your number if that works for you.


OK. As early as you want. Send me a TM. And your number.

----------


## RonRules

Something BIG coming. I was going to post something big, but this next thing is BIG.

----------


## RonRules

OK kiddies this is important:

A couple of weeks ago, I made a chart of the Attorney General's race in Iowa and found that the Republican was flipping the Democrat. With DSW's suggestion of checking out the Sheriff's in Wisconsin's Dane County's race, I thought I would check ALL the main ancillary races in Dane County. (I skipped the dog catcher)

The data is HERE:
http://www.countyofdane.com/clerk/el...lect2002d.html

I did the same in Dane County WI and made an incredible finding:

In 2002, Among *Republicans and Republicans ONLY:*
*The State Treasurer
The Attorney General
The District Attorney
The Congressional Representative
The Governor/Lt. Governor
The Sheriff
The Secretary of State
are all flipping their corresponding Democrat opponents.*

The flipping is somewhat light, but consistent. 
Note that these precincts are not very big and voter turnout this year was small, so there are not that many precincts with > 250 votes. But still the trend is clear and on every chart.

Note that I must emphasize, *these lines MUST be horizontal*, except for a few bumps at the start of the trace. If you don't believe me, ask a math/statistics professor.

So check this out:


The State Treasurer: 


The Attorney General:


The District Attorney:


The Congressional Representative:


The Governor/Lt. Governor:


The Sheriff


The Secretary of State


EDIT: Updated the dates on the charts. They were from 2002, not 2012. It only shows that the problem has been around for at least 10 years.

----------


## drummergirl

Time out for a brain spasm!  holy hot cakes, batman!

What really astounds me is the sheriff's race; I'm presuming that is a county office.  The republican was already doing just fine on his own and did not need any flipping.  So why is is flipping like that?  It makes no sense to pad the numbers when you're already way ahead.  




> OK kiddies this is important:
> 
> A couple of weeks ago, I made a chart of the Attorney General's race in Iowa and found that the Republican was flipping the Democrat. With DSW's suggestion of checking out the Sheriff's in Wisconsin's Dane County's race, I thought I would check ALL the main ancillary races in Dane County. (I skipped the dog catcher)
> 
> The data is HERE:
> http://www.countyofdane.com/clerk/el...lect2002d.html
> 
> I did the same in Dane County WI and made an incredible finding:
> 
> ...

----------


## dr.k.research

> Note that I must emphasize, *these lines MUST be horizontal*, except for a few bumps at the start of the trace. If you don't believe me, ask a math/statistics professor.  [/IMG]



That is in virtually all previous elections where no vote flipping occurred the lines are straight. Thus, there is an algorithmic formula applied on ANY precinct, where there is such an obvious deviation from the norm. No one can disprove this straight line observation. 

This is brilliant work, as it shows a consistent pattern only to the benefit of the GOP, which means the GOP exerts some level of control in this corruption--or the people who corrupt it routinely favor the GOP agenda, which is heavy interventionalism: massive and continuous war. 

It's too simple for most people to fathom. The central tabulator is source of the rig. 

Central tabulators were used to rig the vote count in Ohio in favor of Bush over Kerry. Mike Connell presided over this 'flipping.' Deposed, he testified that he was fully capable through off-site servers of altering the vote count. Connell was killed shortly thereafter in a plane crash. 

Now, we can all see that in the high-voter precincts, there is a loss of votes for certain candidates. Let's prove it. Get the precinct tapes, the wons spit out by the electronic voting machines at the end of voting. Ask for them from the County Clerk. Screen the precincts for size. Select the big ones preferentially.

Great work, RonRules. Everyone: get the tapes and make sure they list the final vote totals for EVERY single presidential candidate. It will be different. The graphs prove it. This IS something very big.

Don't have any doubts anymore. Go get the tapes.

----------


## RonRules

> Time out for a brain spasm!  holy hot cakes, batman!
> 
> What really astounds me is the sheriff's race; I'm presuming that is a county office.  The republican was already doing just fine on his own and did not need any flipping.  So why is is flipping like that?  It makes no sense to pad the numbers when you're already way ahead.


I've observed several times that we're dealing with a pretty dumb algorithm. 

However, it may have had to be designed "dumb" so that it can run on autopilot, while the election machines are sequestered. So from the bandit's perspective, it's easier to flip all the time rather than only flip when you need to. They were evidently planning for the eventual machine's access cut off for a long period of time.

It's possible that the algorithm/virus only seeks the word "Republican" and flips that up. This would explain the consistent performance in Dane county. 

Having known this in advance and if I needed a dog catcher job, I would run as a Republican.

----------


## Aden

> I've observed several times that we're dealing with a pretty dumb algorithm. 
> 
> However, it may have had to be designed "dumb" so that it can run on autopilot, while the election machines are sequestered. So from the bandit's perspective, it's easier to flip all the time rather than only flip when you need to. They were evidently planning for the eventual machine's access cut off for a long period of time.
> 
> It's possible that the algorithm/virus only seeks the word "Republican" and flips that up. This would explain the consistent performance in Dane county. 
> 
> Having known this in advance and if I needed a dog catcher job, I would run as a Republican.



If it wants to flip for Republicans, then how does that explain stealing from one Republican (Santorum, Paul) and giving to another Republican (Romney)?

Also, if we want to bring more attention to this, we should try emailing charts to the losers who had votes stolen from them.

----------


## Bohner

> If it wants to flip for Republicans, then how does that explain stealing from one Republican (Santorum, Paul) and giving to another Republican (Romney)?

----------


## drummergirl

> If it wants to flip for Republicans, then how does that explain stealing from one Republican (Santorum, Paul) and giving to another Republican (Romney)?


Romney and republican both begin with R; could it be that simple?

----------


## RonRules

> If it wants to flip for Republicans, then how does that explain stealing from one Republican (Santorum, Paul) and giving to another Republican (Romney)?
> 
> Also, if we want to bring more attention to this, we should try emailing charts to the losers who had votes stolen from them.


I was working most of the day with the data of various parties and had a quick knee jerk post reaction. If not, I'll just blame the 32oz Bud Ice celebration beer.

Emailing the losers is always a good thing to do. Don't let me stop you. 

Start licking stamps! It's time we contact as many people as possible. As the thread title says: "The evidence of election fraud is piling up"

----------


## drummergirl

> I was working most of the day with the data of various parties and had a quick knee jerk post reaction. If not, I'll just blame the 32oz Bud Ice celebration beer.
> 
> Emailing the losers is always a good thing to do. Don't let me stop you. 
> 
> Start licking stamps! It's time we contact as many people as possible. As the thread title says: "The evidence of election fraud is piling up"


I think it is definitely time we got some states' attorneys general involved.

----------


## affa

not as big a fan of the two person race examples.  at least from a layman's perspective, the 4 candidate 2012 elections are much more convincing (to me).

----------


## RonRules

> not as big a fan of the two person race examples.  at least from a layman's perspective, the 4 candidate 2012 elections are much more convincing (to me).


First, these lines have to be horizontal. It's that simple.

Second, it's the consistency of flipping upwards all 7 races above.

The only problem with two person races is that each candidate is a mirror image of each other. They do have great advantages when you want to dig up demographics, voting machine effects, etc.

Let me make a small prediction. For all the counties in Wisconsin that have this type of output format in the results will have the same type of results that we see in Dane.
http://www.countyofdane.com/clerk/el...lect2002d.html

In Wisconsin if the number of voters is large enough, you will see flipping favoring the Republicans. 

Pull the data and let's start analyzing.

----------


## dsw

> Note that I must emphasize, *these lines MUST be horizontal*, except for a few bumps at the start of the trace. If you don't believe me, ask a math/statistics professor.


If that's correct then there are quite a few examples in the older data on the Dane County site, too.  

What would you suggest for some parameters for automatically detecting fraud (according to this theory) with very low risk of false positives?  I screened a bunch of data by first selecting only races with at least 50k votes cast, and having at least 40% of the precincts with >= 250 total votes.  But then I wanted to be able to see how much each line on the graph changed after the 20% mark (or 30% mark or whatever), and automatically flag any graph that changed by more than X% after that point.   Just to automate it so I can run a lot of old data easily.   Any suggestions for setting parameters on a test like this?

----------


## dsw

There is a *lot* of election data out there in formats similar to Dane County.   Here's one that popped up:
http://www.lanecounty.org/Department...ultsindex.aspx
and some 1996 data:
http://www.lanecounty.org/Department.../19961105s.txt
A *lot* of these show evidence that a sample taken from the smallest precincts isn't mathematically guaranteed to be statistically identical to a sample taken from the largest precincts of fraud.  Just to pick one, starting where it's labeled as page 119 in that file we find a vote on a bond measure for a light rail transportation  project.  Take a look at the graph below and tell me if that doesn't prove that there may have been a correlation between precinct size and an urban precinct location and a correlation between being in the city and wanting tax money to go toward a transportation project in the city fraud.  (It passed.)  Similarly in a lot of the other races too.

----------


## RonRules

> There is a *lot* of election data out there in formats similar to Dane County.   Here's one that popped up:
> http://www.lanecounty.org/Department...ultsindex.aspx
> and some 1996 data:
> http://www.lanecounty.org/Department.../19961105s.txt


Lane county's data format does not look like Dane county. (Note at how the candidate names are typed diagonally in Dane but not in Lane) That's fine, but I just wanted to be very specific. Normally you're extremely specific. It's important to be specific because each type of central tabulator has different looking output.

I just had a no-money bet stating that if the data format looked just like Dane county, then flipping would be happening. You found another type of data format that has flipping, and that's great.

It is important to recognize that both data formats (Dane and Lane) are a computer report outputs. In Outagamie county and about 8-9 others on the other hand, they are a straight excel spreadsheet, typed in by hand. (More about this later)




> a vote on a bond measure for a light rail transportation  project. (It passed.)  Similarly in a lot of the other races too.


Now that's also an interesting finding. If bond measures are being flipped, we're in a serious mess here.

Please people, jump in on this analysis.

I recommend you use program4liberty's Java program. 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/voteanalyze/

Just put your data in this form: (save as ".csv")


Then put the ".csv" file aboce in the votes2012 directory, make a "candidates.txt" file in the same directory, which is just the list of names and hit go! It's that simple.

We need a small army of people analyzing this. We need overwhelming evidence.

----------


## RonRules

Ok kiddies, this is another big piece to fit the puzzle:

As I have been saying for a while, I suspect the vote flipping takes place at the Central Tabulator equipment. I don't know if the software from the manufacturer itself is corrupt or if it's a virus that affects it. 

Central Tabulators are a piece of software with names like Diebold "GEMS" (now Dominion), Sequoia's "WinEDS", Scytl/SOE "Results Consolidation Platform (RCP)", Election Systems & Software (ES&S) also with "GEMS" and "Unity Election Reporting Manager". 

Here are 8 counties from Wisconsin below. What's common with all these counties? Among other things, note they don't have computer generated reports output like in Dane county (see links below each county name to get each county's data). Their results are provided as a spreadsheet output saved as PDF's or HTML. One county (Richland) types directly into their Web-Based program to display the results on the county website

Here are the counties:

Marinette County, raw results and processed chart:
http://www.marinettecounty.com/i_mar...y_board_sg.pdf


Oneida County, raw results and processed chart:
http://www.co.oneida.wi.gov/section....1162&locid=135


Oconto County, raw results and processed chart:
http://www.co.oconto.wi.us/i_oconto/..._pres._sum.pdf


Outagamie County, raw results and processed chart:
http://www.outagamie.org/index.aspx?page=837


Polk County, raw results and processed chart: 
http://www.co.polk.wi.us/coclerk/election-results.asp


Richland County, raw results and processed chart:
http://co.richland.wi.us/election/ap...epublican.html


Washburn County, raw results and processed chart:
http://www.co.washburn.wi.us/news/county-clerk/362 


Waukesha County, raw results and processed chart:
http://www.waukeshacounty.gov/upload...d%20County.pdf


Notice there *NO FLIPPING?*

Here's the big news: I've called everyone of these counties and *NONE
use any kind of Central Tabulator software*. 

They perform the final tabulation by hand, enter it in Excel and upload it to their website. They do however use voting machines at the individual precincts, mostly Sequoia AVC, but no central tabulator at the county level. That's the key.

I paraphrase a famous communist: "It's not who votes or how they vote, it's who (in this case what) counts the votes!"

You can see what individual voting machine equipment they use with this map of election equipment in Wisconsin:


It's a little hard to read, so use this to first find where the county is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_in_Wisconsin

----------


## RonRules

I probably need to add Dunn and Burnett Counties as a non-flippers, with a homemade final tabulation:

Dunn County, raw results and processed chart:
http://dunncountywi.govoffice2.com/v...Preference.pdf


Burnett County, raw results and processed chart:
http://www.burnettcounty.com/DocumentView.aspx?DID=999


I'll call them to check what Central Tabulator they use, if any.

----------


## dsw

> Lane county's data format does not look like Dane county.


True, and the exact format is probably a clue about what software they used.  I just meant that it was similar enough that with a few small changes to my program I could parse a bunch of files into a directory full of data .csv files and process them to see which races had the most correlation between precinct size and the percentage of the vote for any of the choices fraud.

----------


## kathy88

So Ronrules. Pa elections are coming up. Can you PM me what info I need to get from our elections office, and more specifically what I should/should not discuss with him?

----------


## RonRules

> So Ronrules. Pa elections are coming up. Can you PM me what info I need to get from our elections office, and more specifically what I should/should not discuss with him?


Here's the first thing I recommend that you read and have him/her read:
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/toolkit.html
It's a free download:
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/toolkit2008.pdf

These people in PA may be of help:
http://www.votepa.us/

PA has counties with paper ballots, but most counties have Direct Entry Machines, with no paper trail. That would be a bad thing, but I don't believe that the individual voting machines are at cause. You should bitch about DRE's anyway. Other states like VA have outlawed them. It's the case here in Riverside.
This is the equipment in use in PA:
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/verifi...llall&state=PA

Many websites tell you in detail which type of vote entry machine each state/county uses. Since 2000-2004 there's been huge visibility from activists about individual voting machines. Unfortunately few websites rarely say what kind of central tabulator they use.

For central count PA uses ES&S. That would be a bad thing, period.
Search results for:
Equipment Used For: Centrally Counted
In Selected State: Pennsylvania
Type of Voting Equipment: All Types
Equipment Vendor: All Vendors
Model: All Models

Pennsylvania-----------Cumberland------	Standard Polling Place Equipment
*Central Count*	Optical Scan	Election Systems & Software	Model 650 Voter Marked Ballot

Edit: The central tabulator in PA is: Election Systems & Software (ES&S) "Unity Election Reporting Manager". (Also called the "Unity Server"). Even though it is a server, it should never be connected to the Internet.

Here's a few important things to ask your election people: 

1) What type of Central Tabulator do you use at the County level (in each county)?

2) What is their individual software revision number. When was it last updated?

3) Who/when was the machine programmed for the upcoming election?

4) Was the central tabulator tested by setting the date to April 24,2012 7:00 AM-12:00 AM (The polls close at 8:00PM; the tabulation occurs between between 8:00 PM and 12:00 AM) The machine preferably needs to be tested by setting it's clock to this particular date/time.

5) Was the machine tested with a minimum of 300 votes? (Preferably 500 or more)

6) Were the actual names of candidates entered (Romney, Gingrich, Paul) rather than fake names like Arnold and Washington?)

7) Are the recorded vote totals for *each individual candidate* canvassed back to each precinct for confirmation, or is only the total vote count for each precinct checked?
7b) Is there an associated margin of error with the precinct counts and central counts? NOTE: *There should not be ANY margin of error here.* The totals for each candidate at each precinct MUST absolutely match the total at the central location. ACCEPT NOT APOLOGIES on this one. The results MUST match one-to-one, many-to-many.
(There can be a small margin of error at the voting machine ONLY when ballots are counted by a scanner or hand counted. DRE machines should NOT have any margin of error)

8) Describe in detail the chain of custody between the individual voting machines and the central tabulator.
8a. How is the vote information transferred from each precinct to the central count? 
8b. Are the voting machines and tabulators connected to the internet, or other network? 
8c. Were any of these machines, especially the central tabulator EVER connected to the internet?
8d. Are voting machine vendors allowed to interact with machines or software at any point after testing and vote certification?
8e. Who has access to the central tabulator?

9) Do you do background checks on any of your election workers, including volunteers?
9a Are they US Citizens?

10.  Have you ever heard of Vote Flipping? 


As to what NOT to discuss with them: 
I would say dolphins. Don't talk about dolphins. Everything else is OK.

BTW, I don't expect the GOP will change their mascot to a dolphin any time soon.

----------


## RonRules

Things look pretty exciting in PA: http://www.votepa.us/

December 21 2011 -- Judge Oliver J. "Stop The Exam" Lobaugh, who earlier this month dismissed the heroic Specially-Appointed Venango County Election Board in the middle of their landmark forensic exam of the ES&S iVotronic voting system, today denied their Motion For Reconsideration. In reality, Lobaugh had already run out the clock as he sat on the Motion until it was too late for the Specially-Appointed Election Board to finish their work even if they had been reinstated.

This morning the County Commissioners held a public work session to discuss the unfinished forensic exam. Under the leadership of 2007-2011 Chair Tim Brooks they spoke with forensic examiners Kesden and Eckhardt via phone. Brooks, who was previously quoted in court filings as *having screamed at an Election Board member that he did not want any forensic examination of the county's voting system,* did most of the questioning. No member of the Specially-Appointed Venango County Election Board, the people *who actually conducted the unfinished exam, was asked for input or even allowed to speak at all.* 

*Drs. Kesden and Eckhardt told the Commissioners in no uncertain terms about serious security problems found during their work with the forensic exam to date.* These problems included* illegal remote access of the central tabulating computer* and other insecure processes including weak passwords, unsafe media being inserted into the computer, unneeded software on the tabulator, and more. The experts also discussed how limited their forensic exam was, given the time constraints, and how many things went uninvestigated.

----------


## RonRules

Audio discussion in PA about securing the Central Tabulator (ES&S "Unity Server").
http://www.votepa.us/Files/12-21-11V...ssnrsWkshp.mp3
At least one person in this discussion is aware of the possibility of viruses infecting the Central Tabulator

----------


## drummergirl

> Things look pretty exciting in PA: http://www.votepa.us/
> 
> December 21 2011 -- Judge Oliver J. "Stop The Exam" Lobaugh, who earlier this month dismissed the heroic Specially-Appointed Venango County Election Board in the middle of their landmark forensic exam of the ES&S iVotronic voting system, today denied their Motion For Reconsideration. In reality, Lobaugh had already run out the clock as he sat on the Motion until it was too late for the Specially-Appointed Election Board to finish their work even if they had been reinstated.
> 
> This morning the County Commissioners held a public work session to discuss the unfinished forensic exam. Under the leadership of 2007-2011 Chair Tim Brooks they spoke with forensic examiners Kesden and Eckhardt via phone. Brooks, who was previously quoted in court filings as *having screamed at an Election Board member that he did not want any forensic examination of the county's voting system,* did most of the questioning. No member of the Specially-Appointed Venango County Election Board, the people *who actually conducted the unfinished exam, was asked for input or even allowed to speak at all.* 
> 
> *Drs. Kesden and Eckhardt told the Commissioners in no uncertain terms about serious security problems found during their work with the forensic exam to date.* These problems included* illegal remote access of the central tabulating computer* and other insecure processes including weak passwords, unsafe media being inserted into the computer, unneeded software on the tabulator, and more. The experts also discussed how limited their forensic exam was, given the time constraints, and how many things went uninvestigated.


So then the question becomes, who paid Judge Lobaugh?

----------


## RonRules

As expected, District of Coloumbia is a flipper too:



Romney was way ahead, but because we're dealing with a rather crude algorithm he's still flipping up at about the same rate as elsewhere.

It only served to make Ron Paul look much worse than he really should have been. ~15% instead of ~25%

Anybody here from DC willing to do something about it?

There are Congressional and Senatorial races in DC I want to check as well.

----------


## BUSHLIED

it is possible that the Romney vote is simply fabricated? But Paul votes are not?

----------


## drummergirl

> it is possible that the Romney vote is simply fabricated? But Paul votes are not?


The way the flipper avoids detection is it does not add votes to the total, but instead shifts them from one candidate to another.  The vote totals are regularly canvassed to prevent ballot box stuffing.  (That is, the roll book of who voted on election day is totaled up and has to match the number of ballots cast.  And the number of ballots counted on election night has to match the number in the ballot boxes at the canvass time.)

So, untampered vote data might be something like this:

Romney 50,000 votes
Paul 40,000 votes
Santorum 35,000 votes
Gingrich 30,000 votes
Total votes cast = 155,000

then, after the flipper has been at work:

Romney 68,000 votes
Santorum 31,000 votes
Paul  30,000 votes
Gingrich 26,000 votes
Total votes cast = 155,000

Notice how the vote totals are the same?  They couldn't get past the security measures if they were different.  And the theft is spread over many precincts to make it less noticeable.

----------


## RonRules

> it is possible that the Romney vote is simply fabricated? But Paul votes are not?


In the case of DC, 15% of Romney's vote was fabricated, in the sense that it was stolen from others. I'm more surprised that very few Ron Paul supporters are willing to do something about it.

Some of you may not believe there is a problem. However you should be curious enough to show this to a statistician of some sort of a college professor. I found that political science professors are real happy to see this data. Imagine if we could get a dozen working on this at the same time and quickly publishing papers on the subject.

With a proper scientific paper, you can then take that to the Secretary of State, the Attorney General's, etc

We don't have much time. Please report in this thread if you've met with statisticians and what was their response.

----------


## drummergirl

> As expected, District of Coloumbia is a flipper too:
> 
> 
> 
> Romney was way ahead, but because we're dealing with a rather crude algorithm he's still flipping up at about the same rate as elsewhere.
> 
> It only served to make Ron Paul look much worse than he really should have been. ~15% instead of ~25%
> 
> Anybody here from DC willing to do something about it?
> ...


That would tend to suggest the virus (or whatever) was there for some time before the voting, because the polls for a week or more going into DC had Romney way ahead.

----------


## RonRules

Let's go see how the Democrats are doing in the District of Columbia in 2012.

This is just to show you guys that these lines MUST be horizontal, when no election fraud is occurring.

Here a District of Columbia race among Democrats and a Green.



*Total flat-line.* Any questions?

The Democrats are going to come out looking good here! 

Here's where I got the data from the DC website:
http://www.voteresults.org/?STATE=DC

----------


## drummergirl

It's good to see the laws of large numbers still work occasionally

----------


## RonRules

I just did Maryland. It's a state-wide chart based on towns, not individual precincts. If someone has the precinct-level data for Maryland, please post a link and PM me. Here's where I got the Maryland data:
http://www.elections.state.md.us/ele...3_REP001-.html



Romney as usual is flipping everybody off. Ron Paul is doing something interesting here. Since this is a city-based analysis, this may further confirm that Ron is doing well in big cities. Of course, it's nothing like Romney who has the flipper vote on his side.

----------


## drummergirl

The Paul line sure does look like it has a nice little demographic rise there.




> I just did Maryland. It's a state-wide chart based on towns, not individual precincts. If someone has the precinct-level data for Maryland, please post a link and PM me. Here's where I got the Maryland data:
> http://www.elections.state.md.us/ele...3_REP001-.html
> 
> 
> 
> Romney as usual is flipping everybody off. Ron Paul is doing something interesting here. Since this is a city-based analysis, this may further confirm that Ron is doing well in big cities. Of course, it's nothing like Romney who has the flipper vote on his side.

----------


## RonRules

This news story should belong in the vote flipping thread. I some really important stuff.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...ican-elections

Note that the Scytl-Soros-Obama connection connection in the article is weak, but more and more people are concerned about the foreign ownership of voting machines. It is much more likely that Balfour-Beatty Capital, part owners of Scytl, with two directors from Golman Sachs would have a hand in this.

*What's much more important is that they're trying to cover their tracks.*
Google: scytl balfour Beatty capital
The first result is:
Australia | Australia & Oceania > Australia & New Zealand ...
www.allbusiness.com/australia/4969410-13.html
SCYTL Acquires SOE Software, Becoming the Leading Election Software Provider .... Balfour Beatty Campus Solutions, LLC, a division of Balfour Beatty Capital.

Go to the Blafour Beatty website and search for Scytl.

*NOTHING*

Any questions?!

----------


## soulcyon

Where did affa and liberty go?

----------


## RonRules

> The Paul line sure does look like it has a nice little demographic rise there.


Here's why, although there are around 250,000 votes here, there are only 24 data points in the chart. We normally have hundreds, thousands of points in our charts. Not that the Paul line is relatively flat from 60% to 100%. The more right you go, the more flat these lines should be.

He does gain a bit from 60%-65% and again at 100% on the chart.

Here's the analysis:

Ron did best in the following areas:
Baltimore City -- 15.0%
Baltimore ------ 12.3%
Carroll --------- 12.4%
Cecil ---------- 10.2%
Harford -------- 13.2%
Howard -------- 9.9%

"Baltimore city" is pretty small and gets added to the bunch at 30% cumulatively.
Cecil gets added at 57%
Carroll,Howard,Harford get added between 74 and 83%
Baltimore is the last point.

----------


## RonRules

> Where did affa and liberty go?


I think they're had enough of da32130 and DSW.

You're welcome to jump in. Nobody is getting paid here (except possibly for the trolls)

----------


## drummergirl

Liberty has been focused on the Alabama data lately.




> Where did affa and liberty go?

----------


## drummergirl

I think the more important point is that even with that much variability in RPs data and a relatively small data set, the line is still fairly flat. 




> Here's why, although there are around 250,000 votes here, there are only 24 data points in the chart. We normally have hundreds, thousands of points in our charts. Not that the Paul line is relatively flat from 60% to 100%. The more right you go, the more flat these lines should be.
> 
> He does gain a bit from 60%-65% and again at 100% on the chart.
> 
> Here's the analysis:
> 
> Ron did best in the following areas:
> Baltimore City -- 15.0%
> Baltimore ------ 12.3%
> ...

----------


## RonRules

Good morning little fishies! I will eat all the demographics argument in one bite.

One of our volunteer analyst had the fantastic idea (it wasn't me) of directly charting demographics as a function of Cumulative Precinct Size. It is brilliant in it's simplicity and you'll soon see why.

Sure enough, as expected to the flippers, *the Cumulative chart Flat-Lines.*

That's the beauty of this type of chart, because it cancels out demographics from the analysis.

I hope you can all understand and appreciate the improbability of Romney having an upward slope of about 10% on all these charts nationwide in each state, nearly each county. 

*This is the biggest Election Fraud ever!*

I got the data here:
http://swdb.berkeley.edu/d00/p10.html 
I used the last column, "by srprec"  The last column represents the people that have actually voted (absentee and in-person) and SR Consolidated Precinct (geographic unit constructed for statistical merging purposes by SWDB)

California has the best statistical data. Their ".dbf" files can be readily read into either a database program or Excel. 

There are *21962 precincts in Californi*a and I made the two charts below with all of them. The chart's X-Axis is the cumulative precinct vote tally and each line represents each age demographic:

RepubMales1824 = Republican Males aged 18-24
RepubMales2544 = Republican Males aged 25-44
RepubMales3544    ....
RepubMales4554    ....
RepubMales5564    ....
RepubMales65PL    ....



RepubFemales1824 = Republican Females aged 18-24
RepubFemles2544    ....
RepubFemales3544    ....
RepubFemales4554    ....
RepubFemales5564    ....
RepubFemales65PL    ....




It's not going to matter what demographics you want to use. *These charts MUST Flat-Line.*

This single chart I hope, finally *puts an end to the demographics argument once and for all.*

Now lets move on to notify ALL state and county election representatives.  

*The 2012 Republican primaries and caucuses need to be suspended while this election fraud is investigated*

----------


## drummergirl

> Good morning little fishies! I will eat all the demographics argument in one bite.


I bet that was one tasty morsel

----------


## kathy88

> I bet that was one tasty morsel


Good work it's about damn time!

----------


## TheGrinch

Nice work! 

Though the math is still beyond me, it was clear that you were never going to get past the demographic explanation, without demonstrating that it couldn't be the case.

Some rich irony there, that the demographics (that have been used as an explanation for the anamoly), actually flat-line like the election results are supposed to. 

Not only does that clearly debunk demographic explantions, but wouldn't you say that this only makes the anamoly that much glaring?

----------


## RonRules

I have received skeptical e-mails about the sparseness of my demographic choices. 
My response is, if you feel that the above charts are not representative demographic samples, have at it. Here's your choice in California:

Pick any of these for the years between 2002 and 2010 and get charting!
http://swdb.berkeley.edu/d00/index.html

DEM	Democratic Party Registration
REP	Republican Party Registration
AIP	American Independent Party Registration
PAF	Peace and Freedom Party Registration
MSC	Miscellaneous Registration
LIB	Libertarian Party Registration
NLP	Natural Law Party Registration
GRN	Green Party Registration
REF	Reform Party Registration
DCL	Declined to State Registration
MALE	Male
FEMALE	Female
HISPDEM	Latino Democrats
HISPREP	Latino Republicans
HISPDCL	Latino Declined to State
HISPOTH	Latino Other Party
JEWDEM	Jewish Democrat
JEWREP	Jewish Republican
JEWDCL	Jewish Declined to State
JEWOTH	Jewish Other Party
KORDEM	Korean Democrat (All Asian surname matches unconditional)
KORREP	Korean Republican
KORDCL	Korean Declined to State
KOROTH	Korean Other Party
JPNDEM	Japanese Democrat
JPNREP	Japanese Republican
JPNDCL	Japanese Declined to State
JPNOTH	Japanese Other Party
CHIDEM	Chinese Democrat
CHIREP	Chinese Republican
CHIDCL	Chinese Declined to State
CHIOTH	Chinese Other Party
INDDEM	Asian Indian Democrat
INDREP	Asian Indian Republican
INDDCL	Asian Indian Declined to State
INDOTH	Asian Indian Other Party
VIETDEM	Vietnamese Democrat
VIETREP	Vietnamese Republican
VIETDCL	Vietnamese Declined to State
VIETOTH	Vietnamese Other Party
FILDEM	Filipino Democrat
FILREP	Filipino Republican
FILDCL	Filipino Declined to State
FILOTH	Filipino Other Party
DEMMUNK	Dem Male age unknown
DEMM1824	Dem Male age 18-24
DEMM2534	Dem Male age 25-34
DEMM3544	Dem Male age 35-44
DEMM4554	Dem Male age 45-54
DEMM5564	Dem Male age 55-64
DEMM65PL	Dem Male age 65 Plus
DEMFUNK	Dem female age unknown
DEMF1824	Dem female age 18-24
DEMF2534	Dem female age 25-34
DEMF3544	Dem female age 35-44
DEMF4554	Dem female age 45-54
DEMF5564	Dem female age 55-64
DEMF65PL	Dem female age 65 Plus
REPMUNK	Rep male age unknown
REPM1824	Rep male age 18-24
REPM2534	Rep male age 25-34
REPM3544	Rep male age 35-44
REPM4554	Rep male age 45-54
REPM5564	Rep male age 55-64
REPM65PL	Rep male age 65 Plus
REPFUNK	Rep female age unknown
REPF1824	Rep female age 18-24
REPF2534	Rep female age 25-34
REPF3544	Rep female age 35-44
REPF4554	Rep female age 45-54
REPF5564	Rep female age 55-64
REPF65PL	Rep female age 65 Plus
OTHMUNK	Other Party male age unknown
OTHM1824	Other Party male age 18-24
OTHM2534	Other Party male age 25-34
OTHM3544	Other Party male age 35-44
OTHM4554	Other Party male age 45-54
OTHM5564	Other Party male age 55-64
OTHM65PL	Other Party male age 65 Plus
OTHFUNK	Other Party female age unknown
OTHF1824	Other Party female age 18-24
OTHF2534	Other Party female age 25-34
OTHF3544	Other Party female age 35-44
OTHF4554	Other Party female age 45-54
OTHF5564	Other Party female age 55-64
OTHF65PL	Other Party female age 65 Plus
DREG1G	Dem registered 1 cycle (since g08)
DREG2G	Dem registered 2 cycles (Since g06)
DREG3G	Dem registered 3 cycles (since g04)
DREG4G	Dem registered 4 cycles (Since g02)
DREG5G	Dem registered 5 cycles (Since g00)
DREG6G	Dem registered 6 cycles (Since g98)
DREG7G	Dem registered 7 cycles (Since g96)
DREG8G	Dem registered 8 cycles (Since g94)
DREG9G	Dem no or earlier reg date than 94
RREG1G	REP registered 1 cycle (since g08)
RREG2G	REP registered 2 cycles (Since g06)
RREG3G	REP registered 3 cycles (Since g04)
RREG4G	REP registered 4 cycles (Since g02)
RREG5G	REP registered 5 cycles (Since g00)
RREG6G	REP registered 6 cycles (Since g98)
RREG7G	REP registered 7 cycles (Since g96)
RREG8G	REP registered 8 cycles (Since g94)
RREG9G	REP no or earlier reg date than 94
OREG1G	OTHER PARTY registered 1 cycle 
OREG2G	OTHER PARTY registered 2 cycles
OREG3G	OTHER PARTY registered 3 cycles 
OREG4G	OTHER PARTY registered 4 cycles
OREG5G	OTHER PARTY registered 5 cycles 
OREG6G	OTHER PARTY registered 6 cycles 
OREG7G	OTHER PARTY registered 7 cycles 
OREG8G	OTHER PARTY registered 8 cycles 
OREG9G	OTHER Party no or earlier reg date than 94

Good luck.

----------


## RonRules

My cat just caught a large grasshopper. He has not killed it yet, but he's just playing with it.  He's ripped off one of the legs so it can't jump too good. 

He's now letting it try to fly away only to catch it spectacularly in mid-air. 

Good kittie:



*I feel the same way about this demographic argument.*

I tried to find the most obscure demographics: 

*Filipino people that declined to state their party affiliation.* I thought maybe, just maybe this demographics agrument would have a little bit of life left in it.

Oh well:

----------


## drummergirl

> Not only does that clearly debunk demographic explantions, but wouldn't you say that this only makes the anamoly that much glaring?


yes

----------


## RonRules

Hi Liberty1789, I have a fairly urgent request from a VIP to do more charts like this for counties that exhibit flipping:


I don't think I personally can do them quickly because I have not set up the confidence bound stuff. 

Ideally, if you could do these 4 charts that would be great: (we need examples of flipping and no flipping, both from the same state/county)


PS: The color for Romney in the above 2012 chart is non-standard (ugly green) and can be easily confused with Gingrich.

----------


## drummergirl

> Hi Liberty1789, I have a fairly urgent request from a VIP to do more charts like this for counties that exhibit flipping:
> 
> 
> I don't think I personally can do them quickly because I have not set up the confidence bound stuff.


Liberty just posted in the other thread that he's still out of town for a couple more days.  He's a far better Excel master than me, but we can probably kick them out if we need to.

----------


## Anti Federalist

OK, I've avoided this along enough.

Can somebody give me a one paragraph summary of what the argument here is?

----------


## drummergirl

> OK, I've avoided this along enough.
> 
> Can somebody give me a one paragraph summary of what the argument here is?


It's a page, but I don't think it can really be done in a paragraph... well, maybe Stephen Colbert could do it 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...dBw/edit?pli=1

And here's the summary, though if you are not a mathophile, stick to the first 10 pages:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...cuxJTo1iE/edit

----------


## drummergirl

The best analogy I have is the one that helped my math-phobic kid to understand.

Suppose the entire neighborhood is away from home one Friday night at the local high school football game.  While we're all away, thieves secretly enter our homes, being careful to leave no trace of their activities.  They are after silverware.  But, rather than take all the silverware from one house (ballot box stuffing) they want to be more subtle and not get caught.  So, they take a fork and a spoon from 1 house, 2 knives and a server from the next, a spoon and knife from the third, etc.  How long would it take before anyone noticed they were missing anything?  Even when they did notice, would it occur to them that it was a theft or when/how it happened?  Would they ever compare notes with the neighbors and realize what actually happened?

This is what vote flipping is like; the vote totals remain the same, so the procedures for canvassing miss them.  And where recounts are done on a handful of precincts, they usually pick low vote totals if they can, so the flippers systematically avoid low vote total precincts.  Then they flip a percentage of votes (5% we see a lot) from other candidates to Mitt Romney.  5% may not sound like a lot, but it can make the difference between first and second place.  And where delegates are distributed proportionally, it can make a very big difference.

----------


## RonRules

> OK, I've avoided this along enough.
> 
> Can somebody give me a one paragraph summary of what the argument here is?


This is the largest election fraud ever.  I could stop here, but let me continue.

In ALL the States that have been voted thus far, except Puerto Rico,  a large number of votes are transferred to Romney (and only Romney) from various candidates. The victims so far are: Ron Paul, Gingrich, Santorum, Huntsman, Rick Perry and Bachmann.

This table will give you an approximate proportion of votes that were stolen from the various candidates. The values highlighted in red are the more egregious ones:



There are different ways to see this happening but you need charts to see it. Some charts are easier to understand than others but you DON'T NEED MATH to understand them.

Let me bring back the old style chart to help make the point. Lets say you want to see if a particular candidate is up to no good and you want to know if he/she does better in bigger precincts. 

You may decide to do a chart like this one below, which is simply the proportion of votes each candidate got as a function of precinct size: 


(it's hard to see anything, but your suspicions may be enhanced that Romney is creeping up for no justifiable reason)

Then you have a stroke of genius and think it's a good idea to make the X-Axis cumulative in order to eliminate demographics from the charts. (I'll explain why that is in a minute).

You get THIS chart and things become very clear:


Romney is indeed up to no good, but how is he doing that?

We believe (us flippers) that no vote flipping occurs in small precincts (<~250 votes). This is done to prevent easy detection. 

We believe (us fundamentalist flippers like myself) that no fraud occurs at the individual voting machine, whether or not the machine is of the paper ballot scanner type or Direct Entry (DRE) video screen type. Even hand counted ballots are not immune to this problem as was proven by Liberty1789 in NH.

That's because the fraud is most likely happening at the central tabulator.  At the county level, the tabulator starts flipping votes once a precinct exceeds 250 votes (approximately). This can happen in miliseconds, as soon as the central vote tally is requested by the operator. 

The Central Tabulator flips votes in an exponential fashion as a function of precinct size. This results in a near perfect straight line on the cumulative charts, generally with a .99 (99%) correlation.

We don't know  exactly how the central tabulator machine does that. The central tabulator is usually a software program (like the Deibold GEMS) that simply runs on a PC.  The software itself could have nefarious code causing the vote flipping or it could be infected by a virus once it has been installed. 

If the PC containing the Central Tabulator software is ever allowed to connect to a network (LAN or directly to the internet through a modem and ISP), the software has a high risk of infection. The software could also be infected as soon as someone inserts a non-virgin USB key or DVD disk in the Central Tabulator PC.

I'll next explain why demographics do NOT explain Romney's rise on the cumulative charts. (I'm looking for Iowa demographics data)

Meanwhile have a look at this. People say Romney does better in bigger precincts because more old people vote for Romney and there's more of them in bigger precincts. If you chart age demographics as a function of precinct size, you get a nice flat line. 



Demographics -- ANY demographics -- will not explain the steady upward trend that Romney makes on Cumulative Precinct Vote Tally charts.

That's why the Cumulative charts are so beneficial and instructive to this analysis. The demographics results will be the same in Iowa (Flat-Line). I'll update the post when I find the data. I may only get to that tomorrow.


*What can you do about it?*

*ALERT ALL COUNTY ELECTION CLERKS*. 

Explain the problem. Urge them that if elections have not yet happened, to *NOT USE the central tabulator*. They* DON'T NEED IT*. It's a simple matter to add all the precicnt results in Excel and use that to post the results. They do it that way in 9 counites in Wisconsin and it turns that that there's exactly 9 counties that don't exhibit vote flipping. Outagamie county is a great example to show. (http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/j...imariescsv.png)

If elections have occured, to *re-canvas and check the individual candidate counts* for each precinct. Many counties only check the totals and vote flipping will not be identified because the total votes remain the same.

One more thing, there should be *ZERO tolerance of error when transferring numbers from the individual precincts to the central location.* Error tolerance is only justified with ambiguous paper ballots that are scanned or hand counted.

----------


## ratio

The problem with conspiracy theories is that just like in this case, it replaces one question with another (usually bigger) one. Let's presume there is actually vote flipping. How would Romney go about organizing this? It would involve buying every person involved in the counting, across the entire nation. 
From a probabilistic point of view: I think it's safe to assume that at least 1% of the human population have enough moral fiber to stand up against it and go to the press. Now let's say it would take 1,000 people in the scheme. What's the probably of nobody speaking up? 0.99^1000 = 0.004%. And 1,000 people is low balling it, there would have to be far more to pull off the scheme.

----------


## RonRules

> Now let's say it would take 1,000 people in the scheme.


Answer: NO.

Hi ratio, 

I note that you're a new poster. Rest assured that we'll keep a close eye on you. If you need to post links because you can't right now, send me a PM and I'll help you out. Maybe.

Vote flipping can be effected nationwide with two people: One with money and one with programming skills.

A programmer with enough free time can do this alone. 

There is no need for a complex, unlikely conspiracy.

----------


## The Man

> Explain the problem. Urge them that if elections have not yet happened, to *NOT USE the central tabulator*. They* DON'T NEED IT*. It's a simple matter to add all the precicnt results in Excel and use that to post the results. They do it that way in 9 counites in Wisconsin and it turns that that there's exactly 9 counties that don't exhibit vote flipping. Outagamie county is a great example to show. (http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/j...imariescsv.png)


Hey RonRules can you steer me to see conclusively the correlation between the 9 locally-counted counties and flat-lining versus the centrally tabulated counties? Thanks.

----------


## RonRules

> Hey RonRules can you steer me to see conclusively the correlation between the 9 locally-counted counties and flat-lining versus the centrally tabulated counties? Thanks.


You asked at the right time!



Right now, I'm making all the charts more easily accessible. There were hard to find in the hundreds of pages posted on the internet.

You can get all the charts by a series of 50 links for each state:
*www.photobucket.com/flipping_WI*
www.photobucket.com/flipping_NH
www.photobucket.com/flipping_SC
www.photobucket.com/flipping_VA
....
Many states have yet to be voted on, so you won't find any charts.

I also have www.photobucket.com/flipping_US (for upcoming nationwide charts.

The Wisconsin counties that exhibit no flipping (using the eyeball analysis method) are:

Marinette, Oconto, Oneinda, Polk, Richland, Wahsburn, Waukesha, Outagamie ...

I have called them all and they confirmed that they don't use central tabulators.

Dunn and Burnett counties may also be "no flipper" candidates, but have not called them yet.

----------


## The Man

> You asked at the right time!
> 
> 
> 
> Right now, I'm making all the charts more easily accessible. There were hard to find in the hundreds of pages posted on the internet.
> 
> You can get all the charts by a series of 50 links for each state:
> *www.photobucket.com/flipping_WI*
> www.photobucket.com/flipping_NH
> ...


Thanks! I just found your earlier post on the 9 Wisconsin unflipped counties. Truly a great find RonRules! I wonder if someone could do the legwork and determine in other states which counties are LOCALLY or CENTRALLY tabulated. If this holds at a high correlation, this is HUGE.

----------


## affa

> The problem with conspiracy theories is that just like in this case, it replaces one question with another (usually bigger) one. Let's presume there is actually vote flipping. How would Romney go about organizing this? It would involve buying every person involved in the counting, across the entire nation. 
> From a probabilistic point of view: I think it's safe to assume that at least 1% of the human population have enough moral fiber to stand up against it and go to the press. Now let's say it would take 1,000 people in the scheme. What's the probably of nobody speaking up? 0.99^1000 = 0.004%. And 1,000 people is low balling it, there would have to be far more to pull off the scheme.


I believe it is fraud.  I also believe Romney probably doesn't even know about it.

----------


## bbwarfield

> The problem with conspiracy theories is that just like in this case, it replaces one question with another (usually bigger) one. Let's presume there is actually vote flipping. How would Romney go about organizing this? It would involve buying every person involved in the counting, across the entire nation. 
> From a probabilistic point of view: I think it's safe to assume that at least 1% of the human population have enough moral fiber to stand up against it and go to the press. Now let's say it would take 1,000 people in the scheme. What's the probably of nobody speaking up? 0.99^1000 = 0.004%. And 1,000 people is low balling it, there would have to be far more to pull off the scheme.


it actually takes 1,000 of people not noticing.... and really maybe 2 or 3 people setting it all up... Romney probably would have no knowledge of it... one person puts the line of code into the machines.... 1,000 of people ignoring it.... thats all it takes

----------


## affa

> Thanks! I just found your earlier post on the 9 Wisconsin unflipped counties. Truly a great find RonRules!


link?

----------


## affa

> Ok kiddies, this is another big piece to fit the puzzle:
> 
> As I have been saying for a while, I suspect the vote flipping takes place at the Central Tabulator equipment. I don't know if the software from the manufacturer itself is corrupt or if it's a virus that affects it. 
> 
> Central Tabulators are a piece of software with names like Diebold "GEMS" (now Dominion), Sequoia's "WinEDS", Scytl/SOE "Results Consolidation Platform (RCP)", Election Systems & Software (ES&S) also with "GEMS" and "Unity Election Reporting Manager". 
> 
> Here are 8 counties from Wisconsin below. What's common with all these counties? Among other things, note they don't have computer generated reports output like in Dane county (see links below each county name to get each county's data). Their results are provided as a spreadsheet output saved as PDF's or HTML. One county (Richland) types directly into their Web-Based program to display the results on the county website
> 
> Here are the counties:
> ...


found it.

----------


## RonRules

> Thanks! I just found your earlier post on the 9 Wisconsin unflipped counties. Truly a great find RonRules! I wonder if someone could do the legwork and determine in other states which counties are LOCALLY or CENTRALLY tabulated. If this holds at a high correlation, this is HUGE.


We need to be very specific at this point. Even in the 9 Wisconsin counties (It's 10 actually, but whatever), all the precincts are CENTRALLY summed up at the County's administration by the Election County Clerk. Some counties use Central Tabulators to make the summation and others, even fairly large ones like Outagamie (6th largest) do it manually (with Excel that is).

So there is no "LOCAL" final tabulation, it's all done at the County level using different methods, including in most cases a PC that runs foreign owned Central Tabulator software.

Maybe you meant that they used an SOE software central tabulator, and your Wisconsin vote may be added up somewhere in cyberspace or specifically *HERE: Pl. Gal·la Placídia, 1-3, 1st floor, 08006 Barcelona, Spain.*

Have a great day

----------


## RonRules

Someone I know from the Democratic party (an Official in the party that is), is suggesting the following title for an urgent research paper:

*"The statistical case to decertify the Republican Primary"*

I hope you Romney trolls are enjoying this.

----------


## RonRules

Another democrat sent me this:

----------


## drummergirl

> it actually takes 1,000 of people not noticing.... and really maybe 2 or 3 people setting it all up... Romney probably would have no knowledge of it... one person puts the line of code into the machines.... 1,000 of people ignoring it.... thats all it takes


That is precisely why it is so brilliant.  It's designed to fly "under the radar" so to speak.  And because the attack is on the central tabulator, it can be done by a small handful (possibly even just one person).

Briefly, here is what we know or can readily deduce about The Flipper:

1)  The Flipper knows his (or her) politics inside and out.  The patterns in South Carolina matched the congressional district boundaries with remarkable precision.  Also, it's unclear whether this is an artifact of the algorithm itself or if by design (I lean towards design, but that is only a hunch at this point), but you can look at who was flipped and how much on a timeline and see how flipping systematically killed the candidacies of various republican contenders just when they seemed to be taking off:  Bachman and Perry in Iowa, Huntsman in New Hampshire, Santorum in Wisconsin.  Undoubtedly there was campaign finance money that would have gone to those candidates after those primaries if they hadn't lost huge chunks of votes to flipping.  Instead, their wells went dry and they each threw in the towel (apologies for mixed metaphor).

2)  The Flipper knows election procedures and security.  Which is not too surprising really, because if you want to break into something, study the security system.  Most procedures are designed to prevent ballot box stuffing and, to some extent, multiple votes from the same person (using others ID, voting for the dead, etc.).  Most counties do a spot hand recount of selected precincts during the canvassing process to confirm the electronic results.  I don't know how many of you have hand counted ballots in an election (I once clerked an election where we had to hand count ballots; I try not to think about it because the nightmares are unpleasant), but the more ballots there are to count, the more difficult it is to get the final tally accurate.  So, naturally, whenever possible, they choose a precinct with a low vote total for this.  The Flipper not only knows this principle, he knows enough of the historical voting patterns in each state to set the "flipper on point" at a high enough number to avoid detection in anything short of a full recount.

3)  The Flipper knows computers.  The Flipper or his accomplice had to write a simple enough piece of code or virus that it would not break anything in the program.  And he had to cover his tracks to avoid detection.

4)  The Flipper has some cash.  Even if The Flipper did his or her own computer work, they would still need money for computer equipment, possibly travel, and time.

----------


## RonRules

It's time for the flipper song again:
http://www.televisiontunes.com/Flipper.html

(Starts automatically. Turn your sound off if you are at the Romney campaign headquarters)


*HA Ha Ha!*

I swear, this is not me. I saw this comment below the song:

----------


## RonRules

Sometimes this project makes me afraid:

Self censored. Just too gory for the dolphins.

Then I listen to the flipper song and I'm happy again:

----------


## drummergirl

> Sometimes this project makes me afraid:
> 
> Then I listen to the flipper song and I'm happy again:


This is the stuff that I find troubling

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_153518.html

But then I remember that I am a proper Texan and I own a shovel too

----------


## RonRules

A statistician from Iowa is *almost* figured it out!

Some on his forum have criticized my claim that election night results are similar to our main analysis using the Cumulative Precinct Vote Tally method. I just say that it is "similar", not exact of course. If you take screen shots on election night, as the results come in, the X-Axis becomes time and you will see vote flipping occurring right in front of your eyes. I've seen that in several states and have collected a handful of screen shots in OH, WI, LA to prove the point.

This statistician did the same, but only has two screen shots:
http://www.statisticsblog.com/2012/0...f-the-results/

With 25 percent of the results in, Romney, Santorum, Ron Paul are an almost exact dead heat with 6297, 6256, 6240 sample respectively.  


Now remember that's with 25% of the results in 51 out of 99 counties partially counted, a huge statistical sample.  
But still I expect comments like: That's not a random sample! (Where's DSW when you need him)

There are 209,279,149 Americans of voting age and these same critics will not complain when Gallup make a nation-wide poll with only 1,000 people, (+/- 3% accurate). That's with only 0.0004.77% of the voting population! Gallup supposedly makes good polls -- I'm not complaining -- but I just want to make the case that a 25% sample of Iowa is got to be a darn good sample.

So again, this 25% is a good sample because precinct results come in randomly from all areas (as you can see from the first map), and because small precincts generally get counted quicker, I can be reasonably assured that the election results time-wise on election night will be similar to our Cumulative Precinct Vote Tally that we typically chart.

With that in mind, look that the next day's result, especially Ron Paul's numbers. Ron Paul is now almost 4,000 votes behind!


The author goes on to say:
"The results:
Out of 100,000 simulations, this result came up not even once! In all those trials, Ron Paul never broke 6,067 votes at the time of the split.

I ran this test a couple times, and each time the result was the same.

Conclusion
If my three assumptions are correct, *the probability of observing partial results like we saw is extremely small."*

He then tries to blame his own assumptions or even possibly a programming error in his statistical work.


The comments below the blog are mostly of the "It's the demographics stupid!" variety.


There is one commenter that says:
"I’m also a data analyst developer/machine learning researcher. *I was also totally floored by the difference between 25% and 99%.*
...
*That being said, from 24-24-24 Paul-Romney-Santorium at 25% to 21-24-24 at 99% is extremely unlikely given the assumptions you have laid out. Excellent blog post.* 

I need to write to this guy

PS: I'm still looking for good demographics data from Iowa, of similar quality to what I found in California. If you have some, please post a link.

----------


## RonRules

Here's what's also pathetic about this news screenshot. Look at the first screen shot percentages. 

Notice that they have the establishment candidates *Romney at 24% and Gingrich at 14%*

*Here are the REAL numbers:*

Romney -- Santorum -- Paul ----- Gingrich ---- Perry -- Bachman -- Huntsman -- Cain --- Totals
6297 -------- 6256 ----- 6240 ----- 3596 ------ 2833 ----- 1608 -------- 169----------10  ---- 27009
*23.3%* ----- 23.2% ---- 23.1% --- *13.3%* ----10.5% ---- 6.0% ------- 0.6% ------ 0.0% -- 100.0%

Who plays these childish games. Aren't they ashamed? When will someone from the MSM speak out?

----------


## drummergirl

> A statistician from Iowa is *almost* figured it out!
> 
> 
> There is one commenter that says:
> "I’m also a data analyst developer/machine learning researcher. *I was also totally floored by the difference between 25% and 99%.*
> ...
> *That being said, from 24-24-24 Paul-Romney-Santorium at 25% to 21-24-24 at 99% is extremely unlikely given the assumptions you have laid out. Excellent blog post.* 
> 
> I need to write to this guy
> ...


Great independent confirmation!  I wish I could see this guy's face when he starts looking at the stuff on these forums.

----------


## RonRules

> Great independent confirmation!  I wish I could see this guy's face when he starts looking at the stuff on these forums.


I just sent him an e-mail with the title: *"You almost figured it out"* and a link to this forum.

Oh hai Statistician, welcome to the forum!

----------


## RonRules

OK little fishies, flipper has finished analyzing the alleged "flipping" in 1996 in Oregon for the Light Rail Bond Measure. 

Flipper says: *NO FLIPPING!*

But it sure looks like flipping mommy! Well, remember what I said, these lines should be SMOOTH.



Have a look at this: 
The turnout as a function of precinct registration is pretty nice, but *look at the Yes/No ratio* as a function of voter registration turnout. 
*Something looks fishy!*


We'll lets do a histogram:

*It's PLAIN OLD BALLOT STUFFING!* 


Any questions?

----------


## RonRules

Pretty soon, on American streets:

----------


## Aden

After reading the thread about the 8 counties in Wisconsin that do not use a central tabulator, I think we need to find similar counties in other states that do not use central tabulators.

----------


## Aden

> Good morning little fishies! I will eat all the demographics argument in one bite.
> 
> One of our volunteer analyst had the fantastic idea (it wasn't me) of directly charting demographics as a function of Cumulative Precinct Size. It is brilliant in it's simplicity and you'll soon see why.
> 
> Sure enough, as expected to the flippers, *the Cumulative chart Flat-Lines.*
> 
> That's the beauty of this type of chart, because it cancels out demographics from the analysis.
> 
> I hope you can all understand and appreciate the improbability of Romney having an upward slope of about 10% on all these charts nationwide in each state, nearly each county. 
> ...


Is there demographic data about race and income?

I wish somebody would make a video or how-to post that explains how to import data into Excel or another program and make these charts and play around with data.

----------


## rb3b3

> After reading the thread about the 8 counties in Wisconsin that do not use a central tabulator, I think we need to find similar counties in other states that do not use central tabulators.


How did Ron do in these 8 counties that didn't use a central tabulator??

----------


## Aden

> How did Ron do in these 8 counties that didn't use a central tabulator??



14-15% in almost all of them.  (See post #300.)

He got 11% for the state.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> This is the largest election fraud ever.


Got it.

And the counting charts indicate that, once reaching a certain number, the votes are "flipped" in increasingly greater proportions for the desired result.

That's what I thought was being presented, I just wanted to make sure.

----------


## dsw

> You can see what individual voting machine equipment they use with this map of election equipment in Wisconsin:


Wrong map.  That one shows the "accessible" option at each location.  

http://gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/v...-equipment-use
The actual map:
http://gab.wi.gov/sites/default/file...ipment_map.png 
And an even more useful list:
http://gab.wi.gov/sites/default/file..._pdf_15114.pdf
A possibly relevant discussion:
http://www.democraticunderground.com...x823256#823509
A year out of date but:
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/verifi...tate=Wisconsin
Centrally counted:
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/verifi...xt=&stateText=

How many precincts *not* in that set of nine were called to ask if they use a central tabulator?

----------


## RonRules

> Is there demographic data about race and income?


*They will ALL flat line*, because it is a cumulative graph, but be my guest, the data is here:
http://swdb.berkeley.edu/d00/p10.html  (Their ".dbf" files can be readily read into either a database program or Excel.) 
Use the last column, "by srprec", which represents the people that have actually voted (absentee and in-person) and SR Consolidated Precinct, which is a geographic unit constructed for statistical merging purposes.

Download it, unzip it, load it up in Excel. Select two columns that make sense and "insert chart". You should get a chart. Then fiddle with it until it shows what you want.

California has the best statistical data: DEMs, REPs, LIBs, GRNs, anything you want. Latino, Jewish, Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Asian Indian,  Vietnamese, Filipino. Again, anything you want.

*THEY WILL ALL FLAT LINE. Only the Mr. Flip Flop Romney does not flat-line.*

Any questions?

----------


## RonRules

> Wrong map.  That one shows the "accessible" option at each location.


DSW, what I want to know is:  How do you live with yourself? 

You've posted that before and it is totally irrelevant to the current discussion. Are you trying to put as much space on the page so the good stuff disappears on previous pages?

You also seem to be panicking. 

Are your bosses yelling at you? Are they complaining that this vote flipping issue is being talked about too much?

People in cults do those types of games on the internet. I've dealt with them.

----------


## Pauling

> People in cults do those types of games on the internet. I've dealt with them.


Do tell...

----------


## dsw

> California has the best statistical data: DEMs, REPs, LIBs, GRNs, anything you want. Latino, Jewish, Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Asian Indian,  Vietnamese, Filipino. Again, anything you want.
> 
> *THEY WILL ALL FLAT LINE. Only the Mr. Flip Flop Romney does not flat-line.*
> 
> Any questions?




Wait, let me guess ... this proves census fraud.

----------


## drummergirl

> Wait, let me guess ... this proves census fraud.


It could be the late hour, but what is your Y axis?

----------


## dsw

> It could be the late hour, but what is your Y axis?


From each precinct I took the total registered (column 4) and hispdem (column 17) the number of Hispanic dems.  I kept separate cumulative totals for each.  The x-axis is cumulative votes (percentage of total) with precincts sorted by size as usual, and the y axis is the percentage of Hispanic dems for the precincts up to that point, i.e., 100*(cumulative total column 17) / (cumulative total column 4).   

A scatter plot of (total reg, hispdem % of totalreg) shows what's going on very clearly.  The predominantly hispanic precincts are mostly around precincts of 200-500 or so, with some over 75%.  But then after you get up to 750, it's mostly under 10%, and then after 1000 it's mostly under 5%.   Yet another case of geographic clustering of precincts when they're sorted by size maybe?

BTW, speaking of geographic clustering Chesterfield county in Virginia has it too.  There are two districts, and one tends to have smaller precincts than the other, so one precinct is weighted more heavily to the left side of the graph, and the other to the right.  The former is relatively flat, the latter has Paul diving pretty steeply.  The biggest precincts on the far right are almost entirely from that one district.  Just an observation.  It only partially explains what's going on in the graph.

----------


## RonRules

> Wait, let me guess ... this proves census fraud.


You included the very last row on the column. Didn't you notice that the number was rather big? It's the total of the entire column and including that will totally distort the chart.

Why don't you re-do your chart properly and apologize to the class for wasting everybody's time again.

I repeat: *these charts MUST be horizontal* otherwise, it's *election fraud.*

----------


## drummergirl

> You included the very last row on the column. Didn't you notice that the number was rather big? It's the total of the entire column and including that will totally distort the chart.
> 
> Why don't you re-do your chart properly and apologize to the class for wasting everybody's time again.
> 
> I repeat: *these charts MUST be horizontal* otherwise, it's *election fraud.*


So it actually ends at 50% since that would double the total?  Ah...

----------


## dsw

> You included the very last row on the column. Didn't you notice that the number was rather big? It's the total of the entire column and including that will totally distort the chart.
> 
> Why don't you re-do your chart properly and apologize to the class for wasting everybody's time again.
> 
> I repeat: *these charts MUST be horizontal* otherwise, it's *election fraud.*


*If* there were a mathematical reason to think the graph had to flatline, then including that totals row would simply give you one long absolutely flat line from the midpoint of the graph to the right-hand side.  It would look like one large precinct with 50% of the votes, whose average is (by definition) exactly that of all the previous points together.  So if you understand the math, you can tell just by looking at my graph that I didn't include the totals row. 

But just in case someone takes you seriously on this, there are nearly 5000 points on the graph but they're plotted on the first graph below as points (crosshairs) rather than a line.  A scatter plot showing the precincts size vs. %hispdem at each individual precinct is below that.   The scatter plot makes it clear why the cumulative graph looks the way it does.  

If I made a mistake here I'll admit it.  You know where to get the data.  It's LA county, the "hispdem" column.  My understanding of the math says that there's no reason the graph should always flatline (it may or it may not) and your understanding of the math says that it MUST flatline.  Prove me wrong and I'll admit it.  But if I'm right, will you admit it?

Although I have to admit, if I'm right about this it would be far more fun to have you conclude from the way this graph starts to flatten out up to 100k but then starts diving and gets *impossibly* straight after 300k, that it can't be your understanding of the math that's flawed so this MUST be a case of census fraud.  I can tell you, it's not limited to LA or even to California, and not limited to demographics about Hispanic Democrats.  If it's census fraud, it's huge.

----------


## affa

derail derail derail




> From each precinct I took the total registered (column 4) and hispdem (column 17) the number of Hispanic dems.  I kept separate cumulative totals for each.  The x-axis is cumulative votes (percentage of total) with precincts sorted by size as usual, and the y axis is the percentage of Hispanic dems for the precincts up to that point, i.e., 100*(cumulative total column 17) / (cumulative total column 4).


are you just trying to make charts that are as confusing as possible?   I've been following and participating in this discussion for months now, and you manage to make a chart with a different x axis, that, even with explanation:
"The x-axis is cumulative votes (percentage of total) with precincts sorted by size as usual'"
isn't even worth deciphering.

Heck, your first chart's x axis is labeled 
"cumulative votes, ascending precinct totals"
but goes from 0 to 100, which makes no sense.  Upon explanation, you tell us it actually means:

cumulative votes (percentage of total)

which still is mystifying? are you saying cumulative votes as percentage of total votes cast?  why in the world would you suddenly start charting stuff that way? to confuse? why not just chart it like every other chart in this thread?

You charted stuff in a completely different way than previously done, and are trying to apply statements made in regards to completely different data to your charts.  what purpose does that serve other than to confuse, derail, and distract?

Are you trying to prove small Hispanic neighborhoods have a higher percentage of Hispanics than big precincts?  Really?  And then trying to say this would mean census fraud?

Because, really, i think that's what you're trying to say.  That while there may be small Hispanic communities, there are no large ones.  Not really shocking.  But trying to spin this into new, confusing charts, and then making odd, sarcastic claims of 'census fraud' is a pure derailment tactic because it really adds nothing to the actual conversation.

All you're doing is derailing the conversation in pointless circles, once again, rather than focusing on any of the actual issues we're trying to discuss.

----------


## RonRules

When you want to derail, use HUGE charts. It helps push all the good stuff to previous pages. Isn't that much like defunct poster da32130 who happened to stop posting in March 2012, and DSW created an account and started posting within 5 days of da32130's last post. Hmmmm....

Anyway, since we have to clear up any doubt that people may have as a result of the above derailment, I proceeded to *chart ALL the California race demographics I could find*. Both Democrats and Republicans.

Here's the chart: (Sorry about the colors, the are picked automatically)


There's a slight upwards curve for Hispanic Democracts (not a huge downward line like DSW charted). This can probably be explained by a couple of outliers that you can see in this non-cumulative chart of the same data. The raw data includes totals and sub-totals. I may have missed some. 
An other explanation is that Hispanics are largely city dwellers and this can cause that slight upward curve. They also make up a very large percentage of the population ~50% in Los Angeles for example. 

Of course, it's nothing like Romneys's near-perfect 10% linear vote theft.


To recap, if the lines are not straight,
*1) You're doin't wrong
2) It's election fraud*

PS: Observation: Look at all the Vietnamese Republicans. Go Ron Paul!

----------


## dsw

> There's a slight upwards curve for Hispanic Democracts (not a huge downward line like DSW charted). This can probably be explained by a couple of outliers that you can see in this non-cumulative chart of the same data.


You graphed all of CA.  I graphed LA county.  You're claiming that they ALL must flatline, for any demographic.  I'm not claiming that they all don't flatline, only that the math doesn't require that they do.  Some will, but not necessarily all.  

So don't graph something I didn't graph and pretend you're refuting my result.  Show your graph for LA county, for the hisdem column.  If it flatlines, then I did something wrong.  If it doesn't flatline, then you need to explain why your mathematical proof that it MUST flatline doesn't apply to a county with nearly 5,000 precincts and 2.2 million voters.

EDIT:  to make it easier for everyone to refute me, the LA county data set I used, as well as an extract of just the totreg and hispdem columns, are uploaded here in CSV format: http://sprng.me/e2ffh 

Don't forget to remove the total line at the end if you use the full data set, although if you do it will be obvious from the graph.  

I'll make you (or anyone else) a deal:  if the hispdem demographic flatlines in LA county, and I've made some sort of stupid mistake, then prove that (with the actual data, and not some other data I didn't make any claims about) and I won't post on this or any other pro-fraud thread ever again --- unless someone specifically accuses me of something in which case I reserve the right to respond, but otherwise if I post at all it will only be in the "no fraud" thread(s).   Here's your chance to get rid of me.  I've posted the data files to make it easy.  And if you think the data file isn't legit, you can check that too.

----------


## RonRules

Hey da32130 / DSW, get lost or go play in the "no-fraud" thread that you started yourself. It smells like rotten herring over there. I like fresh fish.

We're here to prove *the 2012 election fraud*, where Mitt Romney very clearly outpaces all other candidates. 

We all need to concentrate on that, find more evicence to add to the already overwhelming amount we have.

Our methodology has been proven beyond any doubt.

BTW, this morning, I've been requested by a VIP to find where the problem originated. That's a big job and I urge you all to jump in and help.

Riverside California is preparing a datapack for me, so you can skip that. There's thousands of other counties to check.

I and another volunteer, in a week will be making a presentation at the University of California Riverside.

----------


## drummergirl

> I'm not claiming that they all don't flatline, only that the math doesn't require that they do.


Which just proves that you do not understand the mathematical principles involved.

----------


## drummergirl

> BTW, this morning, I've been requested by a VIP to find where the problem originated. That's a big job and I urge you all to jump in and help.


Here's where I'm at:

best lead I have so far is this guy, Jerry Fowler, who unfortunately is dead.

http://www.ejfi.org/Voting/Voting-55.htm

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

I had an extensive conversation with my mother, who was an election judge in Kansas in the 70s and 80s, about voting machine and counting technology through the years.  It was her opinion that this flipping "virus" could not have existed prior to the mid 1980s because up to that time counties used adding machines to tabulate vote totals (mom was a mathematician, so she does understand exactly what I'm talking about).

The earliest flipping charts I've seen are from the 1988 Louisiana republican presidential primary.  Considering how crooked Jerry Fowler was and the time and access he had, this area has my attention.  Also, the manner in which his wife died while Fowler was in Federal prison is very suspicious and could have been someone's way of telling him to keep his big mouth shut.  Nothing definitive, just things that make you go hmmmm.

----------


## RonRules

> BTW, speaking of geographic clustering Chesterfield county in Virginia has it too.  There are two districts, and one tends to have smaller precincts than the other, so one precinct is weighted more heavily to the left side of the graph, and the other to the right.  The former is relatively flat, the latter has Paul diving pretty steeply.  The biggest precincts on the far right are almost entirely from that one district.  Just an observation.  It only partially explains what's going on in the graph.


You seem to know quite a bit about Chersterfield county Virginia. May I remind you tha it was your alter ego da32130 (in violation of forum rules) who was discussing that county several weeks ago and wasting everyone's time. The mods even has to set up your very own "No-Fraud" thread where you kept yourself amused by self re-bumping those huge pink charts.

----------


## Liberty1789

These charts about the 2011 General Election are derived from the offical Kiwi election website here:

http://electionresults.govt.nz/elect.../e9_part8.html

As ever, all the charts have cumulative % of votes cast with "polling places" sorted by ascending vote tally as X-axis and the cumulative share of votes of a given party as Y-axis.

Sorry about the poor (automated) color choice. The top 2 parties in contest down there are Labour and National.



So either NZ is rigged (and you have an interesting fraud battle going on as both Labour and National exhibit uptrends) or this is additional evidence that "slopes" occur frequently and naturally (my view on the matter since Canada).

----------


## RonRules

> So either NZ is rigged (and you have an interesting fraud battle going on as both Labour and National exhibit uptrends) or this is additional evidence that "slopes" occur frequently and naturally (my view on the matter since Canada).


What's interesting to me about NZ is that the "flipper" is not always the same party. 
In all the charts I've done in Canada, the Conservatives were always the "flippers" and the NDP (National Demographic Party) the "flippees". In Canada, what may be odd to you is that the Liberal Party is considered on the right (particularly in Quebec). So depending on what race I looked at, the party of the "right" would go up, never down, but sometimes flat-line.

I held off on Canada because I needed to figure a way to make the color consistent and following the party colors, which I did for Wisconsin. I have to go back and do a lot more charts for Canada. I'll just use this post as a placeholder. 











This weekend, I'll be trying to learn the statistical language "R" in order to be compatible with the University of California at Riverside. So I won't be charting much. I do have interesting results from Milwaukee that I will post next.

----------


## KingNothing

> Which just proves that you do not understand the mathematical principles involved.


That just isn't true.

----------


## KingNothing

> What's interesting to me about NZ is that the "flipper" is not always the same party. 
> In all the charts I've done in Canada, the Conservatives were always the "flippers" and the NDP (National Demographic Party) the "flippees". In Canada, what may be odd to you is that the Liberal Party is considered on the right (particularly in Quebec). So depending on what race I looked at, the party of the "right" would go up, but not always.


Does that give you any pause to think that the idea of a flipper is nonsense?

I'm guessing no, because all evidence up to now pointing in that direction has been ignored by you guys.  Nothing will change your minds.

----------


## RonRules

Here's Milwaukee County Wisconsin. It's not on the website yet. I've got connections  

It's a pretty severe case of flipping. Worst I've seen in Wisconsin.



Here's what I also found in Milwaukee county. I have limited data of absentee votes. I just have the "Greendale Reporting Unit" (precincts) which was given to me on hand written forms. But check this out:





BTW, with data like that, I'm open to the possibility that the flipping was effected through absentee voting.

I need to know of anyone that lives in the Village of Greendale (not Greendale city) who has voted for Ron Paul through absentee ballots. If you are part of the precincts with Zero votes, contact me immediately. Similarly if we can find 4 people that have voted absentee for Ron Paul in any of the precincts in the Village of Greendale, we can prove fraud.

----------


## Liberty1789

dsw=da32130 ??? What ???

dsw's maths are sound. dsw's critical thinking is solid. dsw's sustained civility, under outrageous abuse, is admirable. His data-centric contribution is original, relevent, well articulated, thought-provoking and constructive. 

Can we stop the ad hominem mauling, please? Is it really what we want this thread/forum to look like?

----------


## dsw

> Tag-teaming with DSW? He came out of here with a bloody nose yesterday.


Let's review, shall we?  

You said that the math required that a cumulative graph of ANY demographic factor MUST flatline.  

I posted an example (just one of many) that did not flat line.

You didn't refute that.  You just called me a troll.

I reiterated that, unless I made a mistake, my example was exactly what you claimed was impossible.

You claimed that I included a totals row even though anyone who understands how the math works could see at a glance that your claim was false.  I re-posted the graph using points rather than lines to make it more clear.  I also posted a scatter plot that makes it clear *why* the graph doesn't flatline (and incidentally, why the sloping line is so straight).

You claimed to refute me by posting a graph from a dataset I hadn't made any claims about.  

I pointed out that posting a graph from different data is not a refutation.  Your original claim was that *every* such graph must flatline, so I only needed to show a single counter-example to show that it doesn't hold in every case.  Graphing a different dataset, one I'd made no claims about, was a dodge.

I upped the ante by offering that, if I'm wrong -- even if it's just a stupid mistake on my part -- about the hispdem demographic in LA county in the data set I downloaded from the site you originally linked to being an example of *not* flatlining, I'd stop posting except (if at all) in the no-fraud threads.  I also uploaded the full dataset, and an extract, so that anyone could load it into Excel and graph it and see very quickly whether I'm right or wrong.  Just a scatter plot of the extracted columns would make it clear, in about two clicks in Excel, that it's not going to flatline.  

You response was to accuse me of violating forum rules by posting under two names (and any mod who cares to can verify that you're wrong from the IP addresses, I assume) and to say that what we really needed to do was stop looking at your earlier assertion and instead focus on something else.  Hey!  Look over there!

What you conspicuously have NOT done is either (a) show that I was wrong about the hispdem demographic graph in LA county, or (b) explain why your assertion for which you claim mathematical proof (which is really embarrassingly bogus, to the extent your explanation could be considered a "proof") does not apply to a dataset with nearly 5000 precincts and over two million voters.  

You claimed that anyone could take ANY demographic factor, graph it in the usual cumulative fashion, and it MUST flatline.  You used lots of large bold-face letters.  I showed a counter-example that proves you're wrong.  You've dodged that point by insulting me, by making a transparently bogus claim about me having made a mistake, by graphing something from a different data set as if you hoped nobody would notice the switch, by accusing me of violating forum rules, and by suggesting that people really needed to focus on a different question now.  This is what you summarize as me having come out of it with a bloody nose.  

If you are right about the math, then the demographic column I pointed out in the data MUST flatline, as you've said in such large fonts.  And so the offer still stands, for you or anyone else.  The data I'm using is uploaded here:  http://sprng.me/e2ffh   Maybe I just graphed it wrong.  Grab the extract.csv file (columns are number reg voters, number hispdem), generate the usual cumulative graph, see that it flatlines as the math requires, post the proof and I'm gone.  Or if it doesn't flatline you also have the option of showing that the extract.csv file is not valid data.  

On the other hand, if you think the math requires that EVERY such demographic cumulative graph MUST flatline ... and yet there are examples from large datasets that clearly do not flatline ... then maybe I'm not the one who doesn't understand the math.

----------


## RonRules

I already took the trouble to chart all of Californina in response to your claim. Here's the chart below. There's a slight upward curve for Hispanic democrats. 

Having lived in CA for about 15 years and knowing the politics here, and knowing that federal subsidies are doled out as a function of population demographics, I would not put it past them that there was Census fraud. It's a lot easier to do Census fraud because it's all done by mail and they don't ask much personal info. (they don't even ask for the SS# if I remember well) 

Note that Hispanic Democrats are curving up slightly and Hispanic Republicans are curving down. Explain that without a serious consideration given to fraud.

Your chart has a strong downward slope. Mine has a slight upward curve. Check your numbers, I've checked mine and gave reasons as to why there was a slight upward curve.

So here's the chart again:


and like I said it's either two things:
*1) You're doin't wrong
2) It's election fraud*

And yes, based on DSW starting to post since da32130 stopped and DSW's knowledge specific discussions about Virginia's Chesterfield county for which da32130 was the main contributor opposing Affa, I still believe that DSW=da32130. IP addresses are easy to proxy.

----------


## RonRules

Reminder all charts (not just mine) are available in one place for each state:
Go to:
www.photobucket.com/flipping_AL
www.photobucket.com/flipping_SC
www.photobucket.com/flipping_VA
www.photobucket.com/flipping_WI

The above is a shortcut to this full link:
http://s269.photobucket.com/albums/j..._Primaries_SC/

Nationwide charts or general info will be posted here:
www.photobucket.com/flipping_US

A directory and shortcut has been created for all 50 states. I will upload the charts as they come in.

----------


## dsw

Are you hoping people won't notice that my counter-example came from the LA county dataset (nearly 5000 precincts, over 2 million voters) and that you're trying to change the subject to a different data set?   I'm not claiming anything at all about the data set you're using here.  

You made a claim that these graphs MUST flatline.  All of them.  I proved you're wrong by showing a counter-example.  And that's far from the only counter-example, but it's a good one because the effect is so clear that you can look at the scatter plot of the data and see *why* it doesn't flatten out (and why the line becomes so straight, which is another feature of graphs that people have considered "impossible" without fraud).  

Don't change the subject, address the counter-example I posted.  Do you want to blame census fraud?  That would be a hoot.  Look at the scatter plot, and run a few more counties to see just how widespread you'd have to assume that census fraud to be, and in what categories, before you go down that road.

You think the math says that these graphs of demographic data MUST flatline.  You're wrong, because you don't understand the math, and the fact that some of them are FAR from flatlining proves you don't understand the math.   The math simply doesn't say what you think it says, and the ramifications of that misunderstanding extend further than just this one example.  









> I already took the trouble to chart all of Californina in response to your claim. Here's the chart below. There's a slight upward curve for Hispanic democrats. 
> 
> Having lived in CA for about 15 years and knowing the politics here, and knowing that federal subsidies are doled out as a function of population demographics, I would not put it past them that there was Census fraud. It's a lot easier to do Census fraud because it's all done by mail and they don't ask much personal info. (they don't even ask for the SS# if I remember well) 
> 
> Note that Hispanic Democrats are curving up slightly and Hispanic Republicans are curving down. Explain that without a serious consideration given to fraud.
> 
> Your chart has a strong downward slope. Mine has a slight upward curve. Check your numbers, I've checked mine and gave reasons as to why there was a slight upward curve.
> 
> So here's the chart again:
> ...

----------


## RonRules

I'm working on the 2012 Elections, proving that Romney is defauding the American people. I won't stop till Romney is in handcuffs.

You conveniently seem to forget that I stated that if *FRAUD* is occurring the lines won't be flat. That's the math.

I just confirmed that the 2010 Census does NOT require a Social Security number. One of my neighbors showed me the long form. Nowhere on there is there a requirement to enter your Social Security number, which invites fraud.

Census fraud is much easier to do; it does have a motive (federal funding) and has basically nill penalities. The 2010 Census data in now locked up for the next 70 years, so it's now impossible to prove the fraud. They just released the 1940 data, BTW.

This is the last time I respond to such derailments. Here's the Census form: (See no need for SS#)

----------


## dr.k.research

> I need to know of anyone that lives in the Village of Greendale (not Greendale city) who has voted for Ron Paul through absentee ballots. If you are part of the precincts with Zero votes, contact me immediately. Similarly if we can find 4 people that have voted absentee for Ron Paul in any of the precincts in the Village of Greendale, we can prove fraud.


This is precisely what needs to be done. Odd, isn't it? That those who seek to undermine this effort offer nothing constructive, no effeffective action, which would help counter the fraud and bias. I can guarantee you one thing, and this is the fact that these absentee ballot counts are fraudulent. Post this widely. Let's get the RP people to send us over their receipts. There is a site, now, where RP voters can download an affidavit and, thus, confirm their vote. More will be done shortly to make this site even more effective to confirm the vote: www.ronpaulvotecount.org. For now, let's get peoples' sworn statements that they voted absentee in these precincts.

----------


## RonRules

I agree Dr. K. I think we should be a lot more concerned about THIS little problem in Milwaukee county, WI. rather than a slight curve in the 2010 census.


People want to derail this effort at all costs.

----------


## RonRules

You can download Dr. K's voting affidavit here:
http://www.ronpaulvotecount.org/front/affidavit.pdf

Her's what it looks like:


That was an excellent initiative Dr. K.

Now if anybody from the Village of Greendale, WI who voted absentee in any of the Wards 7-10, I'm sorry to tell you that your vote got thrown out, but we've got fraud proven!

----------


## dsw

> You conveniently seem to forget that I stated that if *FRAUD* is occurring the lines won't be flat. That's the math.


I didn't forget it, I pointed it out specifically.  I said that it would be hilarious if, rather than admitting you don't understand the math, you concluded that it must be census fraud.  And those are indeed the choices and you may want to change the subject but let me put it in a font you'll understand: 
* Either you don't understand the math
OR 
there is MASSIVE census fraud.*

The data show something that you think the math proves impossible without fraud.  So those really are your only choices.

And you keep trying to change the subject to a different graph that shows a slight curve (I'm not sure if you think that's "flat enough" or what).  But it doesn't matter.  Look at LA County.  If it's fraud, it's huge.  HUGE.  So huge that it would be easily unmasked, if there were fraud on that scale, because of the very large numbers involved and the very large disparity between the Hispanic percentage in the largest precincts and in the medium-sized precincts.  Map the precincts that the census claims are predominantly Hispanic, and the ones the census claims have very low percentages of Hispanics, and show it to an LA native and tell them you think it's fraudulent.  They'll laugh.  It's absurd.

And it's not just LA County.  And it's not just Hispanic Democrats.  And it's not just California.  

You don't understand the math.  It doesn't say what you think it says.  And rather than admit you are wrong about the math saying that all these graphs should flatten out, you'd rather embrace an absurd theory of census fraud.  Could that be because you realize just how much else that you've said rests on a foundation of the exact same misunderstanding of the math?

----------


## RonRules

> 


I calculated the statistics of the above numbers happening by chance. Using the extremely conservative number (from the walk-in %) that Ron Paul should have gotten 6.9% of the vote (13 votes), what is the probablity that he would get only 3 votes:

Point probability= *0.000628*
p(Obs>=3): 0.9998; (<3): 0.0002
p(Obs>3): 0.9992; (<=3): 0.0008
Mid-p: 1; 1-p: 0; 2*p: 0.001

*That's a 0.0628 % chance.*

I did a further test using the Ron Paul's expected percentage in Wisconsin based on various entrance/exit polls. Using a value of 15%, which is 28 votes, what is the probablity that Ron Paul would actually get 3 votes:

Point probability= *0*
p(Obs>=3): 1; (<3): 0
p(Obs>3): 1; (<=3): 0
Mid-p: 1; 1-p: 0; 2*p: 0

*That's 0, one big fat ZERO probability.*

----------


## dsw

> I agree Dr. K. I think we should be a lot more concerned about THIS little problem in Milwaukee county, WI. rather than a slight curve in the 2010 census.


That's certainly a good thing to look into.  I pointed out some similar zero-vote precincts in Alabama, where his delegate count was non-zero, another place where just turning up a single Paul voter could go a long way.

But you're trying to call it a "slight curve" when in the example I showed (and others) it's a very sharp curve.  It's either massive fraud on such a scale that just driving through some of the precincts involved would unmask it ... or you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the math that undermines not only your proclamation about why those graphs must flatten out but a lot else that you've done as well.  Pick one.




> People want to derail this effort at all costs.


Bogus arguments are the best way to derail the effort to prove fraud.  They divert the attention of people who don't understand why the arguments are bogus from things that could be worthwhile, toward pursuing something bogus.  Look at how many man-hours have gone into things based on the same bogus math that led you to believe that the demographic graphs should flatline.  Who did that help, to divert that attention?

And bogus arguments provide an easy excuse for dismissing the whole thing, by making it look like the people making the arguments simply don't know what they're talking about.    Again, who does that help?

----------


## KingNothing

> I'm working on the 2012 Elections, proving that Romney is defauding the American people. I won't stop till Romney is in handcuffs.


Oh, that's rational.  At least you don't have a bias that might blind you to contradictory evidence, or anything.

----------


## RonRules

I just got the data for Waukesha county Wisconsin. I'm leaning towards flipping on this one, but not 100% sure. This could be a case of flipping done through absentee ballots, but the data on those is hard to come by. They are called "Central Count" in Wisconsin for any of you that want to help find it.

Ron Paul only got 5.9% in this county and the boots on the ground (I know that's not a scientific term), tell me that there is no way his support was that low. If anybody is from that county, please chime in.

I also included the "Uninstructed Delegation" This means: "that the voter is giving the delegation no direction as to who the nominee should be. The voter trusts the delegation to decide who to choose as a nominee at the party convention."



I had previously done a subset of that data , the city of Muskego:

----------


## dr.k.research

> Oh, that's rational.  At least you don't have a bias that might blind you to contradictory evidence, or anything.


Bias
Blind
Contradictory

What are you talking about? You, Mr. King, are the contradiction. Unless you have something productive to say, go away. List something YOU have done to advance the cause of a Dr. Paul presidency. Not sure what troll means, but if it defines an agent of subterfuge, you, Mr., are a troll.

----------


## affa

> So either NZ is rigged (and you have an interesting fraud battle going on as both Labour and National exhibit uptrends) or this is additional evidence that "slopes" occur frequently and naturally (my view on the matter since Canada).


why do your a-axis go from 0-100% rather than the traditional precinct count?

re: NZ.  good possible debunk.   though we've also shown plenty of countries, and historical elections, where no such anomaly existed.   i don't think finding one country debunks anything, though it should give us pause.   afterall, the other example discovered was early Louisiana elections, which at first seemed like a debunk until further research uncovered that the guy in charge during those years went down for election fraud.

so, yes, this is a possible debunk. but at the same point in time, there is no reason to think election fraud can or should be limited to simply the US.

----------


## affa

> So either NZ is rigged (and you have an interesting fraud battle going on as both Labour and National exhibit uptrends) or this is additional evidence that "slopes" occur frequently and naturally (my view on the matter since Canada).


why do your a-axis go from 0-100% rather than the traditional precinct count?

re: NZ.  good possible debunk.   though we've also shown plenty of countries, and historical elections, where no such anomaly existed.   i don't think finding one country debunks anything, though it should give us pause.   afterall, the other example discovered was early Louisiana elections, which at first seemed like a debunk until further research uncovered that the guy in charge during those years went down for election fraud.

so, yes, this is a possible debunk. but at the same point in time, there is no reason to think election fraud can or should be limited to simply the US.

----------


## RonRules

> so, yes, this is a possible debunk. but at the same point in time, there is no reason to think election fraud can or should be limited to simply the US.


And by the way, Canada is now the home of the infamous, monkey crackable, ex-Diebold, Ex-Premier Elections, now called Dominion Voting "GEMS" Central Tabulator.

However keep looking REAL CLOSE to absentee ballots. I'm smelling something fishy around these things since Milwaukee. 

*Romney has a statistically impossible advantage with Absentee Ballots.*

----------


## KingNothing

> *Romney has a statistically impossible advantage with Absentee Ballots.*


You really need to stop throwing those sorts of terms around.

----------


## RonRules

I got very curious about Waukesha County Wisconsin. The Boots on the Ground tell me about empty sardine cans there.

Anyway, I decided to use some statistics and charting to see what's going on. Here's a histogram of all the candidates. The X-Axis is the % of vote they received separated in 1% bins. 
The number of times a candidate scores within that percentage bin is counted and shown on the Y-Axis.

Note the unusual little bar for Romney on the extreme right. Romney scored 84% in that precinct. ("Reporting Unit" in cheesespeak) Note also that Santorum has a similar little bar near right of middle (Explained below in the "Edit" section)


So I decided to investigate further. I did a bar chart of every precinct in Waukesha county. The chart shows only about half the precincts. It's too wide to make a picture. 

But, do you notice the high bar for Romney? That the 84% result:


Now look where these votes came from: 

*
That's the sort of thing I mean when I say Romney has a statistically impossible advantage.*

Any questions?

Edit: I also found that in a couple of other "Reporting Units", Ron Paul was favored, while it appears Romney got a little less than normal: The Grinch also got zero in Ward 8.
CITY OF NEW BERLIN Ward 12 (68261) Grinch:1.9%; Mitt:41.5%; Paul:18.9%; Rick:37.7%
CITY OF WAUKESHA Ward 7 (68291)    Grinch:3.4%; Mitt:27.6%; Paul:17.2%; Rick:51.7% <--That's Santorum little bar.	
CITY OF WAUKESHA Ward 8 (68291)    Grinch:0.0%; Mitt:53.1%; Paul:20.4%; Rick:26.5%

It' could be carelessness on the part of the election workers, because Paul also benefited. Clearly there's something wrong and we all getting pretty tired of the "honest mistakes".

----------


## affa

king nothing, i have you on ignore so don't actually read your posts, but mods have made it extremely clear you should not be posting in here. please leave.  thanks.  no need to post to say goodbye, or complain.  just go.

----------


## dsw

That's awesome.  The Milwaukee County District Attorneys Office is listed as the place to report election fraud in Wisconsin; they can be reached at (414) 278-4645.  

You might ask the person you reach if they know anything at all about statistics.  You need to make sure they don't.  It's very important that they don't understand that your test assumes that the subset you're analyzing (the absentee ballots) are selected randomly from the overall population.  They need to be ignorant of the fact that absentee ballots don't look like a random sample, but tend to skew toward elderly voters and in other ways that could favor Romney.  That alone makes your calculation bogus.  They also need to have not seen any of the articles noting that Romney has very deliberately (and with a lot of money) targeted early and absentee voters.  (You want to get as many people to vote absentee-ballot as you canit saves money and banks votes, says Rich Beeson, Romneys political director. So no matter what happens in the last week you have votes in the bank they cant take away.   http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...a_chance_.html)  There have actually been quite a few articles about this, so you may need to find someone who hasn't been paying attention to the primaries.

Find someone who doesn't understand any of this and you've found the right audience for this argument.  Find someone like that in the Milwaukee County District Attorneys Office and maybe you can get them to open an investigation.   You may not have the math on your side, but you can make up for that by not skimping on the large font size.  Good luck!




> I calculated the statistics of the above numbers happening by chance. Using the extremely conservative number (from the walk-in %) that Ron Paul should have gotten 6.9% of the vote (13 votes), what is the probablity that he would get only 3 votes:
> 
> Point probability= *0.000628*
> p(Obs>=3): 0.9998; (<3): 0.0002
> p(Obs>3): 0.9992; (<=3): 0.0008
> Mid-p: 1; 1-p: 0; 2*p: 0.001
> 
> *That's a 0.0628 % chance.*
> 
> ...

----------


## Aden

> Reminder all charts (not just mine) are available in one place for each state:
> Go to:
> www.photobucket.com/flipping_AL
> www.photobucket.com/flipping_SC
> www.photobucket.com/flipping_VA
> www.photobucket.com/flipping_WI
> 
> The above is a shortcut to this full link:
> http://s269.photobucket.com/albums/j..._Primaries_SC/
> ...



Thanks.  What's the consensus on Warren County Virginia?  And is that the only county we've found where the flip favors somebody other than Romney?

----------


## RonRules

> Bla bla bla,
> targeted early and absentee voters. 
> Bla bla bla,


Like the other campaigns don't know about absentee voters!

Like this was done so perfectly well, as to result is a smooth, linear line breaking down the 99.9999999999% confidence barriers like they're not there!!
Sure, right.

I'd put my money on hundreds of cult members stuffing absentee ballots for their Dear Leader.

Then these MSM articles become a wonderful convenient explanation and excuse.

----------


## RonRules

> Thanks.  What's the consensus on Warren County Virginia?  And is that the only county we've found where the flip favors somebody other than Romney?


That's the only one I've seen, ever. But of course you've seen the story about how much effort a certain Ron Paul supporter made in that county.

----------


## affa

> Thanks.  What's the consensus on Warren County Virginia?  And is that the only county we've found where the flip favors somebody other than Romney?


Warren county is such an anomaly that articles were written about it; massive gotv effort for Ron Paul.
There was another county somewhere that had a massive turnout, and research uncovered articles to the same effect (they'd moved a voting center closer to a college, causing turnout around 10x normal).

----------


## drummergirl

> Either you don't understand the math
> OR 
> there is MASSIVE census fraud.


Putting something in big print doesn't make it so.  And it's ironic because the reality is, you don't understand the math.  seriously, this is the basics of the hypergeometric distribution.  If it doesn't make sense to you, take out a text book, or go to you tube for that matter.

Here is the standard distribution with confidence intervals.  Do the proof if you don't believe it.

----------


## drummergirl

> So either NZ is rigged (and you have an interesting fraud battle going on as both Labour and National exhibit uptrends) or this is additional evidence that "slopes" occur frequently and naturally (my view on the matter since Canada).


I don't know the details of New Zealand politics, but my own investigation started by the data from Louisiana leads me to think that what we've really found is a quick and easy way to spot potential election fraud.  Imagine if there were security video tapes made at a retail store for several years before anyone reviewed them.  How many shoplifters would they find that regular store security had missed?

And, if we really are finding sloped lines where there is no fraud and no odd data (as in everyone in the country voted yes, everyone city voted no, so the scatter chart looks like a blind man with a shotgun came by), then the mathematics describing elections needs to be reformulated.  Anyone need a PhD thesis topic?

EDIT to add:  I'm absolutely serious about that last part and not kidding.  If the math is wrong, descriptive statistics needs some fundamental revisions.

----------


## dsw

> Putting something in big print doesn't make it so.  And it's ironic because the reality is, you don't understand the math.  seriously, this is the basics of the hypergeometric distribution.  If it doesn't make sense to you, take out a text book, or go to you tube for that matter.
> 
> Here is the standard distribution with confidence intervals.  Do the proof if you don't believe it.


Actually I think I do understand that, and most crucially for this discussion, the assumptions (that you consistently neglect to state) that are necessary to make it valid.  

What do you think of RR's assertion that cumulative graphs of demographic factors, cumulatively with precincts ordered by size as usual, MUST flatline unless there's fraud?  Based on your understanding of the math, do you agree with him?  You've seen the LA County hispdem graph, you've seen that it doesn't flatline and that it ends up being a very straight, downward slope at the end.  The data has been posted so all of this is easy to verify.  Is this something that you think, along with RR, the math says should not happen without fraud?

My understanding of the math says that there's no reason to think that such a graph must flatline, because there's no guarantee that when you sort the precincts by size you're getting anything like a random sampling.  The precincts at the left can be different from the ones at the right.  As it turns out, predominantly Hispanic precincts tend to be smaller precincts in LA county (and not just there, as it turns out) and the largest precincts have much much smaller percentages of Hispanic democrats.  You can see it on the scatter plot very clearly.  You can also see why it ends up not flatlining and why it ends up being very close to a straight sloping line as you get toward the end, especially the last 25% or so.  There's nothing about this that the math says is impossible.  

If you think the math says that cumulative graphs of precinct voting results must flatten out (if there's no fraud), but that RR is wrong when he applies the same reasoning to graphs of precinct demographic factors, can you explain why?  If you think the math applies to both, then given that not all the census graphs flatline are you on board with the conclusion that it must be census fraud?

----------


## drummergirl

> Actually I think I do understand that, and most crucially for this discussion, the assumptions (that you consistently neglect to state) that are necessary to make it valid.


And you are wrong sir.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Hyperge...tribution.html

As you can see, the key feature that distinguishes hypergeometric distribution from other similar descriptive statistics is NON-REPLACEMENT.  Your baseless assertions about what you want the math to be are irrelevant.

I can say the sky is chartreuse, but that doesn't make it so.  Just saying something over and over again does not validate your point.  I've given multiple examples, illustrations, and references.  You come back with assertions.  Where is your mathematical proof?  If the math says these lines ought to have sharp slopes at the end of the charts, please, by any means, find a reference that says so.  Quote a statistics book or website, or do the proof by hand if you wish.

----------


## drummergirl

> As it turns out, predominantly Hispanic precincts tend to be smaller precincts in LA county (and not just there, as it turns out) and the largest precincts have much much smaller percentages of Hispanic democrats.  You can see it on the scatter plot very clearly.  You can also see why it ends up not flatlining and why it ends up being very close to a straight sloping line as you get toward the end, especially the last 25% or so.


You are seriously referencing that chart you made where you doubled the total number by including the subtotal as it's own precinct?  Where you went from 50% to 100% with one data point and made a lovely straight line between those 2 points and then called it a debunk?

----------


## dsw

> And, if we really are finding sloped lines where there is no fraud and no odd data (as in everyone in the country voted yes, everyone city voted no, so the scatter chart looks like a blind man with a shotgun came by), then the mathematics describing elections needs to be reformulated.


Or, sorting precincts by size may not approximate a random sampling of the data closely enough for the math to apply in every case.  The mathematics describing elections very clearly include the thing you consistently leave out, namely the necessity of random sampling (or in the case of polls, exit polls, etc., adjusting the data to try to approximate random sampling as closely as possible, something that is both necessary and non-trivial).   When you leave this out, you aren't getting the math right.  A dissertation committee is likely to know this.

So in Va Beach City you have a cluster of precincts that constitute more than half the votes after the "crime" point, and that are notably the same area where you find a cluster of $1,000,000+ homes in that area, and that are the precincts most strongly pro-Romney.  Maybe there's a correlation there?  And if there is such a correlation, then probability calculations based on samples from the smallest precincts are not valid.  That would be applying the math as if a condition were met that is clearly not met.  You could get a number out of the calculator, but it would be bogus.  

Or consider LA County.  If you sort the precincts by size, then when you have counted 50% of all voters you've counted 74% of all Hispanic Democrats.  In other words, that demographic is weighted three times more heavily on the left half of the cumulative graph than it is on the right.  What do you think the law of large numbers let you conclude from a sample when the selection of that sample is non-random?

----------


## dsw

Seriously?  You think that when it says "Take samples" nothing is implied about those samples being selected randomly?  If the samples don't have to be random, then how would it be true that "The _i_th selection has an equal likelihood of being in any trial, ..." ?

That's so basic it's just implied.  The math makes no sense otherwise.  Look at where the Wolfram article mentions the "urn problem."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urn_problem  Note the word "random" in there.  Look up the "law of large numbers."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers  Note the part about "assuming they are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.)".  Look up "margin of error."  Note the section on "Calculations assuming random sampling."  

And as for "If the math says these lines ought to have sharp slopes at the end of the charts, please, by any means, find a reference that says so. Q"?  Please.  The math doesn't say that the lines "ought to" have sharp slopes at the end.  It just doesn't say that they must be flat (if you're not sampling randomly).  They might be flat or they might not be.  It's like trying to predict the outcome of the urn problem if nothing is specified about the selection process.  You may get a random sample, you may not.  It's not math when the key details are left vague.  Sorting precincts by size may or may not approximate a random ordering.  The math is bogus if you don't take that into account.






> And you are wrong sir.
> 
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Hyperge...tribution.html
> 
> As you can see, the key feature that distinguishes hypergeometric distribution from other similar descriptive statistics is NON-REPLACEMENT.  Your baseless assertions about what you want the math to be are irrelevant.
> 
> I can say the sky is chartreuse, but that doesn't make it so.  Just saying something over and over again does not validate your point.  I've given multiple examples, illustrations, and references.  You come back with assertions.  Where is your mathematical proof?  If the math says these lines ought to have sharp slopes at the end of the charts, please, by any means, find a reference that says so.  Quote a statistics book or website, or do the proof by hand if you wish.

----------


## dsw

> You are seriously referencing that chart you made where you doubled the total number by including the subtotal as it's own precinct?  Where you went from 50% to 100% with one data point and made a lovely straight line between those 2 points and then called it a debunk?


Oh come on.  Use your math skills to look at that graph and ask yourself whether RR's suggestion (one of many attempts of his to evade the real point) makes any sense.  If I had included that summary row it would have looked like a huge precinct with exactly the same y-value as the point before it on the cumulative graph.  The graph would not have continued diving downward, as it does.  If you understand the math it's *immediately* obvious that RR's suggestion wasn't true.  

I posted the data.  You can do it yourself.   Leave the summary row in there, if you don't understand why RR's suggestion was so obviously false, and it will be clear as soon as you see it.  Take that line out (or use the extracted columns in the other file I uploaded) and you can see for yourself that it doesn't flatline.   That's just the raw data in that extract.csv file, just the totreg and hispdem columns with the header and summary rows removed.  Process it in the usual fashion.  Analyze it any way you want.  There is a very, very strong correlation between precinct size and that demographic factor (and it's not the only one).  Sorting by precinct size does not even come close to approximating random selection.  

More importantly you can look at the scatter plot and see WHY it doesn't flatline.  You can also see why it ends up being such a lovely straight downward-sloping line for the last 25% or so of the graph.   RR thinks that the math argument you are making should apply to demographic factors when graphed cumulatively in the usual fashion.  He's wrong about that math, but it's understandable that he got to that point because for your argument about election graphs to be true, his argument about demographics would have to be true as well.  But what he's done is illustrated that the key assumption (essentially the assumption that sorting precincts by size closely approximates random selection) is false.

EDIT:  since the two people here who are quickest to say I don't understand the math seem to think that leaving the totals line in the data file would explain the nice straight sloping line at the end, and I think it's obvious why that's not the case, here's what it WOULD look like if I had done what RR suggested.  The average calculated from the totals line must, by definition, equal the average calculated from all the lines above it.  So if y1 is the y-value calculated for all of the actual data cumulatively, and y2 is the y-value of the summary line, we have that y1 = y2.  And the slope is (y2-y1)/(x2-x1) = 0.  As seen below.  Now you see why I told RR that if he understood the math it would have been obvious to him that I did NOT leave that totals line in the data file.  You can tell just by looking at the graph.  

The straight line on the last 25% of the actual graph (without the summary line included) is actually what you get from the data.  And, for the umpteenth time, there's really no mystery about why.  Look at the scatter plot, and think about what's going on when you hit the region to the right where the %hispdem is low and remains low.  One of the election graphs with an "impossibly" straight line looked similar as a scatter plot.  If the latter is proof of election fraud, is the former proof of census fraud?  My understanding of the math says that neither is proof of fraud, for the same reason in both cases.  It's just the way the math works out.  

If you don't believe me, then just try it.  I've posted a link to the data twice now.  Once you see that this is what happens, go look at the scatter plot.  The nice thing is that this is such a clear example that it shouldn't be hard to see why the graph ends up looking the way it does.   Sorting precincts by size does not always approximate random selection.  And when it doesn't, the graph may not flatten out, even without fraud.

----------


## affa

i don't really care if 'demographics must flatline'.  as far as i'm concerned, and no offense to RonRules, that's a side discussion he's working on trying to outright disprove the demographics argument.   That is, it has absolutely nothing to do with the case for fraud, but is rather a side project trying to end the demographics discussion.  

which is why this conversation you're spending countless pages on, dsw, is just one big train derailment.  i mean... thread derailment.  

let's talk about Romney outpacing his own delegates at the 300k mark.  Let's talk about the potential for voter fraud.  Continually side tracking the conversation into circles about things that have little to do with the actual case for fraud is getting quite annoying, dsw.   Even if you absolutely, positively, prove that RonRules is incorrect about his demographic argument, it in no way affects the fraud discussion, since you two are discussing a completely different topic.

Everytime we start discussing something serious, you take one thing that has little to do with the case  at hand, and cause a thread derailment talking in circles about it.  Can we please stay on topic?   Can we please address the anomalies we're finding in certain counties in certain states?

So, please?  Back on topic?  Because frankly, as I've said before, I don't really care that the majority of Hispanics that vote Democratic reside in precincts in the middle of the pack.   Not even a little bit.

----------


## RonRules

> EDIT:  to make it easier for everyone to refute me, the LA county data set I used, as well as an extract of just the totreg and hispdem columns, are uploaded here in CSV format: http://sprng.me/e2ffh


DSW, you're doin't wrong. You don't need the "totreg", just the "hispdem".

Here's the instructions, one more time.



The results will be a small upward curve, which I attribute to Census fraud. It won't be a strong downward curve like you have shown. Census fraud is beneficial to minorities and is easy to do.

When you get that chart done, please post it here for everyone to see and then, *please observe your promise:*

"I'll make you (or anyone else) a deal: if the hispdem demographic flatlines in LA county, and I've made some sort of stupid mistake, then prove that (with the actual data, and not some other data I didn't make any claims about) and *I won't post on this or any other pro-fraud thread ever again* --- unless someone specifically accuses me of something in which case I reserve the right to respond, but otherwise if *I post at all it will only be in the "no fraud" thread(s).* "

----------


## dsw

The two "graph must flatline" arguments, the election fraud argument and what RR seems willing to view as a census fraud argument if it will let him ignore it, make the same implicit assumption.  Both implicitly assume that sorting precincts by size approximates random selection.  That's the assumption that would make the math work.   Otherwise the math is bogus.   Sometimes the assumption is true.  Sometimes it is not.  When it's not true the graphs may not flatline, even without fraud.  That's why I disagree with you that it's is a derailment.  It's at the heart of some of the biggest claims made here.  

The LA County data just provide a clear illustration of why the assumption may not hold in some cases.  It's easy to find other examples, but it only takes one to show that the assumption doesn't always hold.  I like that one also because it shows how you can end up with a nice straight sloping line, when that assumption does not hold.

If I'm right that the math doesn't work without an assumption of random selection (easy to check), and that at least some of the graphs may not be flatlining simply because that assumption fails to hold (clear from the LA example, unless you want to go the census fraud direction), then it's the bogus "graph must flatline" argument that is the derailment.  If that argument is bogus then it has taken up a *lot* of time that could have been spent on other things that aren't bogus.

I think that the use of a cumulative graph obscures, rather than clarifies, analysis of something like Romney "outpacing his own delegates at the 300k mark," because some of what's being seen when looking at it that way may be an artifact of non-random ordering.  But there's still an unexplained anomaly there, and in that sense I agree with you.  

You say, "Everytime we start discussing something serious, you take one thing that has little to do with the case at hand, and cause a thread derailment talking in circles about it."   What I'm *trying* to do is focus on the details that determine whether the arguments work or don't work.  Believe me, I get the message that a lot of people don't want any argument criticized if the conclusion is fraud, no matter how bogus the argument.  But bad arguments drive out good.   And bad arguments won't convince the people who need to be convinced.  





> i don't really care if 'demographics must flatline'.  as far as i'm concerned, and no offense to RonRules, that's a side discussion he's working on trying to outright disprove the demographics argument.   That is, it has absolutely nothing to do with the case for fraud, but is rather a side project trying to end the demographics discussion.  
> 
> which is why this conversation you're spending countless pages on, dsw, is just one big train derailment.  i mean... thread derailment.  
> 
> let's talk about Romney outpacing his own delegates at the 300k mark.  Let's talk about the potential for voter fraud.  Continually side tracking the conversation into circles about things that have little to do with the actual case for fraud is getting quite annoying, dsw.   Even if you absolutely, positively, prove that RonRules is incorrect about his demographic argument, it in no way affects the fraud discussion, since you two are discussing a completely different topic.
> 
> Everytime we start discussing something serious, you take one thing that has little to do with the case  at hand, and cause a thread derailment talking in circles about it.  Can we please stay on topic?   Can we please address the anomalies we're finding in certain counties in certain states?
> 
> So, please?  Back on topic?  Because frankly, as I've said before, I don't really care that the majority of Hispanics that vote Democratic reside in precincts in the middle of the pack.   Not even a little bit.

----------


## RonRules

> I think that the use of a cumulative graph obscures, rather than clarifies


Yeah right!

Precincts by vote tally:


Precincts by cumulative vote tally:


DSW, I'm still waiting for your LA chart done using the instructions above.

----------


## dsw

> DSW, you're doin't wrong. You don't need the "totreg", just the "hispdem".


Now you're saying that you can do a cumulative graph with just one column of data?  Seriously?  Your example doesn't do that.  And you're not using the same dataset when you say that it's a mild curve, as I've pointed out several times.  I'm not making any claims at all about the dataset you keep trying to substitute.  Do you think people won't notice?

You're willing to embrace the census fraud theory, just to avoid admitting that you don't understand the math that you think tells you that these graphs must flatline.  (Hint:  sorting by precinct size isn't guaranteed to approximate random sampling, but the only sound argument that the graph must flatline in every case would require that sorting by precinct size always closely approximate random sampling.)  

And then you want to change the subject back to election fraud.  Could it be that you've seen some hints about just how massive that census fraud theory would have to be, in order to explain all of the graphs that don't flatline?   How about, say, dems vs. reps in LA county?  What's to be gained by faking the data to make it look like the larger precincts have a higher percentage of Republicans than a 20% sample taken from the smallest precincts would predict, assuming without  mathematical justification that a sample taken from the smallest precincts will approximate a random sample?  And if you're right about the math, it's not just California.   But you'd rather believe that census fraud is this widespread, than consider the possibility that you're got the math wrong.







> The results will be a small upward curve, which I attribute to Census fraud. It won't be a strong downward curve like you have shown. Census fraud is beneficial to minorities and is easy to do.


It's a small curve because you're using a different data set, a data set I'm not making any claims about.   





> When you get that chart done, please post it here for everyone to see and then, *please observe your promise:*
> 
> "I'll make you (or anyone else) a deal: if the hispdem demographic flatlines in LA county, and I've made some sort of stupid mistake, then prove that (with the actual data, and not some other data I didn't make any claims about) and *I won't post on this or any other pro-fraud thread ever again* --- unless someone specifically accuses me of something in which case I reserve the right to respond, but otherwise if *I post at all it will only be in the "no fraud" thread(s).* "


Show me that it flatlines -- without substituting some other data set -- and I'm gone.  You being willing to embrace an absurd theory of census fraud on a massive scale is not one of the conditions.  All I said is that it would amuse me if you did that rather than admitting you were wrong.  And I am, as promised, amused.

P.S. Dems and Reps in LA county, calculated using only the Dem and Rep columns from the data.  Enjoy.

----------


## dsw

> Yeah right!
> Precincts by vote tally: [...]
> Precincts by cumulative vote tally:  [...]


Right, because the only alternative to smoothing the data after ordering it in a way that may introduce a bias, is a scatter plot of the whole thing.  You're not even trying any more.




> DSW, I'm still waiting for your LA chart done using the instructions above.


The instructions that say I only need the one column?  And that you want to keep doing with a data set I make no claims about?  And for which you're admitting that it doesn't flatline, and you're willing to embrace a totally absurd theory of census fraud to avoid admitting you're wrong about the math requiring that it flatline?  Is that the one you're talking about?

----------


## RonRules

> 


You have two vastly different charts of the same data set. Do you even know what you are doing?

BTW, your second chart is still wrong. It should curve up, not down. Hint: LA County is county #19 in the data.

And YES census fraud is very likely. Not widespread, but likely. In all the California demographic groups I have charted (16 in all) NONE of them indicate fraud (They all flat-line), except the Democrat Hispanic group.  

There's millions at stake in Federal subsidies. That's why.

----------


## dsw

> You have two vastly different charts of the same data set. Do you even know what you are doing?
> 
> BTW, your second chart is still wrong. It should curve up, not down. Hint: LA County is county #19 in the data.
> 
> And YES census fraud is very likely. There's millions at stake in Federal subsidies.


Dude.  The first one is hispdem as a % of total registered.  The second is Registered Dem and Registered Rep as a % of the total.   They're vastly different because they're different demographics.  

As for the census fraud theory ... at least we're on the same page in recognizing that either you don't understand the math when you think the math requires that demographic factors graphed this way MUST always flatline, or else it must be fraud.  That really is the choice here, and also for the election graphs.  The next step is for you to realize that if you embrace the census fraud theory to avoid admitting you don't understand the math, you've got a LONG way to go in realizing just how massive that fraud would have to be.   

Besides, in that Dem vs. Rep graph the Reps are gaining and the Dems are losing as you get to larger precincts.  What's your fraud theory there, that would let you avoid admitting that the math doesn't say that sorting precincts by size approximates random selection and therefore the math doesn't require that the graph flatline?  In the larger precincts they're flipping Dems to Reps, to make it look like there are more Republicans than there really are?   What federal subsidies would they be going for when they do that?

If you really want to embrace the census fraud theory, rather than admit you got the math wrong when you concluded that these graphs must flatline, I've got more data from other states as well.  Some of it's pretty interesting stuff, but only interesting from the point of view of showing how silly the census fraud theory ends up looking if every graph that doesn't flatline proves fraud.  Without the fraud theory it does nothing but show that there's no mathematical reason to think that sorting precincts by size would always approximate random sampling, and that's not going to surprise anyone who understands the math.

EDIT: 



> Hint: LA County is county #19 in the data.


I'm not sure what you're looking at, but on the page you linked:  http://swdb.berkeley.edu/d00/p10.html
It says "COUNTY 019 (FRESNO)" and "COUNTY 037 (LOS ANGELES)".  I'm using 037.

----------


## RonRules

Here you've got about 30 demographics all flat-lining, without Hispanics (which I think were messing with the census). Also Jewish Republicans had a slight slope up.

INCORRECT CHART. Wrong county in California. See correct chart on post #389. Makes no difference though.


DSW, considereing that I am showing you 30 flat-lining demographics in Los Angeles county alone, if you have any honor left in you, please take your smoked herring to the "no-fraud" thread.

----------


## affa

> The two "graph must flatline" arguments, the election fraud argument and what RR seems willing to view as a census fraud argument if it will let him ignore it, make the same implicit assumption.  Both implicitly assume that sorting precincts by size approximates random selection.  That's the assumption that would make the math work.   Otherwise the math is bogus.   Sometimes the assumption is true.  Sometimes it is not.  When it's not true the graphs may not flatline, even without fraud.  That's why I disagree with you that it's is a derailment.  It's at the heart of some of the biggest claims made here.


I don't believe anyone has ever made the argument that sorting precincts by size approximates random selection, implicitly or explicitly.  

Can we ever talk about Romney outpacing his own delegates, DSW?  I've brought this up directly to you at least a dozen times, and you only ever switch topics and write an essay about something else.

----------


## RonRules

> I'm not sure what you're looking at, but on the page you linked:  http://swdb.berkeley.edu/d00/p10.html
> It says "COUNTY 019 (FRESNO)" and "COUNTY 037 (LOS ANGELES)".  I'm using 037.


OK my bad, I got county 19 from here: It's really 37.
http://swdb.berkeley.edu/faq.html
County 19	Los Angeles	FIPS 037

----------


## dsw

> Here you've got about 30 demographics all flat-lining, without Hispanics (which I think were messing with the census). Also Jewish Republicans had a slight slope up.
> 
> 
> 
> DSW, considereing that I am showing you 30 flat-lining demographics in Los Angeles county alone, if you have any honor left in you, please take your smoked herring to the "no-fraud" thread.


Dude.  Someone with your command of math and logic undoubtedly knows that a universally quantified assertion can't be proven with any number of positive examples, but can be disproven with a single counter-example.  In other words you could find 3,000 flatlining demographics and it STILL wouldn't prove the assertion that EVERY demographic MUST flatline or else its fraud.  That was your assertion.  And the reasoning that led you to that assertion would be correct IF it were true that sorting precincts by size will always approximate random sampling in the absence of fraud.  But unfortunately for cumulative graphing theory, that assumption isn't guaranteed by the math.  

The deal I offered you was to show that the hispdem demographic doesn't flatline, and I would leave.  But you admit it doesn't flatline.  I never said that I'd leave if you would just embrace some whacky fraud theory to avoid admitting you don't understand the math.  I only said I would be amused if you did that, and in that respect I kept my word.  

BTW, I'm dying to hear your fraud theory of what federal subsidies they were going after when they faked the census to make it look like there were more Jewish Republicans than there really are.

----------


## RonRules

> I don't believe anyone has ever made the argument that sorting precincts by size approximates random selection, implicitly or explicitly.


Actually, I do. 

First, we can all agree with the following statement: *IF the data were perfectly random* using our Cumulative Precincts Vote Tally charts would produce flat-lines.  All in agreement here?

Second, I have shown different variables such as "repbulicanness" and now 30 Demographics to flat line as a function of *Cumulative* Precinct Tally

So I believe that precinct size is a *random enough* independent variable for our analysis.

Couple that with the fact that this is happening in just about every county and every State we have analyzed.  The statistics favoring our argument are astronomical.  

And most certainly, because the charts of pure demographics also come out flat-lined (99% of the time except where fraud is suspected), I can be totally confident that our analysis methods *EXPOSE* the fraud better than what anybody else has come up with yet.

----------


## RonRules

Actually, what I want to talk about is whether or not absentee ballots could cause Romney's consistent, linear uptrends on the cumulative charts.

----------


## RonRules

I had erred on the county number. Here's ALL the Los Angeles Demographics, including Hispanics, All 33 of them. Note the small curve up for Hispdem, which causes all the others to have a very slight curve down.



The other reason why census fraud is profitable, particularly for political parties, (besides Federal subsidies) is that they can gain a congressional seat that way. Because of the 2010 Census, I believe that Texas gained a seat and some northeast state lost one (NY?)

Edit: The census affects the Electoral College map:


Anyway, I suspect fraud in the 2010 Census because one out of 33 demographics does not flat-line. This is a very large data set: 794,477 people.

Let's get back to election fraud talk.

----------


## dsw

> Can we ever talk about Romney outpacing his own delegates, DSW?  I've brought this up directly to you at least a dozen times, and you only ever switch topics and write an essay about something else.


I think there's something unexplained going on there.  But you're characterizing the problem in a way I disagree with.  

Here's the connection to what you consider a "derail."   If sorting precincts by size isn't guaranteed to approximate random sampling, then it may introduce a bias.  And that may introduce artifacts.  If you're studying an artifact introduced by non-random ordering, and don't consider that possibility, it's very misleading.  For example I don't remember the numbers off the top of my head but I looked at the most densely populated counties and found that they are weighted 2 or 3 times as heavily on the right-hand side of a graph sorted by precinct size, as they would be weighted in a random sample.  That could be significant.  It's not a sharp line, but IIRC I did a moving average and it really shows up strong after the 300k point.  So if you're seeing something around the 300k point, how do you know if what you're studying is an artifact caused by the non-random sampling, or something that might indicate fraud?  

So we're at a disconnect.  You've characterized the problem in a way that I don't agree with.  What you think is changing the topic, to me is trying to explain why I think the question is being framed in a way that assumes something that actually isn't true.

----------


## RonRules

> So we're at a disconnect


No we're not. You are with everyone else.

How much is Romney paying you to say things like that?

----------


## affa

> I think there's something unexplained going on there.  But you're characterizing the problem in a way I disagree with.  
> 
> Here's the connection to what you consider a "derail."   If sorting precincts by size isn't guaranteed to approximate random sampling, then it may introduce a bias.  And that may introduce artifacts.


No. It's one thing to try to say 'oh, perhaps at some point there is some demographic oddity that explains why we see a sudden upswing in popularity for Romney at the expense of one other candidate'.   I find this dubious at best, but it's at least an understandable question/debate/discussion.

However, what we are seeing in Alabama, which is totally consistent with flipping seen elsewhere, is that Romney outpaces his very own delegates.  That means whatever demographic oddity might explain Romney's sudden popularity in large districts must also be a demographic that is stupidly incapable of voting for Romney delegates.

Flipping would explain it all.  Every anomaly.  The delegate outpacing.  Etc. Etc.   The demographic debunk does not... even if we accept that it's possible that there is some way that demographics could cause Romney magic (which I don't), we shouldn't be seeing him outpace his own delegates in the same manner we see him outpace others in anomaly counties/precincts.

----------


## dr.k.research

> In other words you could find 3,000 flatlining demographics and it STILL wouldn't prove the assertion that EVERY demographic MUST flatline or else its fraud.


DSW: your posts are circuitous to say the least. Knit-picking is another description. Why are you working so hard to create confusion on this thread? Regardless, it will soon be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that votes are being stolen, electronically, as well as through the purging of absentee ballots and even actual ballots. You may leave, now, and retain some pride, or you may hang on and endure further embarassment. It's your choice.

----------


## drummergirl

> Seriously?  You think that when it says "Take samples" nothing is implied about those samples being selected randomly?  If the samples don't have to be random, then how would it be true that "The _i_th selection has an equal likelihood of being in any trial, ..." ?


Don't put words in my mouth.

Of course the samples are random.  That's the point.  1) precinct vote total is NOT a demographic variable.  and 2)  when you get to a sample size of 25%, even if the sample were not completely random, it's such an enormous sample size that it should not matter at a significant level.

I'm not an idiot.

----------


## drummergirl

> Dude.  Someone with your command of math and logic undoubtedly knows that a universally quantified assertion can't be proven with any number of positive examples, but can be disproven with a single counter-example.  In other words you could find 3,000 flatlining demographics and it STILL wouldn't prove the assertion that EVERY demographic MUST flatline or else its fraud.  That was your assertion.  And the reasoning that led you to that assertion would be correct IF it were true that sorting precincts by size will always approximate random sampling in the absence of fraud.  But unfortunately for cumulative graphing theory, that assumption isn't guaranteed by the math.


You still have yet to do a mathematical proof demonstrating that the hypergeometric distribution does not apply to counting ballots.  Prove it or stop with the baseless assertion that the lines shouldn't go flat.  The mathematical principles of hypergeometry say the lines have to go flat.  It's not my idea, it's not RonRules' idea.  It's the mathematical distribution we've been using for a couple of months around here and which pollitical scientists have been using for decades.  

(I apologize that off the top, I don't know when this analytical technique was first used.  I do know that it was behind the famous "Dewey defeats Truman" headlines because the paper bet on the 95% confidence interval and lost)

----------


## RonRules

Waukesha County is in the news, not even for my discovery below (Where Ron Paul gets votes stolen and given to Romney)




> 


*Check out the Brad Blog:*
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8472

"Waukesha County, Wisconsin's County Clerk *Kathy Nickolaus* was already known, for some time, to be among *the nation's worst elections official.* And that's saying quite a bit. But new information being discovered over the past several days suggests she may be even worse than previously known --- which is also saying quite a bit. We noted last Friday that the stunning 14,000+ "new" votes she announced as having discovered ..."

"Last week, The BRAD BLOG also detailed some of Nickolaus' horrific record as County Clerk, and just a few of the embarrassments she's caused for her county, including her practice of keeping election results only on a circa 1995 personal computer in her office; using the *same user ID and password for all of the employees* allowed to access it; and *refusing to release city-by-city, much less ward-by-ward election results* on Election Night. (The latter is one of the reasons the "missing" 14,000+ votes weren't noticed by anyone in the media or citizenry earlier.)"


*City of Brookfield Ballot Bags Found "Wide Open" in Waukesha County, Wisconsin* 
http://truth-out.org/articles/item/1...ponent&print=1
"Five out of six bags of ballots from first batch to be counted out of the City of Brookfield in Waukesha County, Wisconsin today were discovered "almost wide open" during Day 9 of the statewide Supreme Court election "recount." The bags were open and unsealed, according to both photographic evidence and an eye-witnesses account from the counting room.
...
The ballots in those bags were among the 14,000 said to have been cast in the April 5th election, but left off of Waukesha County's tally as reported to the media on Election Night."


*Another Election Night Snafu in Waukesha County:*
"Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus, who has been under fire for past election snafus, is at the center of attention again because new procedures in tallying votes resulted in lengthy delays in getting election results Tuesday.

Nickolaus, who garnered national attention last April when her office made a mistake that flipped the outcome of a hotly contested state Supreme Court race, said she introduced new procedures Tuesday to follow guidelines set forth by the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, which oversees elections in the state."

----------


## drummergirl

> If sorting precincts by size isn't guaranteed to approximate random sampling, then it may introduce a bias.  And that may introduce artifacts.  If you're studying an artifact introduced by non-random ordering, and don't consider that possibility, it's very misleading.


While this is correct, we've been over this multiple times.  There was the time when Liberty1789 put up charts with ordered and randomized precincts.  Debunked.  Then there was the whole looking for Ron Paul doing better in the country than the city hypothesis that was debunked.  Then you came up with the idea that hypergeometry doesn't mean the lines have to go flat.  Debunked.  Assorted other demographic possibilities have been explored, so far nothing has held up.  And just to clarify, when we say "precinct size" we are not referring to geography.  It's just a shorthand term for Total Number of Votes Cast in a Precinct.  So the precinct order would not necessarily be the same from one election to the next or even comparing the democrat primary to the republican primary in the same county or state.

----------


## RonRules

Wow, that's sad:
Mystery surrounds deaths of* 877 dolphins washed ashore* in Peru
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/22/world/...html?hpt=hp_t2

But I'm OK with that:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...s-at-seaworld/

----------


## drummergirl

> ]"Waukesha County, Wisconsin's County Clerk *Kathy Nickolaus* was already known, for some time, to be among *the nation's worst elections official.* And that's saying quite a bit. But new information being discovered over the past several days suggests she may be even worse than previously known --- which is also saying quite a bit. We noted last Friday that the stunning 14,000+ "new" votes she announced as having discovered ..."


holy cow!  with officials like that, who even needs a computer virus?

----------


## dsw

> Don't put words in my mouth.
> 
> Of course the samples are random.  That's the point.  1) precinct vote total is NOT a demographic variable.


Precinct vote total is a variable.  It can correlate with other variables, including demographic variables.  When you sort on a demographic variable you can introduce a bias.  When you sort on a variable that correlates with a demographic variable you can introduce a bias.  




> 2)  when you get to a sample size of 25%, even if the sample were not completely random, it's such an enormous sample size that it should not matter at a significant level.


More accurately, 25% is an enormous sample size with random selection, in the sense that it's way more than you need (assuming the total population size is large enough, I should add) in order to make a prediction about the overall population with a very small margin of error.  But if that 25% sample is biased, then your prediction is going to be biased.

Your argument only makes sense if sorting precincts by size approximates random selection.  Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't.  When it doesn't, you are selecting with a bias and your prediction will be a prediction that the bias will continue throughout the rest of the population, because the math assumes that the selection was random.  

But by definition, "selecting with a bias" means that the bias does NOT continue throughout the rest of the population.  So the prediction will be inaccurate.  The stronger the correlation between the variable you use to select the sample, and the variable you are measuring, the more inaccurate the prediction will be.  




> You still have yet to do a mathematical proof demonstrating that the hypergeometric distribution does not apply to counting ballots. Prove it or stop with the baseless assertion that the lines shouldn't go flat. The mathematical principles of hypergeometry say the lines have to go flat. It's not my idea, it's not RonRules' idea. It's the mathematical distribution we've been using for a couple of months around here and which pollitical scientists have been using for decades.


The mathematical principles of hypergeometry say the lines have to go flat, assuming random selection.   Otherwise the math says no such thing.  

It's the mathematical distribution that political scientists have been using for decades, taking great care to make sure that their samples approximate random selection as closely as possible because otherwise the math does not work.

In your write-ups you consistently leave out the part about random selection, but random selection is still what the math requires.  Sorting by precinct size is not guaranteed to approximate random selection, so if you sort by precinct size and then apply a statistical test that assumes random selection the calculation can be completely bogus.

----------


## RonRules

> Precinct vote total is a variable.  It can correlate with other variables, including demographic variables.
> ...
> Bla bla bla
> ...


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Cumulative

----------


## tremendoustie

> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Cumulative


Your arrogance is unbelievable. It may even exceed your ignorance, and that's saying something.

The data being cumulative doesn't affect what dsw is saying in any way whatsoever.

If I create a plot showing RP's support among people under 25, under 26, under 27, etc, all the way to 120, it's obvious the curve will decrease, probably monotonically. Yet, it's "cumulative" -- the last data point includes everything.

This really should be completely obvious. The fact that you're mocking others for pointing out something this obvious ... you should be embarassed. 

I know you won't be ... and the mods will probably delete this, because substantive disgreement is not allowed here, but snark, sarcasm, and ignorance is, so long as it's from "flippers".

I don't know why I come here anymore, sometimes. What a real shame ... free discussion of ideas used to be tolerated here. It makes me sad.

----------


## RonRules

> If I create a plot showing RP's support among people under 25, under 26, under 27, etc, all the way to 120, it's obvious the curve will decrease, probably monotonically. Yet, it's "cumulative" -- the last data point includes everything.


DOOIT!



Ron Paul in the picture?

----------


## tremendoustie

It's basic logic.

If a greater percentage of people under 30 support RP, than of those over 30, necessarily a greater percentage of people under 30 support RP, than of the total population.

Look at any poll. The under 30 numbers are higher than the total numbers.

I can't believe this is something that has to be explained.

----------


## RonRules

> It's basic logic.


Do the chart or STFU.

----------


## tremendoustie

> Do the chart or STFU.


I have a life. I'm not going to spend my work hours graphing data, so that you can refrain from using your brain to recognize a really, really obvious point.

Maybe dsw will. He seems to have a lot more patience for your sort.

----------


## drummergirl

> In your write-ups you consistently leave out the part about random selection, but random selection is still what the math requires.  Sorting by precinct size is not guaranteed to approximate random selection, so if you sort by precinct size and then apply a statistical test that assumes random selection the calculation can be completely bogus.


I do not leave out random selection.  You continue to focus on this bizarre idea that precinct size is a demographic variable; it's not. Please stop dredging up the same thing over and over.

----------


## drummergirl

> I have a life. I'm not going to spend my work hours graphing data, so that you can refrain from using your brain to recognize a really, really obvious point.
> 
> Maybe dsw will. He seems to have a lot more patience for your sort.


But you'll spend your work hours trolling on forums?

There's a reason you should chart the data.  You might learn something.

----------


## tremendoustie

> But you'll spend your work hours trolling on forums?
> 
> There's a reason you should chart the data.  You might learn something.


Ok, fine ... 

In an excel spreadsheet, make, in column A, a list of values from 40 down to 10, incremented by -1. These will represent the % support of RP, in people from ages 30 to 60. Obviously this is linear.

On the top entry of the second column (B), write the following: =AVERAGE(A$1:A1). Drag this down, so that each entry in this second column is the average of all prior values in the first column.

This second column will also be linear, and not "flatten out", despite it being "cumulative".

I'm probably just beating my head against a wall, but perhaps this will help someone who's reading this, but doesn't understand. If the original data is sloped, the "cumulative" result will be sloped as well.

----------


## tremendoustie

> I do not leave out random selection.  You continue to focus on this bizarre idea that precinct size is a demographic variable; it's not. Please stop dredging up the same thing over and over.


Of course precinct size is electorally relevant. It correlates strongly with population density. Ask anyone who knows anything about politics whether population density is electorally significant. It's highly significant. Look at a county level map of votes for Rs vs Ds in any national election in the last couple decades. The cities are all almost all blue, and the rural areas are almost all red.

Look at the total area. Even in elections where democrats won, there is far more red than blue. This is because the densely populated areas went D, while rural areas went R.

This is obvious stuff ...

----------


## RonRules

> Of course precinct size is electorally relevant. It correlates strongly with population density. Ask anyone who knows anything about politics whether population density is electorally significant. It's highly significant.


Sure. Now go explain that: 


And for the RP support by age, please use real data. Donations by age should be available from the campaign. 
We tend to shun people that make up data around here.

----------


## tremendoustie

> Sure. Now go explain that:


Romney's a massachusetts "moderate" city slicker, with strong ties to business. His support is more highly correlated with population density than past candidates. Paul does better in Coos, and other rural areas, while Romney does better in the more densely populated areas near MA, his home state.

The only thing a bit suprising to me about that graph is that santorum didn't see better results in smaller precincts ... although I do think the southern end of the state tends to be more religious.




> And for the RP support by age, please use real data. Donations by age should be available from the campaign. 
> We tend to shun people that make up data around here.


You apparently tend not to think very clearly (or honestly) around here.

You were making a mathematical point about "cumulative" data, which was patently, demonstrably false. I illustrated that it was false. That was the point of the excel chart. I wasn't trying to say anything about age specifically. Real data would have confused the mathematical point, in fact.

If the original data is sloped, and does not "flatten", the "cumulative" data will be sloped as well, and not "flatten". That's the point.

----------


## affa

> Ok, fine ... 
> 
> In an excel spreadsheet, make, in column A, a list of values from 40 down to 10, incremented by -1. These will represent the % support of RP, in people from ages 30 to 60. Obviously this is linear.
> 
> On the top entry of the second column (B), write the following: =AVERAGE(A$1:A1). Drag this down, so that each entry in this second column is the average of all prior values in the first column.
> 
> This second column will also be linear, and not "flatten out", despite it being "cumulative".
> 
> I'm probably just beating my head against a wall, but perhaps this will help someone who's reading this, but doesn't understand. If the original data is sloped, the "cumulative" result will be sloped as well.


i fail to understand what you think you're proving.   i don't even need to run your chart to know that won't flatten out.  obviously.  you created a forced linear curve.     

the vast majority of 'cumulative charts' will not flatten out.  i mean, by their very definition, you keep adding to the total.  therefore, dependent on what you're charting, there should be a constant upward slope, since you're constantly adding to the sum.

however, that's NOT what is being discussed here.   we're not pre-creating a linear ascent like you are, but simply sorting data by precinct size.   historically, since those numbers are NOT in a linear progression, the charts (when looking at performance, not vote count) do flatten out because there isn't a correlation between precinct size and performance.

In 2012, and some 2008, etc, there suddenly IS.

That's the point.  Showing us a linear progression that increases cumulatively is absolutely meaningless... I believe you're misunderstanding the assertion.  Obviously, cumulative charts can slope up, and should, if the data is sorted incrementally as yours is.

----------


## RonRules

> Romney's a massachusetts "moderate" city slicker, with strong ties to business. His support is more highly correlated with population density than past candidates.


So much for THAT argument. 

Maybe you should try the "Romney is a Flip-Floper" argument and he has changed so much since 2008 that his demographics are now completely different.

----------


## drummergirl

> I'm probably just beating my head against a wall, but perhaps this will help someone who's reading this, but doesn't understand. If the original data is sloped, the "cumulative" result will be sloped as well.


If that is what you think our charts are, you are mistaken.  I honestly think you need to google cumulative.

----------


## RonRules

If anybody's got the data, I'll bet a *jar of pickled herring* that: 

*"Cumulative Donations amount to Ron Paul as a function of age"* 

will flat line.




Hmmmm.....

----------


## drummergirl

> If anybody's got the data, I'll bet a *jar of pickled herring* that: 
> 
> *"Cumulative Donations amount to Ron Paul as a function of age"* 
> 
> will flat line.
> 
> Hmmmm.....


Awww come on, you're just saying that because it probably will.  Can I have the pickled herring anyway?

----------


## tremendoustie

> If that is what you think our charts are, you  are mistaken.  I honestly think you need to google cumulative.


I honestly think you need to stop being patronizing and condescending. Everyone here knows what "cumulative" means. 

The  second column in the excel spreadsheet I described is a running  cumulative average. E.g. the nth entry of column B is the cumulative  average of values 1 through n of column A. The final point is the average of all values.

Each  point on your plot likewise shows the cumulative average of vote %  in smaller precincts (weighted by precinct size, of course).

If a plot of RP vote percentage vs. precinct size is sloped, the plot of the cumulative results will be as well. Making a sloped plot cumulative does not magically make it level out. Apparently this is somehow difficult to understand ...

----------


## tremendoustie

> If anybody's got the data, I'll bet a *jar of pickled herring* that: 
> 
> *"Cumulative Donations amount to Ron Paul as a function of age"* 
> 
> will flat line.


Did you somehow manage to miss the clear demonstration that a cumulative plot of linearly sloped data is also linearly sloped, which was the actual point at hand?

I have no idea if RP donations by age are linearly sloped. If they are, the cumulative results will be as well.

It'd be great if you'd actually show an interest in the truth, rather than just changing the subject or throwing red herrings (almost literally) when your snarky remarks are shown to be blatently false.

----------


## drummergirl

> Each  point on your plot likewise shows the cumulative average of vote %  in smaller precincts (weighted by precinct size, of course).


It's not an average.  It's the cumulative vote %

----------


## RonRules

> It'd be great if you'd actually show an interest in the truth, rather than just changing the subject or throwing red herrings (almost literally) when your snarky remarks are shown to be blatently false.


I'm eating this right now. I actually went to the store to get some. I just had a craving:


Pickled Herring (from an old Jewish lady in Florida)
1 6 oz jar of wine snack herring fillets (Lesco is good).
3 oz fresh sour cream
1/2 cup of thin, sliced, chopped red onion
4 tbsp capers, drained and rinsed
1 tsp sugar
Pepper to taste
Drain herring in sieve. Cut to cracker size if too large. Transfer with onions into bowl.
Blend all ingredients gently and store in fridge for at least two hours before serving. eat right away.

----------


## RonRules

I was doing some house keeping on old charts and found this on. I don't think I ever posted it:


I haven't looked at why in some states Ron is above the horizontal line, but Romney sure is a good flipper.

----------


## tremendoustie

> It's not an average.  It's the cumulative vote %


It's the same thing. Calculating the vote percentage for each candidate in each bucket, then averaging the percentages, is equivalent to totaling all votes, then calculating the percentage (assuming equal bucket sizes).

Here, I changed the example so it matches more obviously:

----------


## tremendoustie

BTW, thanks for actually being on point with your response, DG. I know I was also a bit insulting, and I apologize for that. 

The combination of having dissent quashed/deleted, people taking the time to explain obviously valid points being flippantly told they must not know the meaning of basic words, etc, and subjects changed to avoid addressing issues, is a bit irritating, as you might be able to imagine.

And, threads like this do represent RP supporters in the minds of many -- as do RP supporters who go and talk to others based on the information here. That's why I care.

I know you probably don't share my opinion, but to me, it'd be as if there were numerous threads in grassroots central claiming that 3*7=22, with objectors being told they need to google "multiplication", the subject being quickly changed after valid points, and opposition both within related threads and in separate threads deleted by moderators -- all while people on other sites mock RP supporters as people who can't do basic math. It feels embarrassing, and irritating, to me.

----------


## Danan

I don't know why everyone constantly has to talk at cross-purposes.

So let me try to get this straight:

While RonRules argues that any graph plotted the way it's done in this thread necessarily has to "flat line" to the end dsw and tremendoustie say that this does not have to be the case.

It's importand to know why everyone argues the way he does to solve this disagreement.

If RonRules really insists that even at tremendoustie's age example (for which we don't have the necersary data to prove it) the line would flat line because this is a "mathematical rule" then I have to say - without being a statistician myself - that this sounds rather bogus to me.

If we believe that Ron Paul does better the younger the voters are and worse the older then we would see a downward slope. And an even increasing one to the end since there are more older voters than younger (depending on how exactly we plot the graph). That should be self-evident.

However, this is not what drummergirl and especially affa were talking about. They say that precinct size is in fact <b>not</b> a demographic like age but rather "random enough" (so to speak) that we *should* see a some kind of "flat-lining". And they say that because they looked at different demographics (for example: is there a strong correlation between precinct size and population density? Respectively: are rural precincts on average really smaller than urban?) and came to this conclusion. Also - and I may be incorrect about this - but what they describe as a conspicuous or abnormal behaviour (which - mind you - only occurs at certain counties or not at all and has always other "victims" but always the same "beneficiary") only appears in elections since 2008. Graphs from before these dates seem to always "flat line" which further encourages the believe that precinct size shouldn't correlate with certain demographics.

But then again, there were *some* graphs from other countries that do show what some people here think could be election fraud. These are valid debunk attempts as far as I'm concerned. Not perfect ones, since these elections really could have been rigged too, but the more other elections we see with this "anomaly" the less probably it is that this is "abnormal" in the first place. So every one who loves to debunk should plot elections from other countries or from before 2008. Or they would have to show that some demographics do in fact strongly correlate with precinct size in those counties where the "flipping" (or whatever it is) occurs while they don't correlate in those counties where it didn't appear.

----------


## RonRules

Excellent post Danan!  

I see under your name:
Location
Austria
Posts
220

Would you happen to be an "Austrian Economist" by any chance. Actually, my guess is they don't know anything about Austrian economics in Austria. Could that be true?

BTW, I never agreed with tremendoustie's age example because if you simply plot age, then age will of course be a diagonal. What I suggested to plot is *"Support for Ron Paul"* which is actually what was originally proposed. 

Here's what he initially said: "If I create a plot showing *RP's support* among people under 25, under 26, under 27, etc, all the way to 120, it's obvious the curve will decrease, probably monotonically. Yet, it's "cumulative" -- the last data point includes everything."

I suggested the way to estimate that "support" is by "donations to Ron Paul" as a function of age. That will flat line.

I also want to chart income levels f(precinct size). That should flat line too.

----------


## tremendoustie

> So much for THAT argument. 
> 
> Maybe you should try the "Romney is a Flip-Floper" argument and he has changed so much since 2008 that his demographics are now completely different.



Now we're just talking about Hillsborough. It's certainly the case that people in the rural areas of Hillsborough are more libertarian -- most of the more densely populated areas in Hillsborough are full of MA commuters (with the exception of Manch, where the smaller downtown districts went for paul, and the larger, wealthier, more populous partially suburban districts went for romney). Neither McCain nor Romney are particularly libertarian -- but if I had to guess, I'd guess that in northern NH mccain edged romney in '08, while romney did a bit better in the south.

Speaking of which, where's 2008 in the above charts, for all of NH? I certainly hope you're not trying to hide data.

BTW, we had people at each polling location, reporting the results  directly to RPHQ, so I doubt there was any major fraud in the  tabulation.

----------


## RonRules

I found this in Alachua County, FL.

Precinct size is clearly not related to income demographics. I'll try to find better data and do the standard chart.

----------


## RonRules

> Hillsborough are more libertarian


There's that Libertarian argument again. How's da32130 doing?




> Speaking of which, where's 2008 in the above charts, for all of NH? I certainly hope you're not trying to hide data.


Those aren't my charts, they're Liberty1789. Found this too:

----------


## tremendoustie

Whatever ... 5 pages from now true believers will be posting the "cumulative data most flatline" nonsense yet again, no matter how many times it's shown to be false ... I've got to stop wasting time on this.

----------


## tremendoustie

> There's that Libertarian argument again. How's da32130 doing?
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't my charts, they're Liberty1789. Found this too:


Yes, some candidates in some years do better in rural vs urban areas, and others don't. Shocking. And you really love to hand pick your data -- I know there are plenty of charts from earlier elections showing results strongly correlating with precinct size. I've seen them.

Way to completely change the subject, by the way.

----------


## Danan

> Would you happen to be an "Austrian Economist" by any chance. Actually, my guess is they don't know anything about Austrian economics in Austria. Could that be true?


I study economics in Austria and sadly it's true that my professors are more into Keynes than Hayek. =)




> BTW, I never agreed with tremendoustie's age example. If you simply plot age, then age will of course be a diagonal. What I suggested to plot is "Support for Ron Paul" which is actually what was originally proposed. The way to estimate that is by "donations to Ron Paul".


I'm talking about support too and so was he.

From what we know Ron does better with younger voters than with older ones. I plotted a little graph with made up data of how it could be:



Edit: I changed the graph. Errors corrected and changed the data to make my point more clear.

This graph shows that if Ron does better with younger folks and we add them cumulative beginning from the youngest we will se a slope and no flat lines at the end. That is was tremendoustie said. And if precincts are in fact strongly correlated to a certain demographic this would mean that plotting the date like we do it here must show a slope for certain candidates (assuming the demographic effects the voting behaviour like age for example does).

For example if this were a county with only three precincts and all people from 0-40 live in the smallest precinct A, everyone from 41-60 in precinct B and the older folks in the largest precinct C (in my made up data the 41-60 group is the biggest, but nevertheless) this would mean there is a perfect correlation between voter age and precinct size and thus the lines would have the very same slope.

Hypergeometric distribution is only true for perfectly random data sets. The big question here is: Is the precinct size correlated with other demographics? If yes then it's perfectly fine to see slopes.

But even this wouldn't answer the question why this occurs in some counties and not in others and why the "victim" changes and other curiosities.

----------


## RonRules

> I know there are plenty of charts from earlier elections showing results strongly correlating with precinct size. I've seen them.


Yes, Louisiana is a fine example, dating from 1988. Go find the charts and post them so we can all have a good laugh.

----------


## RonRules

> I study economics in Austria and sadly it's true that my professors are more into Keynes than Hayek. =)


Wow, that was a good hunch I had!




> Hypergeometric distribution is only true for perfectly random data sets.


I don't think the data needs to be perfect. In fact NO election data is purely random or perfect. Precinct size, from all accounts is a great independent variable.

Get real data, not fabricated data and you'll find that real data flat-lines against Cumulative Precinct Vote Tally, because precinct size is almost a perfect independent variable.

----------


## RonRules

Fictitious data is fictitious.

We've always said that you had to have sufficient data points in order to "call" a flat line. Three points is just not enough.

But even with 100 points of totally random support for Romney/Paul, we see that the chart stabilizes, with reduced oscillations and has no definite trend up or down. That you can call a flat-line.

For small data sets, that's what you want to see:




Otherwise, particularly for large data sets, it's likely to be fraud.

----------


## Danan

> Wow, that was a good hunch I had!
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the data needs to be perfect. In fact NO election data is purely random or perfect. Precinct size, from all accounts is a great independent variable.
> 
> Get real data, not fabricated data and you'll find that real data flat-lines against Cumulative Precinct Vote Tally, because precinct size is almost a perfect independent variable.


Well the rules of hypergeometric distribution do apply to perfectly random samples. But of course the more independent precinct size is in terms of correlation with other demographics the closer should the result resemble what you would expect from perfectly random samples.

The big disagreement between you and tremendoustie is obviously whether or not precinct size is indeed an independent variable. And for me it seemed that you guys were talking past one another. Because if you believe - like tremendoustie does - that it is not the case, than it's obvious that it sounds rather dull to say that the slopes *have to* flat line. On the other hand if you believe - like you do - that precinct size is (more or less) perfectly independent clearly there shouldn't be any odd slopes.

The big question is: Is it the case and what is the best way to prove this. I know that some work has been done on this subject but I've got the feeling that this is an essential aspect of your analysis.

Because if I wanted to play devil's advocate I'd say that there is a correlation and the fact that you couldn't find the demographic that explains everything yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

----------


## Danan

Edit: Whatever =)

----------


## drummergirl

> I study economics in Austria and sadly it's true that my professors are more into Keynes than Hayek. =)
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about support too and so was he.
> 
> From what we know Ron does better with younger voters than with older ones. I plotted a little graph with made up data of how it could be:
> 
> 
> ...


Nice graph and some good points.  But what we see with actual election results are hundreds, if not thousands, of data points.  So even if the data are not perfectly random, the hypergeometric distribution rules should hold.  It's the same math political scientists have been using for many years to predict the election outcomes on election night.  In fact, ordering the precincts from smallest to largest is close to the way they come in on election night (that's just because it's easier to count a smaller number of ballots and wrap things up at the polling place).  If the lines didn't normally go flat, news organizations wouldn't call elections with only 10% of the vote counted.

There's even a famous "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline from the Chicago Tribune in 1948 because the polls and early results from the east coast states were not predictive of the actual election outcome at the 95% confidence level.  (In the trib's defense, Truman won 3 critical states by only a few thousand votes, so it was a squeaker)

Precinct size has never been a demographic variable before, so it would be very odd for it to be a factor in 2012.

----------


## RonRules

> Because if I wanted to play devil's advocate I'd say that there is a correlation and the fact that you couldn't find the demographic that explains everything yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


Yes I did find the demographic! I charted 33 demographics as a function of Cumulative precinct size and got flat lines! One was a small upward curve, which I attribute to fraud.

----------


## RonRules

> Edit: Whatever =)


Is that a Hitler mustache smiley? Being that you're from Austria ...

----------


## dsw

> I do not leave out random selection.  You continue to focus on this bizarre idea that precinct size is a demographic variable; it's not. Please stop dredging up the same thing over and over.


No, precinct size isn't a demographic variable.  But look at what I actually said:  "Precinct vote total is a variable. It can correlate with other variables, including demographic variables. When you sort on a demographic variable you can introduce a bias. When you sort on a variable that correlates with a demographic variable you can introduce a bias."

Do you deny that precinct vote total is a variable?  Obviously it is.

Do you deny that it can correlate with other variables?  Including demographic variables?  We've seen enough examples that I doubt you can deny this.

If you were to sort on a demographic variable, obviously you could introduce a bias.  The sort of bias that would make any of the statistical tests that assume random selection inapplicable.

But if precinct vote total can correlate with a demographic variable, even though it isn't a demographic variable itself, then sorting on precinct size can also introduce a bias.  And when that happens, any statistical test that assumes random selection is not applicable.  You can run the calculation but the result will be bogus.

When you say things like "when you get to a sample size of 25%, even if the sample were not completely random, it's such an enormous sample size that it should not matter at a significant level" ... you're not doing math.  A mathematical theorem either applies, or it doesn't.  You don't just bump up some value and say that's pretty big so even though the necessary conditions for applying the theorem weren't satisfied we can just apply the theorem anyway and the condition that wasn't satisfied shouldn't matter all that much.  

Sorting by precinct size is not guaranteed to approximate random selection.  Precinct size isn't a demographic variable, but demographic variables aren't the only variables that can correlate with election results or correlate with demographic variables, etc.   A correlation like that can introduce a selection bias.  And when you introduce a bias in the selection, the statistical tests that assume random selection don't apply, and cumulative graphs aren't guaranteed to flatline even without fraud.

----------


## drummergirl

> No, precinct size isn't a demographic variable.  But look at what I actually said:  "Precinct vote total is a variable. It can correlate with other variables, including demographic variables. When you sort on a demographic variable you can introduce a bias. When you sort on a variable that correlates with a demographic variable you can introduce a bias."


ummm... you do realize that "precinct size" and "precinct vote total" are synonyms in this discussion?






> Do you deny that it can correlate with other variables?  Including demographic variables?  We've seen enough examples that I doubt you can deny this.


There has yet to be a consistently demonstrated correlation between a demographic variable and precinct size.  It's been tried 6 different ways to Sunday without success.




> If you were to sort on a demographic variable, obviously you could introduce a bias.  The sort of bias that would make any of the statistical tests that assume random selection inapplicable.


yes; that's why it is relevant that demographics arguments have been debunked repeatedly.





> When you say things like "when you get to a sample size of 25%, even if the sample were not completely random, it's such an enormous sample size that it should not matter at a significant level" ... you're not doing math.  A mathematical theorem either applies, or it doesn't.  You don't just bump up some value and say that's pretty big so even though the necessary conditions for applying the theorem weren't satisfied we can just apply the theorem anyway and the condition that wasn't satisfied shouldn't matter all that much.


And here I thought you were an engineer.

As I've said many, many times, this is the same math that's been applied to elections for a very long time (if anyone knows the history of mathematics well enough to give a date, it would help.  I just know it predates 1948 and mom didn't know the answer either)

----------


## dsw

> Nice graph and some good points.  But what we see with actual election results are hundreds, if not thousands, of data points.  So even if the data are not perfectly random, the hypergeometric distribution rules should hold.


You can't select with a bias and just use more points to make up for it.  If you select with a bias, and make a prediction (or expect the graph to flatten) based on a biased sample, your prediction may not be accurate.  The tests you want to apply assume that the sample looks like the overall population, but if your sample is biased then by definition it doesn't look like the overall population.  




> It's the same math political scientists have been using for many years to predict the election outcomes on election night.  In fact, ordering the precincts from smallest to largest is close to the way they come in on election night (that's just because it's easier to count a smaller number of ballots and wrap things up at the polling place).  If the lines didn't normally go flat, news organizations wouldn't call elections with only 10% of the vote counted.


You obviously believe this, but it's simply not true.  News organizations don't call elections based on just whatever votes come in first.  If they do they won't have accurate predictions because the math assumes random selection and the smallest precincts may not be representative.  Taking a sample size of 10% or 20% or 30%, with biased selection, doesn't let you apply the math that only works for random selection.  

When a news organization projects an outcome "with 3% of the vote in" or whatever, they aren't just looking at the results from the first precincts.  They often call it before any precincts have reported.  They're looking at exit polls, which are not necessarily taken at the precincts that report first.  They often augment those with the most recent telephone polls prior to election day (especially if early and absentee voters are numerous).  They may do new telephone polls on the day of the election.  But even then they don't just count up the votes and report the percentage. They look at the samples they have, look at their model for what the overall population of people who turned out to vote is expected to look like, and make adjustments to try to approximate random selection.

Why?  Because they know that the math only works with random selection.  Here's the first hit that turns up on google for "exit poll methodology": http://surveys.ap.org/exitpolls/ 






> Precinct size has never been a demographic variable before, so it would be very odd for it to be a factor in 2012.


Precinct size (number of votes cast) is not a demographic variable because it's not about a characteristic of the population.  One definition of "demographic variable" is "A varying characteristic that is a vital or social statistic of an individual, sample group, or population, for example, age, sex, socioeconomic status, racial origin, education."  

The only reason the number of votes cast is not a demographic variable is that it's not about a characteristic of a person or group of people.  You seem to have some other definition in mind.

Other kinds of variables that aren't demographic variables can correlate with election results.  Campaign strategies, for example.  How much money a candidate spent on ads in an area is not a demographic variable, but it's a variable that might (or might not) correlate with election results.  There was a claim made over on dp that super brochure saturation at the precinct level correlated positively with Ron Paul's percentage of the vote.  That may be true, but percent saturation of a super brochure mailing isn't a demographic variable.  Demographic variables aren't the only kinds of variables that can correlate with election results.  

Sorting by any variable that is not independent of the variable you're measuring will make all of the statistical tests that require random selection invalid.  It doesn't matter if the variable is a demographic variable, such as age or sex or race or religion or income or whatever.  If you are selecting with a bias, and making a prediction (or expecting the graph to level off) based on a biased sample, you're doing bogus math.

----------


## dr.k.research

> I...made up data of how it could be.


Made up data? What world are you really from? Is your entire purpose merely to undermine this investigation into election fraud? What are you afraid of?

----------


## drummergirl

> You obviously believe this, but it's simply not true.  
> When a news organization projects an outcome "with 3% of the vote in" or whatever, they aren't just looking at the results from the first precincts.  They often call it before any precincts have reported.  They're looking at exit polls, which are not necessarily taken at the precincts that report first.  They often augment those with the most recent telephone polls prior to election day (especially if early and absentee voters are numerous).  They may do new telephone polls on the day of the election.  But even then they don't just count up the votes and report the percentage. They look at the samples they have, look at their model for what the overall population of people who turned out to vote is expected to look like, and make adjustments to try to approximate random selection.
> 
> Why?  Because they know that the math only works with random selection.  Here's the first hit that turns up on google for "exit poll methodology": http://surveys.ap.org/exitpolls/


"margin of error" is a statistical term with a specific meaning.  The basics of descriptive statistics haven't changed for 2012.  And, fwiw, we are NOT talking about polls and their predictive ability; we are talking about actual ballot counts.  I don't have to guess at what the mean is going to be; I can punch in the numbers and calculate it.  You keep twisting my words to suit your purposes; are you sure you're not actually a lawyer? 






> Precinct size (number of votes cast) is not a demographic variable because it's not about a characteristic of the population.  One definition of "demographic variable" is "A varying characteristic that is a vital or social statistic of an individual, sample group, or population, for example, age, sex, socioeconomic status, racial origin, education."


Exactly.




> Demographic variables aren't the only kinds of variables that can correlate with election results.


LOOK; something new.  So, now that you're having to back down on demographics, you're grasping at a new straw.




> Sorting by any variable that is not independent of the variable you're measuring will make all of the statistical tests that require random selection invalid.


If precinct size is not an independent variable here, then that actually raises even more questions.

----------


## RonRules

Here's another example of cumulation at work and how the resulting chart flat lines. It's another type of demographic, this time Household Income. 

I wanted to chart _precinct_ household income but didn't find data. Instead I'm using _county_ income and cumulating that up to state income.

In this chart we see that the county population is not a very good predictor of household income. Just like precinct size is also not a good predictor of what a candidate scores.



Even with the relatively small number of points, you can see the effect the cumulation and how the line becomes horizontal. That's because there's very little dependency between the X-Axis and the Y-Axis in the above chart.


So as you can see, in the case of Michigan (or anywhere else for that matter), the size of the county has very little to do with the average income in that county. You will find that this is also the case, in precincts more specifically, for the percentage of votes a candidate gets. 

Imagine if a candidate success diverged (sloped up) from Cumulative County Size line, you'd have to wonder what's going on. 

That's why (most) of us are finding very odd that Romney is sloping up as a function of Cumulative precinct size.

----------


## dsw

> LOOK; something new.  So, now that you're having to back down on demographics, you're grasping at a new straw.


(This was in response to:  "Demographic variables aren't the only kinds of variables that can correlate with election results.")

I'm not sure why you think that's something new when what I wrote before was:  "Precinct vote total is a variable. It can correlate with other variables, including demographic variables. When you sort on a demographic variable you can introduce a bias. When you sort on a variable that correlates with a demographic variable you can introduce a bias."

Precinct total is a variable that can correlate with election results.  It's not a demographic variable, but it can correlate with other variables including demographic variables.  So obviously demographic variables aren't the only kinds of variables that can correlate with election results.

I also previously gave the example of campaign spending as a non-demographic variable that can correlate with election results.  Look at the claim made about the super-brochure in an article over on dp.  The claim was that the % saturation in a precinct correlates with more votes for Ron Paul.  (http://www.dailypaul.com/216686/supe...the-vote-proof)  The % saturation of a brochure in a precinct isn't a demographic variable, but it could correlate with election results.  

So when I say "demographic variables aren't the only kinds of variables that can correlate with election results" I'm not saying anything I haven't said previously.  Another time I made the same point was when someone suggested that if precinct vote total might correlate with election results then pollsters and the like would have to include that variable in their analysis; that's just a misunderstanding of basic statistics so there's no need to rehash the whole thing here, it's just to point out that I've been making this same point for quite a while in response to people who seemed to think that demographic variables are the only kind of variables that can correlate with election results.





> If precinct size is not an independent variable here, then that actually raises even more questions.


If demographic variables can correlate with election results, and precinct vote total can correlate with demographic variables, then it would not be surprising in the slightest to find that sometimes precinct vote total can correlate with election results.

----------


## drummergirl

> (This was in response to:  "Demographic variables aren't the only kinds of variables that can correlate with election results.")


Could you possibly use any more words to say nothing?

It's been said that if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.

----------


## TheGrinch

So let me get this straight. Variables, which by definition are wild-cards, align perfectly as an excessively frequent constant to give a perfect slope that always favors Romney and is often at the expense of as little as 1 candidate, with no reason or proof to suspect or show that could be the case, and so perfectly in many cases where it's able to defy and outperform demographics or any other explanation?

Wow, you anti-flippers are doing a bang-up job here

----------


## RonRules

Negaflippers.

----------


## dr.k.research

> You might ask the person you reach if they know anything at all about statistics.  You need to make sure they don't.  It's very important that they don't understand that your test assumes that the subset you're analyzing (the absentee ballots) are selected randomly from the overall population.  They need to be ignorant of the fact that absentee ballots don't look like a random sample.!


What is your basis? Where is your proof?




> but tend to skew toward elderly voters and in other ways that could favor Romney.  That alone makes your calculation bogus....


Big claim--what if you're wrong?




> hey also need to have not seen any of the articles noting that Romney has very deliberately (and with a lot of money) targeted early and absentee voters.  (You want to get as many people to vote absentee-ballot as you canit saves money and banks votes, says Rich Beeson, Romneys political director. So no matter what happens in the last week you have votes in the bank they cant take away.





> There have actually been quite a few articles about this, so you may need to find someone who hasn't been paying attention to the primaries.
> Good luck!


Well, I had some luck in proving you wrong. 

And it is true that you speak a bit of truth, enough to confuse people. So, here is a debunk of your attempted debunk. First, it is true that Romney has encouraged early voting, for instance, as follows:

Romney may already have victory in the bag. His campaign has spent one million dollars on mailings to the state. His mailers have urged voters to fill out absentee ballots. The Florida election commission reported today that nearly a half million absentee ballots have been requested. Over 200,000 have been turned in so far.

But does anyone really believe this will result in a landslide of 75% or more of all absentees being cast for Romney?

Lets look at some actual reports:

Virgiinia: Romney also took the absentee ballot vote by eight votes, 20-12.  

Note: thats a 62.5 to 37.5% split. Source:  http://www.shenvalleynow.com/index.p..._warren_county

Then, theres this: The Stryker Precinct totaled 145 (52.34 percent) votes for Romney, and 132 (47.65 percent) for Ron Paul. A total of 64 absentee ballots were cast, 37 for Romney and 27 for Paul.  

Note: thats a 58.0 to 42.0% split, which is essentially the same as the final reported results for Virginia. Source:  http://flathatnews.com/2012/03/06/vi...ult-live-blog/

(also, more data against your "bogus" claim is found here: http://www.earlyvoting.net/)

Thus, the minimum amount of expected percentage of Dr. Pauls Wisconsin absentees would be 11%, the amount allowed by Wisconsin exclusive of vote fraud. 

Results of  ARE statistically impossible. RP's 1.6% IS evidence of ballot tampering. That's what's bogus. So, what is your purpose, here, to support the vote riggers? 

Now, off to prove it.

----------


## RonRules

*New Site Forces Riggers to Update Past Results Using Affidavits for Ron Paul, while Keeping Honest the Upcoming Primaries*
http://www.dailypaul.com/228436/all-...ulvotecountorg

Hard-Core Proof of Your Vote, Citizen Exit Polls, and More!!

Attention all voters who ever voted for Dr. Paul AND ESPECIALLY voters in upcoming primaries: CT, DE, NY, RI, and PA.

OK. You know the drill. You know we’ve been cheated out of votes. Now, it’s time to do something about it. Announcing, www.ronpaulvotecount.org. It’s all done for you. Download and print out your court-verifiable affidavit. Go vote (okay if you already voted), record your precinct or ward. Then, click the “voting affidavit” bar at www.ronpaulvotecount.org, fill in the precinct/ward, county, state, and then upload the your digitized affidavit. It’s that simple. Now, your vote counts as court-verifiable proof against fraud.

Do this in all upcoming primaries and caucuses. Get the word out. It’s easy. If manning a campaign table at the polls, print of extras and give to everyone voting for Ron Paul. Post this, everywhere. Let’s file our notarized paper ballots—our affidavits--and put stop to the fraud, once and for all.

Our top mathematicians have proven that votes are being stolen, Alabama and South Carolina being the most glaring examples. In Iowa Karl Rove himself presided over the fraud. Do you doubt it for a second? This is happening in every state in America.

Do this also for states where you have already voted. Make your vote count with a notarized affidavit. If anyone has any doubt, look at what happened with Edward L. True. His one affidavit brought the entire Iowa GOP to it's knees over a 20 vote discrepancy because he filed a witness affidavit. Suddenly, the leader was no longer in the lead, all because of a single man’s sworn statement.

If one man can stop fraud through this system, imagine what an ARMY of Ron Paul supporters and do. The vote riggers will be FINISHED. Some will even go to JAIL! Be brave, like Edward L. True. Let's do this and get our paper ballots counted in full public view.

Note: for the lover of anonymity there is a function to protect you. It's all safe, made by hard-core DP'rs. There is also a function for exit pollers to upload their results. There is a "Witness Affidavit" button, to swear regarding what you have seen: evidence of fraud. It's there to centralize the proof against fraud in one place.

http://www.ronpaulvotecount.org/fron...0affidavit.pdf

For the form you need to conduct an exit poll for upcoming primaries see also: www.healthfreedom2012.com

----------


## RonRules

Recent update from Bev Harris (Black Box Voting) Posted on Sunday, April 15, 2012 - 3:48 pm:   	      
"Have been studying an interesting anomaly in election/vote records, and have obtained related source code which shows alteration from the originally intended functioning of the voting system. 

It is a small amount of source code and an MS Access table that it interacts with. I'm writing up my concerns on this matter and providing context for it. 

It's written in SQL. It will be posted this week. Pass it along to any SQL programmers you may know. I will also post other computer data related to this issue. Check back for updates by April 20. 

-- Bev Harris

----------


## RonRules

Continued story posted on Thursday, April 19, 2012 - 6:25 pm:   	      
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/mess...tml?1334887863

SUMMARY: Details on Shelby County, Tennessee alteration of its Diebold voting system. They inserted a completely different program (not from Diebold at all) which alters the way the system works. Documents show that *fully half of White suburbs are now processing information in a different way than the rest of the county*, and that this selective and unusual processing has been taking place for at least four years. The alterations made to the system are illegal almost everywhere in the USA and automatically render their $600,000 voting system decertified, although they will claim that they don't need to use a certified system. One man, who does not work for Shelby County, has been given almost unprecedented access to the system. The alterations allow them to customize how party affiliation is coded, creating different party identifiers in White, Black, and mixed counties. I have posted a few documents, like the work order, in the article and will post several more, including a little bit of related source code, this weekend. 

SHELBY COUNTY'S VOTING SYSTEM ALTERATIONS MAKE IT UNCERTIFIED AND UNAUTHORIZED UNDER ANY FEDERAL STANDARDS 

(Remember when I suspected that the "Ballot Configuration File" could be changed once, and having an effect on many machines) 

....

The Diebold/ES&S/Dominion "GEMS" system assigns a number to each political party. For example, Democrat = "1", Republican = "2", Nonpartisan = "3". The system then knows that a ballot or candidate tagged "1" will be a Democrat, "2" a Republican, and so forth. Imagine, then, the fun you could have if you could tell the system, "but in THIS precinct, let's switch those numbers so "1" is Republican and "2" is Democrat. 

These party ID numbers are never seen by the voter or by any poll worker. They are internal ID numbers which tell the computer how to identify each political party. 

*In the Diebold GEMS system, the county IT guy sets this ID number just once. It is a global value, and is automatically the same for every precinct in the county.* In fact, let me just show you what the party ID table looks like for the whole county: 

Democrat - 1 
Republican - 2 
Nonpartisan - 3 

See how simple this is? Imagine now, that you take a completely separate program that didn't even come with the Diebold system, and was written by someone else, and instead had it do this: 

Precinct 1 - Democrat = (assign your own number) 
Precinct 1 - Republican = (assign your own number) 
Precinct 1 - Nonpartisan = (assign your own number) 
Precinct 2 - Democrat = (assign your own number) 
Precinct 2 - Republican = (assign your own number) 
Precinct 2 - Nonpartisan = (assign your own number) 

That's what Shelby County has done.

....


So here comes an interesting anomaly: In the 2008 presidential primary, and in the 2010 primary/general, *half the White suburban precincts reported voters two or three times.* But only in these outlying precincts, almost all of them White, and never in the city of Memphis. 

(Come again?) 

For example, in Memphis precincts you get a report like this: 

Participating voter list 
Mary Brown 
Alex Johnson 
Shane Rodman 

But in half of the White outlying precincts, you get this: 
Martha Smith 
Tom Williams 
Brad Nelson 
Martha Smith 
Tom Williams 
Brad Nelson 
...


Read the full article here:
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/mess...tml?1334887863

----------


## drummergirl

> By the way, the ESM Accenture tables (before Wolfe's customization) probably apply to other states, like Wisconsin, as well. 
> 
> They had an ill-performing voter list system that got them in a lot of hot water, with some states like Colorado kicking them out and squabbling over their bill. Apparently they no longer service Shelby County either, and Shelby County executed a contract to buy their source code.


So... the source code is a secret unless you pay to buy it.  Can anyone say, "bait and switch"?  I thought you could

----------


## Liberty1789

More useful context on Shelby County (=Memphis) here:

Shelby Lawlessness

----------


## Liberty1789

I knew that I had some charts on Shelby County, TN, somewhere. As usual, X-axis cumulative share of votes cast sorted by ascending precinct size:



According to Memphis Daily News, "Shelby County began using Shouptronic voting machines in 1986 and first began using some Diebold machines in 1998."

So, debunk or not debunk? Demographics at work, or something else, or any combination of the two?

----------


## drummergirl

> So, debunk or not debunk? Demographics at work, or something else, or any combination of the two?


I think the demographic of the votes in white suburban precincts counted twice would be an interesting one to breakdown

----------


## RonRules

Hey Liberty, I love your multicolored single trace chart that shows Shelby's gain.  Did you do that with LibreOffce or Excel?

BTW, I'd love to see more of your standard Cumulative charts, but with the 99/99.9% confidence bound overlays. I really need that chart for a presentation on Friday this week. You had made only one for a non-flipping county. I'd like to see one where Romney busts through the confidence bounds.

Thanks in advance.

----------


## RonRules

> More useful context on Shelby County (=Memphis) here:
> 
> Shelby Lawlessness


From the above article:
"'Two Week Bank Robbery in Process'

Harris wrote that "after 2 weeks of legal stalling they let us see 20 percent of [the] poll tapes [the records printed out by the electronic voting machines before and after close of polls, as signed by poll workers] yesterday but after those were found to be in - uh - 'disarray' they shut down any further inspections."

*"This is basically like watching a 2 week bank robbery in process,"* she typed."

I also note that getting the Poll tapes is trying to pull teeth. To this day, I have not received a single poll tape form any of the 2012 Presidential Primaries.

Please! That's important.

----------


## RonRules

How flippant it is of Romney to flip in a state like Connecticut, where he had a clear advantage.



Clearly, the fix was already in and they can't remove it. I predict that he will still be flipping in all remaining states even though he is now the "presumptive nominee" A flip in Utah will be a particular hoot!

----------


## RonRules

New York will take another 10 days or so. They don't want to provide preliminary data.

Rhode Island coming up!


Edit: Rhode Island will take a while, their data is in this weird JSON format. I asked them to provide a more normal format.

http://www.ri.gov/election/results/2..._primary/data/

----------


## drummergirl

> Clearly, the fix was already in and they can't remove it. I predict that he will still be flipping in all remaining states even though he is now the "presumptive nominee" A flip in Utah will be a particular hoot!


Another important piece in the puzzle

----------


## LibertyIn08

> New York will take another 10 days or so. They don't want to provide preliminary data.
> 
> Rhode Island coming up!
> 
> 
> Edit: Rhode Island will take a while, their data is in this weird JSON format. I asked them to provide a more normal format.
> 
> http://www.ri.gov/election/results/2..._primary/data/


jSon is actually a preferred format to XLS if you're doing programming.

http://ramblings.mcpher.com/Home/excelquirks/json should be a useful reference point into arranging the data as you need in Excel.

----------


## RonRules

Here's a rather lame chart form Delaware, but Mitt is flipping nonetheless. He's still batting 1,000. What's the odds?



Here's the data source: http://elections.delaware.gov/result...off_kwns.shtml (More detailed data is formatted weird)

----------


## Liberty1789

> Hey Liberty, I love your multicolored single trace chart that shows Shelby's gain.  Did you do that with LibreOffce or Excel?


Excel. Looks like 1 line but you actually have as many lines as colors. Always adored data visualization. The bible is Tufte's "Visual Display of Quantitative Information". Must read.

----------


## RonRules

Attention Delawareans!  Please be aware!

Delaware is one of the rare states that provided absentee ballots seperated by precincts. PLEASE DEMAND THAT from all your election officials! If you have that data, please PM me ASAP. 

Look at how specific the fraud is with Romney Absentee ballots. He is specifically flipping up his votes and flipping down Ron Paul's absentee ballots, without disturbing Grinch and Santo.


If this were some slick Romney GOTV campaign for absentee ballots as suggested previously, you would see  a proportional drop on all the other candidates. It's almost like someone (or a machine) specifically traded Ron Paul votes for Romney votes, while leaving the others untouched.

Remember each vote represents a person taking the time to drive or walk to submit a single vote. Each vote is precious. Let's figure out the cause of this outrageous fraud.

Here's the Walk-Ins: 


This last chart indicates that the fraud is not effected only through absentee ballots. Both Walk-Ins and Absentee are affected independently.

Here's the data:
http://elections.delaware.gov/results/html/stwres.shtml

----------


## RonRules

A friend of mine replied about the Delaware results by e-mail:
I think using the proper terminology is important because corporate media has completely confused the issue by running stories on Voter Fraud (which is almost nonexistent) while avoiding the real story of Election Fraud.  I suggest using the word "*tampering*."  If people who vote learn how easily their vote can be tampered with in the tallying process, they quickly realize something has been taken from them.  Elections are not stolen from candidates; *they are stolen from We, The People*.

----------


## drummergirl

> Excel. Looks like 1 line but you actually have as many lines as colors. Always adored data visualization. The bible is Tufte's "Visual Display of Quantitative Information". Must read.


adding to my reading list...

----------


## drummergirl

Holy hotcakes Batman!




> Attention Delawareans!  Please be aware!
> 
> Delaware is one of the rare states that provided absentee ballots seperated by precincts. PLEASE DEMAND THAT from all your election officials! If you have that data, please PM me ASAP. 
> 
> Look at how specific the fraud is with Romney Absentee ballots. He is specifically flipping up his votes and flipping down Ron Paul's absentee ballots, without disturbing Grinch and Santo.


 


> It's almost like someone (or a machine) specifically traded Ron Paul votes for Romney votes, while leaving the others untouched.


Almost?  Almost only counts in hand grenades and horseshoes.  If that was any more obvious, it would come with a tag saying, "Election bought by..."

----------


## RonRules

Here's Allegheny County PA, where Pittsburgh is located.

Note how pathetic it is that Ron started off at about the same point as Santorum and Santorum ended up beating us, while of course having pulled out several days earlier. I REALLY need to see the absentee ballots in PA!


Where's "parocks" when you need him.

----------


## kathy88

> Here's Allegheny County PA, where Pittsburgh is located.
> 
> Note how pathetic it is that Ron started off at about the same point as Santorum and Santorum ended up beating us, while of course having pulled out several days earlier. I REALLY need to see the absentee ballots in PA!
> 
> 
> Where's "parocks" when you need him.


I can get the ones from my county but it's very rural... they are posted on the doors at the polling places. I can't do it until the weekend, it's a huge county.

----------


## RonRules

This had me do a double-take and re-checked everything. 

Can you believe that Santorum beat Ron Paul last night in PA? 

Forget that Romney is flipping like crazy, yet he has no need to.

Look at this: *Santorum beat Ron Paul, statewide!*



The very early results posted on the PA thread showed Santorum leading and I attributed that to Absentee ballots. Then I took a lot of screen shots from CNN and Santorum was not listed. But behind it all Santorum was leading over Ron Paul!

What is wrong with these voters!? Didn't Santorum bail out, with plenty of media attention some 5 days prior?
Edit: *Santorum pulled out on April 10, a full 14 days prior to the elections in PA.*

I was so unsure about those results that I took a screen shot of the PA Dept of State to confirm:



This has got to be the most pathetic thing I've seen in all these elections. 147,096 people voted for Rick Santorum. Is this election completely rigged to the point that they're trying to demoralize us. What is wrong with people?!

----------


## drummergirl

IMO, it shows just how weak Romney's support really is.  If he'd stayed in, Santorum would have probably won PA.  That, or the sucker is at work here too and couldn't be turned off.  Unfortunately, the delegate races here are not clear cut like Alabama's, so using the delegate races as a check will be tougher.

----------


## RonRules

> IMO, it shows just how weak Romney's support really is.  If he'd stayed in, Santorum would have probably won PA.  That, or the sucker is at work here too and couldn't be turned off.  Unfortunately, the delegate races here are not clear cut like Alabama's, so using the delegate races as a check will be tougher.


That's a good point, but I also considered that they may have done a switcheroo in the "Ballot Configuration File", switching Ron Paul with Santorum.

It's also weird that RP is totally flat-lining, Gingrich is sloping down, yet Ron Paul is above Gingrich. That would be a first!

I'll look at the delegates.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> A friend of mine replied about the Delaware results by e-mail:
> I think using the proper terminology is important because corporate media has completely confused the issue by running stories on Voter Fraud (which is almost nonexistent) while avoiding the real story of Election Fraud.  I suggest using the word "*tampering*."  If people who vote learn how easily their vote can be tampered with in the tallying process, they quickly realize something has been taken from them.  Elections are not stolen from candidates; *they are stolen from We, The People*.


Yes but this is exactly how msm is permitted to reframe the issues every single time. How long are folks going to continue to follow that herd? It's election fraud. Nothing else. ( assuming it's the case). You can't continue to let these minions reframe the issues.

Frank Luntz would be proud of these sheep who comply with the hegelian principle those in the media dictate.

Election fraud is the correct term. Call it what it is.

----------


## RonRules

Here's a little sleepy county in Northwestern PA, where Ron Paul did pretty good (16%).



http://www.votewarren.org/detail2k7....nited%20States

Because it's a small county, the "hinge point" or ("Crime occurs here point") occurs at about 60% of the vote for Romney. The largest precinct had 221 votes.

Notice how Ron (mostly) flat-lines (compared to Santorum) even though he's above 10%. That's odd.

Look at Santorum's line. The more and more I look at these PA charts, I think the Santorum's name and Ron Paul's names were switched in the Ballot Configuration File.

I can see Santorum flat-lining with the same proportion of absentee ballots in each county.

If you live in PA, please demand a recount. Please get those voting machines in safe storage until someone with technical competence can look at them.

----------


## RonRules

Hey check this out: 

*The Amish aren't flippers!* 

(I will bet some tasty bait that they don't use central tabulators and probably all vote and count by hand)


Data source:
http://ice1.co.lancaster.pa.us/EmpIC...et=menu&rcat=F


Compared to say the folks from Bucks county PA:


Data source:
http://buckscountyelections.org/Dist...pfv=Republican

----------


## dr.k.research

> Attention Delawareans!  Please be aware! Delaware is one of the rare states that provided absentee ballots seperated by precincts. PLEASE DEMAND THAT from all your election officials! If you have that data, please PM me ASAP.


Everyone, this is a CLEAR anomaly. It will be found that the absentees were rammed over to Romney. We just have to work like mad to prove it. Will launch an OP-ED on this shortly. Do go down and get the absentee rolls, they are called in Wisconsin, for instance, "Absentee Applications Ballot Log," and provide the names and addresses of all absentee voters. Secure these. Post, here, which ones you have secured. Let's get them for all of Delaware. Will go after all Delaware absentee voters; put them in touch with RR.

P.S. I have received some of these rolls already by email (for Wisconsin) by request. So far, Brookfield and town of Fulton, with Greendale Village promised.

----------


## RonRules

> *The Amish aren't flippers!*



I just got off the phone with Lancaster, PA. They use Hart voting machines as well as a central tabulator from the same manufacturer: http://www.hartintercivic.com/

The lady I spoke to (Dianne Skilling) is in charge of the Central Tabulator. She swore 100% that she never let that PC ever connect to any network. They use memory cards from voting machines (Hart) that are also never connected to the internet. 

I have looked at the procedures from Hart and these guys seem pretty thorough.

Here's all the counties in PA that I have done thus far:
http://s269.photobucket.com/albums/j..._PA/?start=all

----------


## drummergirl

In other words, no ES&S and no SOE...  more pieces fitting in like the fingers in a glove.




> I just got off the phone with Lancaster, PA. They use Hart voting machines as well as a central tabulator from the same manufacturer: http://www.hartintercivic.com/
> 
> The lady I spoke to (Dianne Skilling) is in charge of the Central Tabulator. She swore 100% that she never let that PC ever connect to any network. They use memory cards from voting machines (Hart) that are also never connected to the internet. 
> 
> I have looked at the procedures from Hart and these guys seem pretty thorough.
> 
> Here's all the counties in PA that I have done thus far:
> http://s269.photobucket.com/albums/j..._PA/?start=all


EDIT: just to clarify, that would not be an OJ Simpson glove

----------


## MelissaCato

What do you have for Lebanon County Pa?

----------


## RonRules

Here's a couple more counties form PA:

Centre county, aptly named because it's in the Center of PA is an interesting flipper:


I did Dauphin county strictly because I like the name. Nothing to see here, move along little fishies:

----------


## RonRules

> What do you have for Lebanon County Pa?


Yes I do special requests, but 

1) Their data sucks. It's summary only, no precinct level stuff so I can't make charts. 
http://www.lebcounty.org/Documents/EL45.HTM
 Call'm and give e'm hell.

2) I get paid with +reps.

----------


## RonRules

> In other words, no ES&S and no SOE...  more pieces fitting in like the fingers in a glove.


Hart is ALL American, Austin TX based. Unless you think Texas is a different county.

----------


## Aden

I don't think there is anything fishy about Santorum performing better than Paul in PA.  Remember that Santorum was a senator in PA for awhile.

Any idea of Douphin County connects to the central tabulator?

----------


## RonRules

Please tell me that Santorum votes were switched with Ron Paul:

----------


## RonRules

> I don't think there is anything fishy about Santorum performing better than Paul in PA.  Remember that Santorum was a senator in PA for awhile.
> Any idea of Douphin County connects to the central tabulator?


I will not accept that people in PA are that stupid to vote so strongly to a guy that had pulled out a full two weeks before. Even Rick Perry voters were not that stupid.

BTW, I was being facetious implying that Dauphin was fine. Those lines MUST be flat. Dauphin is too a flipping county.

Call up Dauphin and find out. 

BTW Dauphin has the absolutely slickest website to display election results. great color maps, etc., but it was all a waste because Romney swept everything.
https://gis.dauphincounty.org/election/

----------


## RonRules

I've got another flat liner in PA. They're closed for the day, but I'll find out tomorrow what kind of equipment they use.



They were also nice enough to provide absentee ballot information.



Here's why I'am HIGHLY suspicious here. Santorum got about the same percentage of votes though his Absentee count and election-day Walk-In count.  People in PA KNEW that Santorum had been out for a full 14 days in advance. (Santorum suspended his campaign on April 10). 

Because there was so much time for Santorum voters to be informed *I would expect Santorum to do MUCH worse on election day than on Absentee ballots* .

If the blue line was actually Ron Paul votes, then it all makes sense.

Be aware that the sample sizes are very small for absentee ballots: (That's for the entire county)
Romney: 117
Gingrich:	17
Paul:  	13 
Santorum:	62

----------


## kathy88

> In other words, no ES&S and no SOE...  more pieces fitting in like the fingers in a glove.
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: just to clarify, that would not be an OJ Simpson glove


You crack me up a lot

----------


## RonRules

Here's to put things in perspective:

Herman Cain suspended his campaign and after that was Iowa. *Herman got 0.04% of the vote.*

Rick Perry suspended his campaign and after that was New Hampshire. *Rick got 0.7% of the vote.*

Michelle Bachmann suspended her campaign and after that was New Hampshire. *Michelle got 0.1% of the vote.*
(Can't find a single vote for Bachmann after she pulled out for Minnesota, her home state)

John Huntsman suspended his campaign and after that was South Carolina. *John got 0.19% of the vote.*

Rich Santorum suspends his campaign and a full two weeks after *he gets 26% of the vote in Lawrence County PA? (18.4% statewide)*

And you want me to believe that!!!

----------


## kathy88

Nothing to see here, move along.

Truthfully, he was pretty hated here when in the Senate. Biggest defeat ever when he lost his seat. It does seem hard to believe.

----------


## drummergirl

Papa always said if it sounds too good to be true it most likely is.  And hold on to your wallet. 





> Nothing to see here, move along.
> 
> Truthfully, he was pretty hated here when in the Senate. Biggest defeat ever when he lost his seat. It does seem hard to believe.

----------


## drummergirl

How did Ron Paul do on delegate votes?

----------


## RonRules

> How did Ron Paul do on delegate votes?


Pretty good according to this guy:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article958...-has-zero.html

----------


## RonRules

We have a list of Ron Paul delegates in PA here:
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/04/2...nia-delegates/

We have the data for all the delegate races in (Allegheny County) here:
http://www.county.allegheny.pa.us/el...04pri/el52.htm

I can match up Ron Paul delegates with the delegate races.

Does anybody have a similar list for Romney, Santorum and Gingrich so I can match up the rest of the names?

I could chart delegates and I think this could be just as much fun as Alabama!

Imagine the endless discussions about Romney outrunning his own demographics in PA and everywhere else!

----------


## drummergirl

Technically, all the delegates are unpledged.  

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2012/...any-candidate/

but some declare who they are for, and campaigns pass out slates of who to vote for.





> We have a list of Ron Paul delegates in PA here:
> http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/04/2...nia-delegates/
> 
> We have the data for all the delegate races in (Allegheny County) here:
> http://www.county.allegheny.pa.us/el...04pri/el52.htm
> 
> I can match up Ron Paul delegates with the delegate races.
> 
> Does anybody have a similar list for Romney, Santorum and Gingrich so I can match up the rest of the names?
> ...

----------


## Scott_in_PA

> Does anybody have a similar list for Romney, Santorum and Gingrich so I can match up the rest of the names?
> 
> I could chart delegates and I think this could be just as much fun as Alabama!
> 
> Imagine the endless discussions about Romney outrunning his own demographics in PA and everywhere else!


This will not work.

I went to dinners and worked the polls all day. Most people don't know what a delegate is.

They just pick a name the know...or think they know.

Look at cd18. We had 3 names and one of us had the #2 ballot pos and another had #8 and me #9.
We are not well known. #2 and #9 recieved ~6000 votes but #2 got ~14000 votes.
The people must have just liked his name or thought, hey I know a "Dougherty"

Also you will see ~60000 votes for a Congressional Rep in cd18 but the highest vote for delegate was ~23000

----------


## drummergirl

That just plain sucks.




> This will not work.
> 
> I went to dinners and worked the polls all day. Most people don't know what a delegate is.
> 
> They just pick a name the know...or think they know.
> 
> Look at cd18. We had 3 names and one of us had the #2 ballot pos and another had #8 and me #9.
> We are not well known. #2 and #9 recieved ~6000 votes but #2 got ~14000 votes.
> The people must have just liked his name or thought, hey I know a "Dougherty"
> ...

----------


## KingNothing

> Nothing to see here, move along.
> 
> Truthfully, he was pretty hated here when in the Senate. Biggest defeat ever when he lost his seat. It does seem hard to believe.


He was hated.  But so was Bush, and 35-percent of the electorate nation wide still supported him when his approval rating was at its lowest.  Put some time between a vote and a candidates low point, and I'm sure his approval rating will rise.


It's completely insane to think that Santorum wouldn't pull a decent amount of votes in Pennsylvania.

----------


## Liberty1789

As per RonRules' request

----------


## RonRules

[QUOTE=Liberty1789;4382467]As per RonRules' request



Thank you so much Liberty, just in time for UCR!

----------


## RonRules

> This will not work.


I want to see, even with your explanation, if we chart the delegate results randomly on the X-Axis compared to charting based on Cumulative Precinct size if anything will show up.

My guess is that the candidate will be flipping, but not the delegates.  That's why I really need to know for which candidate all the PA delegates are pledged to. 

Please help with on that for Alegheny County, where I've got good data.

Thanks.

----------


## Aden

> If the blue line was actually Ron Paul votes, then it all makes sense.


How?  The red line is the same in absentee and primary.  If red lines are supposed to be Santorum, and your theory is correct, the red line should have a higher percentage in absentee than primary.  

I agree with you on everything else.  Just not the Santorum in PA thing.  The guy was was senator in the state.

----------


## Liberty1789

> That's why I really need to know for which candidate all the PA delegates are pledged to.


Technicallly, the PA delegates are unpledged and unbound. Some have declared their allegiance, some are unclear/unknown/unmasked, etc...

The best mapping I could find, on a pro-Gingrich website, is below:

**************************************************  ******************
FULL LIST OF PENNSYLVANIA CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT DELEGATE CANDIDATES
**************************************************  ******************
CD 1 (Vote for 3)
Taxin, Marion (2008 alternate) [ROMNEY] {endorsed by county GOP in Delaware/Philly}
Vogler, Christopher [ROMNEY] {endorsed by county GOP in Delaware/Philly}
Boggia, Tom [PAUL]
Untermeyer, Michael
Anton, Frederick (2008 delegate) [ROMNEY]
Kerns Jr., Dale [PAUL]
**************************************************  ******************
CD 2 (Vote for 3)
Tucker, Calvin
Harris, Lewis [ROMNEY] {endorsed by county GOP in Philly/Montco}
Vogler, Walter [ROMNEY]
Lang, Adam [ROMNEY] {endorsed by county GOP in Philly/Montco}
Gureghian, Vahan [ROMNEY] {endorsed by county GOP in Philly/Montco}
ALTERNATE Koren, Seth [PAUL]
**************************************************  ******************
CD 3 (Vote for 3)
Sergi, Michael [PAUL]
Lange, Carl [GINGRICH]
English, Philip [ROMNEY]
Lindsey, Travis [PAUL]
Mustello, Michele (2004 alternate)
Pepper, Jean (2000 alternate)
Metcalfe, Daryl (State Rep.)
Salorino, Joe [PAUL]
Adametz, Paul
**************************************************  ******************
CD 4 (Vote for 4)
Wingert, Lisa [ROMNEY]
Gerow, Charlie [GINGRICH]
Hoffman, Eric [GINGRICH]
Gillispie, Marilyn (2008 delegate) [SANTORUM]
Roberts, Elizabeth [PAUL]
Zentmeyer, Deborah [ROMNEY]
Bair, Barbara [NO RESPONSE]
Talley, Dave [PAUL]
Wingert, Kenneth (2004 delegate) [ROMNEY]
Parsley, Thomas Byran [PAUL]
Keys, Deborah [ROMNEY]
Brown, Emily [GINGRICH]
Matthias, G [SANTORUM]
Hoang, David [UNDECIDED, BUT SAYS HE LIKES ASIANS LOL]
Habacivch, William [UNDECIDED, DISLIKES ROMNEY AND PAUL]
Stewart, Dick (2008 delegate) [UNCOMMITTED, LONGTIME RNC MEMBER]
Doller, Suzanne C. (2008 alternate) [PAUL]
Grippi, Antonio [NO RESPONSE, BUT RUMORED TO BE FOR PAUL]
ALTERNATE Cotton, Derek [PAUL]
ALTERNATE Garry, Dave [PAUL]
ALTERNATE Nagle, Chad [PAUL]
ALTERNATE Shoemaker, Seth M. [PAUL]
**************************************************  ******************
CD 5 (Vote for 3)
Styn, Mary
Martin, Thomas [PAUL]
Haas, Joyce (possible establishment ties?) [SANTORUM?]
Corman, III, Jacob [SANTORUM]
Brown, Thomas G. [PAUL]
Mitchell, Lee A. [PAUL]
ALTERNATE Brady, Mark R. [PAUL]
**************************************************  ******************
CD 6 (Vote for 3)
Spadt, Jonathan [ROMNEY OR POSSIBLY SANTORUM OR DISTRICT WINNER]
Schroder, Curt (State Rep.) [GINGRICH]
Costello, Ryan [ROMNEY]
Duffy, Philip G. [PAUL]
Bender, Edmund (Berks County Patriots Member) [UNKNOWN]
Leban, Sean [PAUL]
Whitman, Byron [PAUL]
Kearney, Janice [UNCOMMITTED, LEANING TOWARD GINGRICH] [petition under challenge?]
Gerlach, Jim [ROMNEY]
ALTERNATE Doyle, Mary Louise [UNCOMMITTED, SOUNDS LIKE SHE DOESN’T LIKE GINGRICH]
ALTERNATE Cutillo, Jonathan [PAUL]
ALTERNATE Peppel, Brian [UNCOMMITTED, LEANING TOWARD DISTRICT WINNER]
ALTERNATE MacQueen, Norm [UNCOMMITTED, LEANING TOWARD DISTRICT WINNER]
**************************************************  ******************
CD 7 (Vote for 4)
Cocco, Michael [PAUL]
Willert, Robert [ROMNEY?] {endorsed by county GOP in Delaware}
Grande, Joe [PAUL]
Owens, David [PAUL]
Lewis, Andy [ROMNEY?] {endorsed by county GOP in Delaware}
Sellers, Patrick Henry [PAUL]
Booker, Patricia [ROMNEY?] {endorsed by county GOP in Delaware}
Puppio, Michael [ROMNEY?] {endorsed by county GOP in Delaware} (2008 Delegate)
ALTERNATE Wood-Jacobs, Katherine
ALTERNATE Kocher, Patrick G. [PAUL]
ALTERNATE Salvucci, Elizabeth
ALTERNATE Egan, John
ALTERNATE Paracchio, Nicholas [PAUL]
ALTERNATE Boyle, Michael P. [PAUL]
ALTERNATE Welsh, Carolyn [ROMNEY]
ALTERNATE Moffa, Rocco [PAUL]
**************************************************  ******************
CD 8 (Vote for 4)
Przybylski, Anastasia (endorsed by Kitchen Table Patriots) [DISTRICT WINNER]
Rosato, Ernest [PAUL]
Merritt, John (endorsed by Kitchen Table Patriots) [GINGRICH]
McCabe, Daniel (endorsed by Kitchen Table Patriots) [GINGRICH]
DiGirolamo, Joe [ROMNEY] {endorsed by county GOP in Bucks}
Serdula, Donna [PAUL]
Loughery, Robert [ROMNEY] {endorsed by county GOP in Bucks}
Puig, Ana (endorsed by Kitchen Table Patriots) [GINGRICH]
Dinan, Charles [PAUL]
Poprik, Patricia [ROMNEY] (2008 delegate) {endorsed by county GOP in Bucks}
Pao, David (2000 alternate)
O’Neill, Bernie (State Rep.) [ROMNEY] {endorsed by county GOP in Bucks}
Pepe, Rob [PAUL]
ALTERNATE Ciervo, Robert L. (endorsed by Kitchen Table Patriots)
ALTERNATE Pepe, Eileen [PAUL]
ALTERNATE (endorsed by Kitchen Table Patriots) Rumbold, Andrew [PAUL]
ALTERNATE Schaefer, Kevin [PAUL]
ALTERNATE (endorsed by Kitchen Table Patriots) Stottlar, Justin [PAUL]
**************************************************  ******************
CD 9 (Vote for 3)
Burkholder, Mary [UNCOMMITTED] (Has solid conservatives values and is a non-politician)
Shuster, Bill [ROMNEY]
Smith, Joan [PAUL]
Thomas, Bob (2008 delegate)
Epps, Meryle-Lynn [PAUL]
Ward, Judy [UNCOMMITTED] (A solid conservative, son is in the Navy, a non-politician. Judy is not sure if she will vote for District or State Winner, but wants the “People” to vote.)
Cruder, Audra [PAUL]
Hess, Dick (State Rep.)
Geist, Richard (State Rep.)
Alloway, II, Richard [SANTORUM]
Kagarise, Wade
Campbell, Allan (1996 delegate) [UNDECIDED, LEANING TOWARD GINGRICH]
ALTERNATE Comfort, Bernadette
ALTERNATE Ward, Judy [UNCOMMITTED, see above]
ALTERNATE Brown, Mark [PAUL]
ALTERNATE Schooley, Travis [PAUL]
ALTERNATE Gambol, Patricia [PAUL]
**************************************************  ******************
CD 10 (Vote for 3)
Cipolla, Anthony [PAUL]
Harris, Mark [DISTRICT WINNER]
Sides, Carol
Price, James T. [PAUL]
Saylor, Pat (2008 delegate)
Brobson, Robert
Wilson, Aaron [PAUL]
ALTERNATE Price, Nancy E. [PAUL]
**************************************************  ******************
CD 11 (Vote for 3)
McPherson, Randolph [GINGRICH]
Harrison, Michael [PAUL]
Etzweiler, Debra
Evans, Kathy
Urbanski, William [GINGRICH]
Ely, Donald [ROMNEY]
Reichley, Evan [SANTORUM]
Haste, Jeff [ROMNEY]
Henry, Lowman [GINGRICH PROBABLY?]
Gordner, John (State Senator) [ROMNEY]
Cusat, Jeffrey
Henry, Scott
Anderson, Michael [PAUL]
Piccola, Jeff (State Senator) [ROMNEY]
Zapach, Joseph [PAUL]
ALTERNATE Anderson, Holly [PAUL]
**************************************************  ******************
CD 12 (Vote for 4)
Laporta, Stephen [GINGRICH THEN SANTORUM THEN ROMNEY]
Pavlick, Jeannette [DISTRICT WINNER, HAS SOLID CONSERVATIVE POSITIONS]
Wilson, Ann [NO RESPONSE]
Cooper, Jill [DISTRICT WINNER]
Majernik, David [DISTRICT WINNER]
Gleason, Jane (Daughter of Bob “Gunner” Gleason. Bob is the Chairman of the Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania.) [SANTORUM OR POSSIBLY UNCOMMITTED NOW]
Fromme, Christopher [SANTORUM OR POSSIBLY DISTRICT WINNER NOW, ALSO LIKES PAUL]
Turzai, Lidia (2008 delegate) [DISTRICT WINNER, HAS SOLID CONSERVATIVE POSITIONS]
Boreland, Lawrence [PAUL]
McMullen, Mike (2008 delegate) [GINGRICH]
ALTERNATE McMullen, Mike (2008 delegate) [GINGRICH]
ALTERNATE Kennedy, Sarah
ALTERNATE Pruchnic, Carol [ROMNEY]
**************************************************  ******************
CD 13 (Vote for 3)
Donnelly, William [ROMNEY]
McMonagle, Michael (2008 delegate) (President of Pro-Life Coalition PA in Lansdale) [SANTORUM OR NOT ROMNEY]
Ellis, Thomas [ROMNEY]
Salvi, Michael Anthony [PAUL]
Yates, Brandon [PAUL]
Boyd, Edward [UNCOMMITTED, ACTIVE TEA PARTY CONSERVATIVE]
Barrilli, Robert
Gilber, Steven J. [PAUL]
ALTERNATE Hennelly, John [PAUL]
ALTERNATE Odhner, Chad [PAUL]
ALTERNATE Fishburn, Shaun [PAUL]
**************************************************  ******************
CD 14 (Vote for 3)
Meloy, Mary Ann
Wander, Joshua [GINGRICH]
Roddey, James [ROMNEY]
Brajovic, Melina [PAUL]
Pfeifer, Carl [UNCOMMITTED](has no preconceived plans based on the District or State winner)
Yanovich, Jared [PAUL]
Haluszczak, Melissa [UNCOMMITTED]
ALTERNATE Maul, Andy [PAUL]
ALTERNATE Sheets, James [PAUL]
WRITE-IN Destro, Tony [PAUL]
**************************************************  ******************
CD 15 (Vote for 3)
Smith, Robert (2008 alternate)
Day, Gary (State Rep.) [petition under challenge]
Carroll, Thomas
Metrick, Michael [GINGRICH]
Simao, Antonio [UNCOMMITTED] (his vote would only deviate if there is a brokered convention, which means he is genuinely open to all the candidates) [petition under challenge]
Browne, Pat [ROMNEY, SWITCHED FROM SANTORUM?]
Blickman, Ellen [PAUL]
McElwee, Charles [GINGRICH PROBABLY?]
Eckhart, Glenn
Diamond, Russ [PAUL]
Piotrowski, Rich [PAUL]
ALTERNATE Felix, Patricia [UNCOMMITTED] (a solid conservative but probably not Paul because of his stance on the military)
ALTERNATE Donatelli, Chris [PAUL]
ALTERNATE Lax, John [PAUL]
ALTERNATE Schulberger, Todd [PAUL]
**************************************************  ******************
CD 16 (Vote for 3)
Brubaker, Michael [ROMNEY] {endorsed by county GOP in Lancaster}
Walker, Robert [GINGRICH]
Sheaffer, Evgenia [PAUL]
Sheaffer, Ben [PAUL]
Womble, Ann [ROMNEY] {endorsed by county GOP in Lancaster}
Frick, Clifford [GINGRICH]
Miller, Rodney [UNCOMMITTED]
Gibson, Andrew [PAUL]
Dumeyer, David [ROMNEY] {endorsed by county GOP in Lancaster}
ALTERNATE Schnee, Marilyn [DISTRICT WINNER]
ALTERNATE Bradley, Ben [PAUL]
ALTERNATE Lawrence, John
ALTERNATE Lafauci, Daniel [PAUL]
ALTERNATE Demme, Ethan [DISTRICT WINNER]
ALTERNATE Scoppettuolo, Jason [PAUL]
**************************************************  ******************
CD 17 (Vote for 3)
Antonello, Anthony M. [PAUL]
Manko, John [PAUL]
Daub, Daniel (2008 delegate) [ROMNEY]
Spano, Charlie [GINGRICH]
McAndrew Spano, Mary Rose [GINGRICH]
Kerr, Robert [ROMNEY]
Miller, Trent [PAUL]
Sterns, Gretchen [SANTORUM PROBABLY?]
Gaetano, Rose Ann [SANTORUM]
Montero, Maria [ROMNEY]
Thomas, Scott
Dougherty, Mary Beth [ROMNEY, SWITCHED FROM GINGRICH?]
Roces, Eltgad
Mezzacappa, Tricia [GINGRICH PROBABLY?]
ALTERNATE Sheeler, Greg [PAUL]
**************************************************  ******************
CD 18 (Vote for 4)
Steeber, Charles [GINGRICH]
Morreale, Steven [PAUL]
Uram, Thomas (2008 alternate)
Means, Sue
Means, Jim
Oliverio, Louis
Hatton, Meryl
Dougherty, Brian [PAUL]
Garsteck, James [PAUL]
Stopperich, Sonia
Silvis, Mary Jo (2008 delegate)
Wells, Jay
Disarro, Joseph
ALTERNATE Garsteck, James [PAUL]

----------


## RonRules

That's the kind of list I was looking for. I know they are officially "unpledged" but I wanted to know what was the stealth allegiance they had. I should be able to make charts with what you just posted.

Won't be for another 24 hours though.

I'm expecting better data from Rhode Island, so don't break your balls with their crazy JSON format. NY is coming also.

A friend, who happens to be an executive in the Cal Democratic party would like to see more 2008 charts affecting Obama. I had made one for Cuyahoga county OH. He wants to see a lot more.

Thanks.

----------


## RonRules

This document was recommended to me if you're interested in the (History) of Election integrity:
"Election Administration in the United States"1934, by Joseph P. Harris, Ph.D.
http://www.nist.gov/itl/vote/josephharrisrpt.cfm

----------


## drummergirl

wow!  The contrast is spectacular!

----------


## tremendoustie

Comparing with a hypergeometric distribution would be a good way to show that the slope isn't simply random -- but nobody's saying that -- in fact, it's quite obviously not random. I can't imagine anyone would say you'd get a slope like that simply by randomly sampling a population.

In general, the "cumulative" chart is a distraction, providing no additional  information, and adding only complication/confusion. The same relationship can  more simply be shown just as a chart of % candidate support vs. precinct size. There is a slope, which is obviously not just noise. 

The question is: is there a real relationship between precinct size and voter preferences? Is the slope caused by actual voting trends, or some sort of scheme to commit fraud? Forget math -- this is the objection any who believe this relationship is due to fraud have to address in a logically sound way.

I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just trying to focus and simplify the issue ... I'm logging off now to go back to work.

----------


## drummergirl

> The question is: is there a real relationship between precinct size and voter preferences? Is the slope caused by actual voting trends, or some sort of scheme to commit fraud? Forget math -- this is the objection any who believe this relationship is due to fraud have to address in a logically sound way.
> 
> I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just trying to focus and simplify the issue ... I'm logging off now to go back to work.


That's actually quite easy to answer.  If there were a legitimate relationship between precinct size and voter preferences, it would be consistent.  It's not.  In Nevada, the "relationship" only exists in 2 counties (the 2 counties with 74% of the total votes).  Similarly, in South Carolina, New Hampshire, Iowa, Wisconsin, etc. The "relationship" is present in some counties and completely absent in others.  My favorite is Outagamie County, WI.  It has no flipping in spite of being a fairly large number of votes and demographically similar to it's flipping neighbors.  The only discernible difference is that Outagamie County does not use central tabulator software; instead they enter the election results by hand into Excel.

So, the bigger questions are these: if this "relationship" between precinct size and vote preference is not from fraud, what causes it and why does it completely disappear at times?

----------


## dr.k.research

> It's completely insane to think that Santorum wouldn't pull a decent amount of votes in Pennsylvania.


Insane?

Who in this universe would really think that, a week-plus after dropping out, a fact constantly reiterated in the news networks: then, 26%? Anyone who promotes--and tries to get us to believe it---is the really insane one.

----------


## drummergirl

There are no polls from after Santorum dropped out and before the primary, but the very idea that half of Santorum's supporters "missed the memo" and voted for him anyway is just bizarre.  Also, there ought to be a difference in the absentee ballots (many of which would have been filed before the Santorum drop).  Very, very strange numbers.





> Insane?
> 
> Who in this universe would really think that, a week-plus after dropping out, a fact constantly reiterated in the news networks: then, 26%? Anyone who promotes--and tries to get us to believe it---is the really insane one.

----------


## KingNothing

> Insane?
> 
> Who in this universe would really think that, a week-plus after dropping out, a fact constantly reiterated in the news networks: then, 26%? Anyone who promotes--and tries to get us to believe it---is the really insane one.


If Rick Perry's name were on the ballot in Texas he'd win in a landslide, even if he weren't actually running.

You underestimate voter stupidity and voter displeasure with the field of candidates.

----------


## KingNothing

> That's actually quite easy to answer.  If there were a legitimate relationship between precinct size and voter preferences, it would be consistent.  It's not.  In Nevada, the "relationship" only exists in 2 counties (the 2 counties with 74% of the total votes).  Similarly, in South Carolina, New Hampshire, Iowa, Wisconsin, etc. The "relationship" is present in some counties and completely absent in others.  My favorite is Outagamie County, WI.  It has no flipping in spite of being a fairly large number of votes and demographically similar to it's flipping neighbors.  The only discernible difference is that Outagamie County does not use central tabulator software; instead they enter the election results by hand into Excel.
> 
> So, the bigger questions are these: if this "relationship" between precinct size and vote preference is not from fraud, what causes it and why does it completely disappear at times?


And if the relationship exists in caucus states where votes were counted out loud and at location, what then?

----------


## NowCured

It's almost like KingNothing doesn't even read this thread he's posting in.

----------


## Scott_in_PA

I really don't think the, delegate vs presidential choice, is going to show much. Mrs. Means in cd18 was running as a state rep and she and her husband both did very well. She won the delegate race. Mrs. Silvis is very active in the party and Mr. Wells was a state rep and ran radio adds for his delegate slot. Believe me it was crushing to here his adds to and from work.

All of westmoreland county is here and seems ripe for the picking though.



```
	File Layout for Press File (Fixed Length)
	Start
Position	End
Position	Type	Field Description
	1	4	Character	Ballot Sequence Number
	5	6	Character	Party
	7	31	Character	Candidate Name
	32	37	Character	Candidate Votes
	38	42	Character	Percentage of Candidate Votes
	43	45	Character	Precincts In
	46	48	Character	Total Precincts
	49	65	Character	Office Titler
	66	85	Character	Office Area
	86	87	Character	Record Terminator
```

----------


## RonRules

> I really don't think the, delegate vs presidential choice, is going to show much.


What I want to see is if the delegates flat line. If the associated candidate with flips like flipper on a good day, then it's further ammunition down the road.





> All of westmoreland county is


I had a look at Westmoreland and the data format was pretty weird although it is well defined. I prefer doing counties that have data that's easy to use first. I'll get to it if you really need it or you live there and can follow up if it's a flipper.

Also, my day at UCRiverside went very well. Had a seminar with about 12 stats graduates and the dept Chairman. Don't know how much work they will do because they already have a lot to do and would probably need specific funding to undertake a large study. I gave them all my data, all 2Gb worth including charts, etc.

Went to the Poli-Sci dept and individually met three professors. Two were interested and I gave them my data. They also recommended other schools that may be more likely to work on the. (U of Michigan for example)

----------


## dr.k.research

> ...undertake a large study. I gave them all my data, all 2Gb worth including charts, etc.
> 
> Went to the Poli-Sci dept and individually met three professors. Two were interested and I gave them my data. They also recommended other schools that may be more likely to work on the. (U of Michigan for example)


This is beyond fantastic. It would be truly grand to publish a peer-review article on these irregularities, while simultaneously gathering up the final proof, that is of vote tampering at the central tabulator.

If it's only money, let's find out the costs, from two different institutions, and take it the next step. We millions of RonPaulers can surely raise the money, if we feeling strongly enough about the investigative group.

----------


## drummergirl

> And if the relationship exists in caucus states where votes were counted out loud and at location, what then?


Another good question.

The relationship does exist in caucus states like Iowa and Maine.  This is actually incredibly meaningful information.  It's what tells us that the problem is in the central tabulator (The computer at headquarters where all those hand counted and witnessed votes are added together).

And the poor souls who thought their votes were safe because they watched their neighbors and double checked the count are completely duped because the computer changed the numbers after they were put in.

----------


## drummergirl

> This is beyond fantastic. It would be truly grand to publish a peer-review article on these irregularities, while simultaneously gathering up the final proof, that is of vote tampering at the central tabulator.
> 
> If it's only money, let's find out the costs, from two different institutions, and take it the next step. We millions of RonPaulers can surely raise the money, if we feeling strongly enough about the investigative group.


+10 rep

----------


## RonRules

Hello NegaFlippers!  Let's see you explain THIS!

I have analyzed in great detail all the delegate races in PA as well as the State assembly, Congressional and Senatorial races, etc.  I'll be posting those shortly.

If you recall Allegheny county (home of Pittsburg) was definitely a flipper for Romney, as usual:



Now, have a look at the Delegate Republican races for the 14th district:



If the Candidate exhibit flipping, because it is argued that Demographics come into play, then why don't the corresponding Delegates match the sloped curves? Why are all the Delegates flat-lining?

Go ahead and explain that.

PS: Legend: _RPAUL (Ron Paul Delegate) _NGRICH (Gingrich Delegate) _MROM (Romney Delegate) _ (Uncommitted)

----------


## kathy88

Can't explain it. PA folks, come on, get Ron what he needs. Private message him and he will tell you exactly what he needs. Tell him your county so he knows it's being taken care of.

----------


## drummergirl

If that's not a dead canary in the mine shaft, I don't know what is.





> Hello NegaFlippers!  Let's see you explain THIS!
> 
> I have analyzed in great detail all the delegate races in PA as well as the State assembly, Congressional and Senatorial races, etc.  I'll be posting those shortly.
> 
> If you recall Allegheny county (home of Pittsburg) was definitely a flipper for Romney, as usual:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, have a look at the Delegate Republican races for the 14th district:
> ...


PS I'm working on a "Flipping Made Easy" paper for people who don't like math.

----------


## RonRules

Here's more flat lines for your enjoyment:



I want to thank Liberty1789 for finding that great delegate sheet on Gingrich's website. It was invaluable for assigning Delegate allegiance to Candidates.

I will reserve a delicious surprise for the end. (Something about stealth delegates!)

----------


## RonRules

Here's a couple of democrats. These two are running for Congress on the Democratic ticket.

----------


## RonRules

Here's a bunch of Democrats vying to go to Tampa:

----------


## RonRules

Republican Senator race:



The vote count is a bit low, but it certainly flat lines past 20%.

----------


## RonRules

Republican Congressman race:

----------


## drummergirl

Lines as flat as a pancake run over by a steamroller.

----------


## RonRules

Democrat Attorney General race:


Not exactly flat but certainly not Romneyesque.

----------


## RonRules

I think you get the idea by now, but I'm not done. There's a little jewel coming that I have to double check. Maybe tomorrow

----------


## RonRules

This one is kind of odd because the results are so close to each other.



BTW the data is here if anybody wan't to confirm my results:
http://www.alleghenycounty.us/elect/201204pri/el52.htm

Look for: Delegate to the National Convention 12TH DISTRICT (Towards the end) Notice how each candidate has about the same number of votes.

We'll let the Democrats worry about it.

----------


## Scott_in_PA

Dem Delegates (choose 8 on ballot) all have their presidential preferances listed, and all were for obama naturally.

You can view a sample ballot here for Westmoreland county. Allegheny would be similar. A dem would just go down the line and vote for all of them. I'm not sure what your PM would require of me, but let me know.

Most of the polling places are under 200 votes right ?
Does that fit your theory ?

----------


## RonRules

This one looks pretty odd:


It's the local assembly Republican Senator race. Only about 6,000 votes per candidate. I would not be surprised if there was a bit of ballot stuffing here.

----------


## RonRules

> Most of the polling places are under 200 votes right ?
> Does that fit your theory ?


The highest polling place count I saw was 202. Average more like around 40 or so.

The point at which the flipping starts may be a percentage of vote rather than a hard count. I have to study that more so I can see if I can predict things based on those stats.

I did not analyze Westmorland because of the screwy format. When I do and we see if it's a strong flipper I'll need the poll tapes form the output of the voting machines.

----------


## RonRules

More Democrat Delegates:



The green line is "Matt Smith". Not too sure why he curved weird like that, but it affected all others because the total has to be 100%

----------


## RonRules

I've analyzed all 285 candidates in Allegheny County. I found something interesting with three of them (charted, but not yet posted). 

A stealthy husband & wife team for example. You'll see tomorrow!

Nite nite!

----------


## KingNothing

> More Democrat Delegates:
> 
> 
> 
> The green line is "Matt Smith". Not too sure why he curved weird like that, but it affected all others because the total has to be 100%



THEY didn't want Smith to win!

----------


## KingNothing

> Another good question.
> 
> The relationship does exist in caucus states like Iowa and Maine.  This is actually incredibly meaningful information.  It's what tells us that the problem is in the central tabulator (The computer at headquarters where all those hand counted and witnessed votes are added together).
> 
> And the poor souls who thought their votes were safe because they watched their neighbors and double checked the count are completely duped because the computer changed the numbers after they were put in.


But the vote totals were read out loud at each caucus location.  And if there were differences between the actual totals and the reported, "centrally tabulated" total people would have noticed it.

Logically this doesn't entirely discredit your argument but it gives reasonable people pause for concern and reason to believe that the foundation of your entire argument is flawed.

----------


## drummergirl

> But the vote totals were read out loud at each caucus location.  And if there were differences between the actual totals and the reported, "centrally tabulated" total people would have noticed it.
> 
> Logically this doesn't entirely discredit your argument but it gives reasonable people pause for concern and reason to believe that the foundation of your entire argument is flawed.


I don't think you understand how election results are posted.  Do you check the math?  Do you go around to precinct chairs all around the state and collect their vote totals and add them up yourself and compare it to the reported total on the secretary of state website?  Does anyone do this?  No one does this.  They turn in the results to county or state officials (depending on where you are talking about) and sometimes they hang around to see what the totals are when their results are added with other precincts/counties.  WE ALL ASSUME THE COMPUTER KNOWS HOW TO ADD CORRECTLY.

Seriously, when was the last time you used a calculator for something and then checked the results by doing the math by hand? 7th grade math class maybe?

----------


## RonRules

Good morning little fishies. I have a couple of morsels of truth for y'all this morning. 

The PA 18th district delegate race looked fishy to me:


Note at how only two traces are flipping up on this chart. Well guess what, they are *Jim and Sue Means, husband and wife!*

You didn't even need to flip, but you're husband's race was a real squeaker! Good job.

Oh hai Sue! 

Did you happen to get a free ride on Romney's election stealth aircraft? What's the price for the tickets?

http://www.smartvoter.org/2012/04/24...ote/means_sa1/
(Does that look to you like a Liberty candidate? Where's the "End The Fed" priority? 

Hey Sue, what is *"LifePac"*?
http://www.lifepac.net/LIFEPAC_2012_APR.pdf
Look at the list of delegates on the flyer:

Paul Adametz -- Stealth Delegate
Richard Alloway -- Stealth Delegate
Jill Cooper -- Mitt Romney
Philip English -- Mitt Romney
Richard Geist -- Stealth Delegate
Christopher Fromme -- Stealth Delegate
Daryl Metcalfe -- Stealth Delegate
Dick Hess -- Stealth Delegate
David Majernik -- Stealth Delegate
Wade Kagarise -- Stealth Delegate
Mike McMullen -- Newt Gingrich
Bill Shuster -- Mitt Romney
Jeannette Pavlick -- Stealth Delegate
Bob Thomas -- Stealth Delegate
Lidia Turzai  -- Mitt Romney  (More about her in a little while)
Melissa Haluszczak -- Stealth Delegate
Brian Daugherty -- (misspelled) Ron Paul
Steven Morreale-- Ron Paul
Mary Ann Meloy -- Stealth Delegate
James Garsteck -- Stealth Delegate
Mary Jo Silvis -- Stealth Delegate
C. Edward Pfeiffer -- Stealth Delegate 
Jim Means -- Stealth Delegate (Mitt Romney?)
Sonia Stopperich -- Stealth Delegate
Josh Wander  -- Newt Gingrich
Sue Means -- Stealth Delegate (Mitt Romney?)
Michael Baker -- Mitt Romney
Bruce Erb -- Stealth Delegate
Sara Kennedy -- Stealth Delegate
Patricia Gambol -- Stealth Delegate
Mike McMullen -- Stealth Delegate
Bruce Kelley -- Stealth Delegate
Andy Maul -- Stealth Delegate
James Garsteck -- Stealth Delegate
Sonia Stopperich -- Stealth Delegate

So out of 35 recommended delegates only 2 are for Ron Paul!

Hey Sue, one more thing, if you are so *"Pro-Life"* why are you recommending five *Mitt Romney* delegates?


You'll all find this interesting:

I found this post from 4/25 on the Daily Paul: (http://www.dailypaul.com/228677/foll...legate-results)
"I volunteered at one of the larger polling places in Allegheny county all day passing out our delegate cards for CD-18. *Sue Means* was running for State Senate, but also as a delegate, and her husband was there all day as well. Needless to say we talked the entire day and *he said he was a strong Paul supporter*, agreeing with 90% of Paul's views..*[THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH]*...I did not ask him whether or not she agreed with most of his views as well. Looking back I can't believe I didn't even think to ask. She wasn't part of our delegate slate *[OH REALLY?]*, but hopefully she may be a closet Paul supporter like her husband *[PROBABLY NOT]*. She finished first in the district as a delegate. *[FOR WHOM?]*

Edit: Jim Means ran as a delegate too in CD18, finished 5th. CD18 elects 4 delegates. He was not on the alternate ballot. Could have been another possible delegate for Paul. *[LIKE NOT]*"



PS: I need to add that both Sue and Jim Means are State members of the GOP.
http://www.pagop.org/counties/allegheny-county/

It would be nice to see how the other 19 members did in their respective races.

----------


## KingNothing

> I don't think you understand how election results are posted.  Do you check the math?  Do you go around to precinct chairs all around the state and collect their vote totals and add them up yourself and compare it to the reported total on the secretary of state website?  Does anyone do this?  No one does this.  They turn in the results to county or state officials (depending on where you are talking about) and sometimes they hang around to see what the totals are when their results are added with other precincts/counties.  WE ALL ASSUME THE COMPUTER KNOWS HOW TO ADD CORRECTLY.
> 
> Seriously, when was the last time you used a calculator for something and then checked the results by doing the math by hand? 7th grade math class maybe?



Ummmm, remember Maine and how people found the absurdity of what actually did go on there?
You don't think people notice it in Iowa?

----------


## dsw

> I don't think you understand how election results are posted.  Do you check the math?  Do you go around to precinct chairs all around the state and collect their vote totals and add them up yourself and compare it to the reported total on the secretary of state website?  Does anyone do this?  No one does this.  They turn in the results to county or state officials (depending on where you are talking about) and sometimes they hang around to see what the totals are when their results are added with other precincts/counties.  WE ALL ASSUME THE COMPUTER KNOWS HOW TO ADD CORRECTLY.
> 
> Seriously, when was the last time you used a calculator for something and then checked the results by doing the math by hand? 7th grade math class maybe?


First, since it was a caucus, did the Secretary of State post them at all?   AFAIK the official results were only posted at the GOP web site. 

Second, they weren't just posted at the county level:
http://www.iowagop.org/2012%20Iowa%2...cusResults.xls
No calculator needed, just compare the precinct-level numbers directly.

Third, you say that "no one" checks the totals.  Here's an example of someone who did, and found a discrepancy:
http://www.watchthevote2012.com/AffidavitTrue.htm
(There were only 53 votes at that precinct so either the flipper theory needs tweaking or this was a non-flipper discrepancy.)  That's from a web site that was set up specifically to allow for this kind of checking.  Are you suggesting that after people went to the trouble of collecting the precinct-level vote totals, as witnessed and reported by Ron Paul supporters, they didn't follow through and compare those numbers to the official report?  That after the above affidavit forced the GOP to back down, and with all of the publicity surrounding it and the frontrunners separated by such a small amount, are you suggesting that they didn't go back and carefully check every single precinct they had reports from against the official results?   

Fourth, a lot of other people reported first-hand results, so even if it were plausible that all the flipped precincts went un-checked it's not too late.  For example, here's a first-hand report from the largest precint (which also had the largest total votes cast):
http://theiowarepublican.com/2012/li...-gop-precinct/
And another from the top ten:
http://sawandseen.wordpress.com/2012...ol-caucus-day/

And you can find lots more first-hand reports, especially if you're willing to dig into twitter and facebook.  Also first-hand reports in local newspapers.   I look forward to a flipper theory that involves a central tabulator flipping algorithm connected to the internet, cleverly deciding to flip only those precincts that were not being live-blogged, tweeted, facebooked or youtubed.




> The relationship does exist in caucus states like Iowa and Maine. This is actually incredibly meaningful information. It's what tells us that the problem is in the central tabulator (The computer at headquarters where all those hand counted and witnessed votes are added together).

----------


## dsw

Wow, you've totally uncovered election fraud on behalf of a homemaker from Bethel Park PA.  What's your theory here?  You probably want to come up with a theory that doesn't accuse her of being complicit in that election fraud, to avoid the potential of a libel suit.  Maybe tone down the "What's the price for the tickets?" kind of innuendo too.  Because, one, she's got a black belt in karate, and two, the libel thing.  Mostly the libel thing.   In case she googles her own name, for example.  

The link you included has her email address and other contact info.  If someone was manipulating the central tabulator on behalf of her and her husband to try to make sure that they were delegates (lets pretend that actually sounds plausible) she might want to know.  And you've got her on another graph too, in case you didn't realize it, in which she's losing votes to another candidate but for some unclear reason you thought that one might be ballot stuffing instead of flipping.  So you've discovered fraud in her favor, and against her, in the same election!   Or else you're wrong about the math and a graph that doesn't flatline doesn't prove fraud.  But you know *that's* impossible, so hey!  You've found a candidate who *on one ballot* has fraud working for her in one race and against her in another!  Awesome!




> Good morning little fishies. I have a couple of morsels of truth for y'all this morning. 
> 
> The PA 18th district delegate race looked fishy to me:
> 
> 
> Note at how only two traces are flipping up on this chart. Well guess what, they are *Jim and Sue Means, husband and wife!*
> 
> You didn't even need to flip, but you're husband's race was a real squeaker! Good job.
> 
> ...

----------


## RonRules

> http://sawandseen.wordpress.com/2012...ol-caucus-day/


Using your own links, here's some hilarious comments with very different numbers than the real results:

"My group picked an awesome caucus spot because Tagg Romney (son of Mitt Romney) and Jimmy Cushman (Newt Gingrich’s son-in-law) spoke on behalf of their father and father-in-law.  Both of them spoke from the heart    (or memory) rather than using a script which I thought was more moving for the attendants."

Romney's lover blog:

Romney – 190
Santorum – 87
Paul – 58
Gingrich – 48
Perry – 35
Bachmann – 16


The real numbers: (not from some Romney lover BS blog DSW likes to follow)
Romney – 160
Santorum – 87
Paul – 63
Gingrich – 48
Perry – 44
Bachmann – 8

This is where I get the results:
https://www.google.com/fusiontables/...d_ukX5t8qmJJtY

Another "honest" mistake?

----------


## dsw

Here are the official results:
http://www.iowagop.org/2012%20Iowa%2...cusResults.xls
The ones mucked up by the central tabulator, dontchaknow.  She says it's in Urbandale.  You cleverly searched in Des Moines which wasn't the name of the city, it was the name of the school where the caucus was held.  

A tiny bit of searching finds the actual location to be Polk county, Urbandale 11.  Hey, it's in the document you linked to also.   How 'bout that.  Hidden under "Urbandale."

All I did was google for people reporting the results from their caucus sites.  If you don't like that one, if you think maybe she went back and edited the numbers after the fraudulent results were reported to play her part in the coverup, then just go find as many more as you want. 

The counts were done in public, by manual counting.  You can find them in local newspaper reports, blogs, twitter, facebook, youtube, etc.  If the central tabulator was really mucking up the precinct numbers then it would be easy to prove it in Iowa. If you don't like the two I posted, you can find many, many more.  You could contact watchthevote and ask them why they collected all those first-hand reports and then either didn't check them or did check them and didn't report the fraud (because you know from the math that it *must* be fraud).   When you're done uncovering homemakers who have the central tabulator helping them become delegates.





> Using your own links, here's some hilarious comments and the vote results are nowhere to be seen on the real results:
> 
> "My group picked an awesome caucus spot because Tagg Romney (son of Mitt Romney) and Jimmy Cushman (Newt Gingrichs son-in-law) spoke on behalf of their father and father-in-law.  Both of them spoke from the heart    (or memory) rather than using a script which I thought was more moving for the attendants."
> 
> None of the DesMoine precincts show any of these numbers:
> 
> Romney  190
> Santorum  87
> Paul  58
> ...

----------


## RonRules

All 1775 Iowa precincts using the Google Fusion data table:


Looks the same as before.

----------


## RonRules

Time again for the Flipper song:
http://www.televisiontunes.com/Flipper.html

----------


## RonRules

> she's got a black belt in karate,




More about Sue:
I have also served as a volunteer in Girl Scouts and 4-H where I taught karate, *cake decorating*, ...dolphin behavior training ...


Imagine the female version of this:

----------


## dsw

What were you expecting?   BTW, if the flipping is under way by the 40,000 vote mark or so, based on your graph, then the flipping was being done for precincts with as few as 70 votes.  Is that right?   Because if that's true then you can find even more posted results that are after the "crime happens here" point.   Maybe the anomaly reported by Edward True (the affidavit I linked to) was an example of flipping!   

But of course there would need to be a lot more than just one.  Can you look at the data and estimate how many precincts would have to be "flipped" to make the graph look the way it does, based on your understanding of the "must flatline" math?   Because then you could estimate the percentage that were flipped.  Then you could calculate the odds that the central tabulator could flip enough votes to make the graph look the way it looks, in a state where the counts were done by hand and witnessed by many people (and reported, in many cases, via social media), and yet when you compare the numbers reported by those first-hand witnesses to the numbers out of the central tabulator the only discrepancy turns out to be this one http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9044 .  Now that would be an interesting calculation to see.




> All 1775 Iowa precincts using the Google Fusion data table:
> 
> 
> Looks the same as before.

----------


## RonRules

> bla bla bla
> the only discrepancy turns out to be ...


There were 1775 precincts in Iowa. 

Lurk moar.

----------


## dsw

> More about Sue:
> I have also served as a volunteer in Girl Scouts and 4-H where I taught karate, *cake decorating*, ...


And yet you've caught *someone* taking enough of an interest in her that she's being helped by election fraud in one race and hurt by election fraud in another race on the same ballot!   A homemaker caught up in a maelstrom of election fraud, and she probably doesn't even realize it.  

What's your theory here?  Did the team who planted the viruses that implement flipping in the central tabulators take a personal interest in her?  Did they finally hear about your proof of their scheme and implement this plan to try to implicate her?   Or did she track them down and go all Mr. Miyagi on their asses and force them to flip the delegate race in her favor, only to have them stab her in the back with good old-fashioned ballot stuffing that denied her the race she *really* wanted to win?   Or maybe you just don't understand the math and you're wrong about the graphs having to flatline without fraud ... but no, it can't be that, so *something* interesting is going on here!

----------


## RonRules

Coming next, maybe tomorrow:

----------


## KingNothing

> More about Sue:
> I have also served as a volunteer in Girl Scouts and 4-H where I taught karate, *cake decorating*, ...dolphin behavior training ...
> 
> 
> Imagine the female version of this:



HAHAHHAH!  YOU'RE RIGHT!   IT'S A MIDDLE AGED WOMAN WITH HOBBIES!  HAHAHAHAH IT'S EVEN MORE HILARIOUS THAN YOU MADE IT OUT TO BE!  I MEAN, WHO DOES SHE THINK SHE IS, BEING PHYSICALLY ACTIVE, AND A HOMEMAKER?!?  BBAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

What a pawn in the game of chess that the masters of our universe are playing she is!

----------


## dsw

> There were 1775 precincts in Iowa.


Yes, with reports from many of them reported first-hand by witnesses, because unlike the primary states these votes were counted at the precinct level manually, and publicly.   

It would be interesting to see someone with your prowess in the calculation of statistical odds estimate the odds that with so many precincts "flipped" at the tabulator and so many precincts reported independently by witnesses, only one of the flipped precincts was detected, the one reported by Edward True.

Except that if you look at the discrepancy reported by True, it's not flipping.  The total at the precinct level didn't agree with the total from the evil tabulator.  Romney's 2 actual votes got turned into 22 votes without the extra 20 being taken from another candidate.  

So zero.  Out of all the precincts where people reported the count via youtube or facebook or twitter or blogs or a reporter wrote it up for a local paper or whatever, what are the odds that the flipping algorithm seems to have managed to avoid all of them?  Is the virus a sentient AI that reads blogs and watches youtube and so on and knows which ones it can get away with flipping and which ones it has to leave untouched?   Or could it instead be that you don't understand what the math says about the graph needing to flatline without fraud ... oh but wait it can't be that, so it must be fraud.  The question is how that central tabulator did such a good job of hiding its tracks in Iowa.  Any theories?

----------


## Barrex

You are killing me. I said I will not post here again but.....



After few thousand of posts these threads are still without clearly set goal and a plan to achieve that goal.

(to be fair this is more or less a problem with entire forum and not just this thread).

----------


## affa

dsw -- if there is flipping going on, i seriously doubt they go in and program it 'per' race.  it's quite possible inconsequential candidates benefit by accident in separate elections.   ie, 'position 3 on the ballot', or somesuch.   is this what happens? who knows.  but it would easily explain why some odd choices in other seemingly unimportant elections get flipped.

personally, i'd rather we focused on presidential primaries, and other major races.

kingnothing- you've been asked by mods to leave the thread. please do.

----------


## affa

> Any theories?


Absolutely.  Your entire original persona was a sham, and you've now come fully out of the closet.     before, you just spun everyone in circles.  now you're much more obvious about your intent.

 hi there. nice to meet you.  always knew you were there.

----------


## dsw

> Absolutely.  Your entire original persona was a sham, and you've now come fully out of the closet.     before, you just spun everyone in circles.  now you're much more obvious about your intent.


And obviously that explains how the central tabulator in Iowa managed to flip only precincts that were not among the many precincts where the manual, public tally was reported by first-hand witnesses on youtube, facebook, twitter, blogs or local newspapers.  Well played.

----------


## RonRules

> only precincts that were not among the many precincts where the manual, public tally was reported


You showed us 3 out of 1775 precincts and two didn't match.

Please provide us with the remaining 1772.

----------


## RonRules

Sue is a PA State level GOP insider. She deserves our full attention. 

She also calls herself grassroots!  I wonder if she ever posts here in this grassroots thread?

Anyway, looking at her data I noticed that it seemed a little lumpy:



So I did a histogram:


Note which histogram is not normally distributed.

Brian in this chart is Ron Paul supporter and Delegate Brian P. Dougherty.

----------


## KingNothing

> You showed us 3 out of 1775 precincts and two didn't match.
> 
> Please provide us with the remaining 1772.


Didn't match?  Huh?  Really?  Didn't one of those that "didn't match" actually HURT Romney?


And, I hate that I have to say this again, but you're the one making the ridiculous claims.  YOU are the one who needs to provide evidence for the remaining 1772 precincts.

----------


## KingNothing

Bethel Park is a hotbed of political corruption, shady backroom deals and nefarious behavior.  This Sue lady is no doubt wrapped up in it.

----------


## RonRules

> Bethel Park is a hotbed of political corruption, shady backroom deals and nefarious behavior.  This Sue lady is no doubt wrapped up in it.


Don't forget the Registered sex offenders:
http://www.city-data.com/so/so-Bethe...nsylvania.html

And the terrorists:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...pg=2755,568828
http://local.netdoc.com/Extreme_Stre...l_Park_PA.html

----------


## dsw

> You showed us 3 out of 1775 precincts and two didn't match.
> 
> Please provide us with the remaining 1772.


What didn't match?  Do you mean the one where you ignored the precinct name, assumed that the name of the school where the caucus was held was the city name, and pulled some line out of something other than the official results and declared victory, and continue to do so even after I pointed out that the precinct actually is there in the data set you were using (as well as the official results), so long as you aren't looking at the wrong city?

Here's the point again, slowly.

You claim that there was flipping in Iowa at the central tabulator.

But the votes were counted manually, and with witnesses, and in many locations these results were posted on youtube, facebook, twitter, blogs, local newspapers, etc., and others were collected by watchthevote2012.  

In spite of a lot of people looking for discrepancies, the only one that turned up was the one reported by Edward True.  It wasn't a flipper, but the count was wrong (22 for Romney instead of 2) and the GOP had to admit it.   Of all the independent reports of the manual, public counts, only one turned out to differ from the central tabulator numbers.    So if a significant number of precincts were flipped, how did the flipping algorithm manage to avoid flipping the precincts that had independent reporting of the manual count via youtube, facebook, twitter, blogs, local newspapers, etc?

One possibility was that there was no flipping at the central tabulator.  There was one precinct where Romney's 2 became a 22, perhaps deliberately, but otherwise the independent reports and the certified numbers out of the tabulator agreed because ... well because it's hard to have massive fraud when the votes are counted manually, in public, and the numbers are reported at the precinct level.  

I'm not taking very seriously the suggestion that nobody checked. Contrary to a recent claim, the results were reported at the precinct level so no calculators were needed to untangle aggregated numbers.  And there were very deliberate efforts to collect data to do precinct-level verification, so it's not very credible to suggest that they collected the data then didn't bother checking it. Moreover when Edward True's affidavit came out, there were a LOT of motivated people reviewing those results to find other discrepancies. 

I think your best move here is the theory that the virus that does the flipping is a sentient AI that monitors facebook and twitter and youtube and so on, and that hacked into the watchthevote email account and into cell phones used to record counts and so on, so that it could flip just the precincts where there was no independent report of the public, manual count.  That would explain why only that one discrepancy was found, one that turned out not to be flipping anyway.   It would let you continue to believe that you understand the math and that graphs that don't flatline prove fraud.

EDIT:



> And, I hate that I have to say this again, but you're the one making the ridiculous claims. YOU are the one who needs to provide evidence for the remaining 1772 precincts.


Um, my "ridiculous claim" is that the independent reports of the public, manual counts at numerous precincts, via youtube, facebook, twitter, blogs, local papers, etc., agree (except for the E. True case where a 2 became a 22) with the central tabulator numbers because the central tabulator wasn't manipulating the vote.  It's hard to have massive fraud when the votes are counted at each precinct manually, in public, and reported in the official results with precinct-level data. 

You're the one claiming that there was flipping at the central tabulator *in spite of the fact* that not a single discrepancy turned up to support this theory.   If you estimate the number of precincts that had to be flipped to make the graph look the way it looks (given your idea of what the math says), and look at the number of precincts that had the manual, public count reported independently, you could calculate the odds that not a single one of those independent reports would turn out to have been made from one of the flipped precincts.   Then, since that would look like a debunk of the central tabulator flipper theory, you'd have to come up with an explanation for how the central tabulator flipper managed to flip enough precincts to make the graph look the way it does *without* having a single one of those precincts turn out to be one with independent reporting.  

Which of those is the "ridiculous" view?

----------


## dsw

> YOU are the one who needs to provide evidence for the remaining 1772 precincts.


I disagree.  If RR were right, then given how many independent reports of the manual counts were posted, and given how many precincts would have to have been flipped (according to the "not flatlining proves fraud" theory), finding a few discrepancies that show votes being flipped from one candidate to another would not only be easy, it would be sufficient to get national attention the way E. True's affidavit did.  

One wonders why none of the flippers want to go looking for such excellent evidence of the vote being manipulated between the time it left the precinct and the time it showed up in the certified results.  How often do you get to directly compare the results of a manual, public count and the output of the evil tabulator?   There's a lot of data out there ... unfortunately it ends up being a debunk unless you think that the central tabulator is somehow smart enough to only flip the precincts that don't have independent reports from witnesses of the manual counts.

----------


## RonRules

> bla bla bla
> 
> I think your best move here is ...
> 
> bla bla bla


I've got that part covered. Thanks for the offer to help.

----------


## dsw

And he doubles down.  RR you do know how to keep this thread entertaining.




> Sue is a PA State level GOP insider. She deserves our full attention. 
> 
> She also calls herself grassroots!  I wonder if she ever posts here in this grassroots thread?
> 
> Anyway, looking at her data I noticed that it seemed a little lumpy:
> 
> 
> 
> So I did a histogram:
> ...

----------


## dsw

> I've got that part covered. Thanks for the offer to help.


Actually you may not have noticed (or perhaps you're just hoping other people won't notice) but you haven't explained how the central tabulator could have flipped enough precincts to make the graph look the way it looks, and not have a single one of the many precincts that had the manual, public counts reported on youtube, facebook, twitter, blogs, local papers, etc., demonstrate via a discrepancy between the numbers going into the central tabulator and the numbers coming out that votes were being taken from one candidate and given to another.   Other than that ...

----------


## KingNothing

> Don't forget the Registered sex offenders:
> http://www.city-data.com/so/so-Bethe...nsylvania.html
> 
> And the terrorists:
> http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...pg=2755,568828
> http://local.netdoc.com/Extreme_Stre...l_Park_PA.html


"The number of registered sex offenders compared to the number of residents in this city is a lot smaller than the state average."  
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/so/so-Bethe...#ixzz1tZkNVe9p


For what it's worth, it's one of the most pleasant areas of Pennsylvania, let alone western PA.

But, by all means, go on and continue to disparage the character of a woman you've never met and an entire town.  It really adds credibility to your argument.

----------


## RonRules

> And he doubles down.  RR you do know how to keep this thread entertaining.


Triple whammy!


Mark Mustio strikes me as the honest one here.

----------


## KingNothing

> I disagree.  If RR were right, then given how many independent reports of the manual counts were posted, and given how many precincts would have to have been flipped (according to the "not flatlining proves fraud" theory), finding a few discrepancies that show votes being flipped from one candidate to another would not only be easy, it would be sufficient to get national attention the way E. True's affidavit did.  
> 
> One wonders why none of the flippers want to go looking for such excellent evidence of the vote being manipulated between the time it left the precinct and the time it showed up in the certified results.  How often do you get to directly compare the results of a manual, public count and the output of the evil tabulator?   There's a lot of data out there ... unfortunately it ends up being a debunk unless you think that the central tabulator is somehow smart enough to only flip the precincts that don't have independent reports from witnesses of the manual counts.


I sincerely believe that these people are not smart enough to grasp the magnitude of the "algorithm" existing in caucus states.  I've brought it up time and time again, and they've never even begun to seriously address it.  My guess is that they don't even know where to start.  All they can do is pull data and plug it into Excel.

----------


## dsw

> Triple whammy!
> 
> 
> Mark Mustio strikes me as the honest one here.


Interesting, because earlier you showed a graph in which his is the only line that rises, at the expense of your new nemesis Sue Means, and you called it ballot stuffing.  But now you're saying you think *he's* the honest one.  So someone else was stuffing the ballot box to help him, and the fraud is revealed from the non-flatlining cumulative graph ... but they were obviously clever about it because they did it in such a way that you can tell from the histogram that Mustio was the honest one, even though he was the one benefitting from the ballot stuffing.   




> This one looks pretty odd:
> 
> 
> It's the local assembly Republican Senator race. Only about 6,000 votes per candidate. I would not be surprised if there was a bit of ballot stuffing here.

----------


## RonRules

Tomorrow's preview!

----------


## RonRules

"and you called it ballot stuffing"

Yes and I still do. This is the weirdest chart ever. Totally unnatural and very jagged in the first 20-30%. That's typical of ballot stuffing.

So as Raj increased, Sue and Mustio dropped. She may have tried flipping but maybe not. It's hard to tell, but it definitely is a weird chart.

With ballot stuffing you get strange lines. Non-normal distributions and stuff like that:



In regards to the above chart: "The Wall Street Journal, working with political scientists from the University of Michigan and the University of Chicago, published their own analysis of the election results, and pointed out a number of features which they believe indicate fraud. They estimate that as many as 14 million of the 65.7 million votes may be fraudulent."

----------


## drummergirl

> Ummmm, remember Maine and how people found the absurdity of what actually did go on there?
> You don't think people notice it in Iowa?


There's flipping in Maine too; not sure what your point is.

----------


## RonRules

> There's flipping in Maine too; not sure what your point is.


Yep, I had to look it up:



What's interesting here is that it looks like Ron was the direct target of Romney's flipping. Note how the two curves are a mirror image of each others.

In due time all that flipping will become one hell of a flop for Romney. "Flip-Flopper" will not be enough to describe him.

----------


## dr.k.research

> In spite of a lot of people looking for discrepancies, the only one that turned up was the one reported by Edward True.



Hmmm.....You apparently haven't learned your lesson yet. Just talked to Edward L. True for over an hour last night. He reports that there were 144 discrepancies from the originally posted, centrally "tampered" results. Glad you went "slowly" in your post. I'll have to study it for other gross discrepancies---or might I say lies.

----------


## dr.k.research

> In spite of a lot of people looking for discrepancies, the only one that turned up was the one reported by Edward True.


Remember, that's the counter held at that secret, unannounced location, you know, the one, where Karl Rove claimed the bizarre incident of the missing ballot truck, the one lost somewhere on the rural road?

There was no ballot truck, as you well know. That was a ruse, a kind of inane false flag, to detract attention from the terminal vote manipulation perpetrated by the GOP.

----------


## dsw

> Hmmm.....You apparently haven't learned your lesson yet. Just talked to Edward L. True for over an hour last night. He reports that there were 144 discrepancies from the originally posted, centrally "tampered" results. Glad you went "slowly" in your post. I'll have to study it for other gross discrepancies---or might I say lies.


So you're saying they found 144 discrepancies, and chose only to publicize one of them?  What are they waiting for?

EDIT:  I'm not clear on why you're accusing me of lying, if they're the ones who are sitting on evidence of 144 discrepancies that *could* have been publicized back when Edward True's story was being carried by CNN and Newsweek and so on.   With Santorum and Romney only separated by a handful of votes, showing that not one but ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY FOUR precincts had discrepancies would have been dynamite.  

The next question is whether those discrepancies show the kind of very, very clear pattern that an algorithmic flipper would reveal.  You'd see over and over again that the same candidate was gaining the same number of votes that another candidate was losing.  Now that's a proof of fraud that nobody could deny. 

EDIT:  In 2008, the Paul was very careful about the vote in Iowa.  They had supporters in every precinct, who phoned in the results to a campaign hotline for comparison against the official numbers.  (http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/mess...tml?1200241974).  Are we supposed to believe that in 2012 they didn't take similar precautions?   Or that they did, and also decided to keep quiet about more than a hundred discrepancies?   

If there was flipping in Iowa then because the counting was done manually, and in public so that anyone could observe and take video and photos to document the results, systematic fraud should be easy to prove.  Flipping would have to have been done in hundreds of precincts to make the graph look the way it looks (given the bogus assumption that a non-fraud graph must be flat).   A first-hand report of the manual counting in just one flipped precinct, showing that the official "flipped" numbers took some number of votes from one candidate and gave them to another, would be huge.  If it were one of the precincts with photographic or video evidence, it would be on the front pages of every newspaper.   And with hundreds of flipped precincts and a coordinated effort to have Ron Paul supporters document the results of the manual counting, what are the odds of not having a single flipped precinct be one where the manual count was recorded independently?

Am I now supposed to believe that someone is sitting on more than a hundred cases of this kind of evidence?  In addition to over a hundred individuals who went to the trouble of making those first-hand reports themselves?   And that the Paul campaign either knows that this undeniable proof of fraud exists, or after being so careful to monitor the counting in 2008 they decided just to trust the GOP machine in 2012?  

I'll believe it when I see the data.

----------


## dr.k.research

> I'll believe it when I see the data.


Coming, soon (like in the movies!!).

----------


## drummergirl

> I'll believe it when I see the data.


No, you won't.  You never do.  Why would more data persuade you of the truth when the mountains of data already analyzed have not affected you?

I can hardly wait to read the tome with which you'll reply.

----------


## Carson

When you think about it, we've known about illegal immigration and nothing has ever been done about it. 

With the corrupt system of fiat currency we have, some inside AND outside of our country can print up whatever it takes to dictate their way.

I've quit holding my breath on this also.



*Time for a commercial break:*

Check out Matt McDonald at about 3:08 or so.

----------


## dsw

> No, you won't.  You never do.  Why would more data persuade you of the truth when the mountains of data already analyzed have not affected you?


Mountains of data!   It does sometimes seem like flippers think that sheer volume of data can overcome bogosity of arguments, in much the same way that I was recently told that mathematical theorems that require random selection can be applied under non-random selection so long you increase the sample size.

----------


## drummergirl

Be still my heart, a brief dsw post!

But alas, 'tis still just half truth and fluff.




> Mountains of data!   It does sometimes seem like flippers think that sheer volume of data can overcome bogosity of arguments, in much the same way that I was recently told that mathematical theorems that require random selection can be applied under non-random selection so long you increase the sample size.

----------


## RonRules

Oh hai Turzai's!

Why are you looking worried?



Could it be because of this?:



Oh hai Lidia!



Can you explain these numbers in column 8?




Hey Lidia, one more thing, Google your name on Google Images; scroll down a bit and you'll see pictures of Dolphins, Jim Belushi and Sue!  Too funny.

There's also a picture of Newt. 



I thought you were a Romney Delegate? Double dipping?

Check it out!
https://www.google.com/search?q=lidi...w=1152&bih=763

----------


## dsw

If I didn't know how to use a map, couldn't look up the area that Turzai currently represents, and didn't understand that ordering precincts by votes cast doesn't necessarily approximate random selection, I'd say you've found a definite flipper!





> Oh hai Turzai's!
> 
> Why are you looking worried?
> 
> 
> 
> Could it be because of this?:
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## dr.k.research

> Why are you looking worried?


Because we're about to prove that the whole rotten system is a categorical fraud. Great work, here!!

----------


## jct74

posts deleted, keep out with the non-productive inflammatory comments please.  read the note in OP again.

----------


## dsw

> Because we're about to prove that the whole rotten system is a categorical fraud. Great work, here!!


How long do we have to wait to see those 143 precincts in Iowa with verifiable evidence of manipulation by the central tabulator?  The public, manual counting done in Iowa creates exactly the right conditions for detecting and proving systematic fraud (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9049) so if you've got what you say you've got, you really could bring down the whole rotten system.  Are you going to break the story to one of the major news shows, or just publish it quietly and let it build into a viral video tsunami?

----------


## The Man

Did I hear someone doubting the massive vote-rigging evidence that has been accumulated the past 3 months? DSW you've yet to explain how this could be caused by anything other than election fraud. I have posted your graph from the Alabama thread below.
People, this graph plots "reported votes minus reported delegates" in each precinct of Alabama. Look what happens to Romney's (reported vote totals minus his reported delegate totals) after the 300k vote mark. Understand, up until this graph, ALL vote "flipping" was based on the fact that Romney receives a much higher percentage of votes in the largest vote total precincts than in the small ones. NOW we see, totally independent from the small-large precinct comparison, an increase in Romney's vote receiving percentage which CANNOT be explained by his very own voters in Alabama. This is simply as concete proof of election rigging as you will get in this farce called the GOP Primary. 

Each line represents a different Romney Delegate position. All of them show the same glaringly obvious pickup of unexplained votes by Romney.
If you are reading this, copy this graph onto your computer harddrive. IMO, this is simply not reasonably debateable from the "no flipper" POV.

----------


## The Man

Duplicate post

----------


## dr.k.research

> How long do we have to wait to see those 143 precincts in Iowa with verifiable evidence of manipulation by the central tabulator


What are you sweating about, Mr. Rothschild? Thought I told you it is like the movies, "to be announced," "coming, soon," or whatever.

----------


## dsw

> What are you sweating about, Mr. Rothschild? Thought I told you it is like the movies, "to be announced," "coming, soon," or whatever.


You claim to have evidence of 143 precincts in Iowa having verifiable manual counts that differ from the official results.  So send it to Doug Wead, Ben Swann, bradblog, black box, Maddow, everyone who has shown any interest in election fraud.   

How does delaying help anyone but Romney?  Why wasn't this evidence released back in January, when it could have made a real difference in all of the caucuses and primaries that have happened since then?   _What are you waiting for?_

----------


## dsw

Do you want to make a case that will convince people who aren't in the inner circle of flippers?  If not, then skip the rest of this.  If so ...

First, that graph sorts the precincts by total votes cast, and a handful of high population-density counties dominate the precincts being counted on the right side of the graph, but contribute a small percentage on the left side of the graph.   To people who don't think that a larger biased sample is a good-enough substitute for random sampling that's going to raise red flags.  But for what you're trying to show, it should be easy to demonstrate the pattern in a much more standard fashion that won't raise those red flags.  Again, ignore this if you don't care about convincing anyone who isn't already in the flipper camp.

Second, what are you assuming about "idiot voters" who voted in every delegate race?  Because of the way the precincts are sorted, *if* there were idiot voters then you'd *expect* the lines to increase toward the right, because Romney tended to do better in the precincts on the right.  I'm not saying this explains all the data -- don't try to lump me in with parocks here.  I'm just pointing out that this is a possible factor that would *tend* to cause those lines to increase to the right, so to make a case that will convince those who are not already in the flipper camp, it needs to be addressed and shown not to be a contributing factor.  

Finally, if you think flipping can explain it, then suggest a flipping algorithm, with whatever assumption you want to make about "idiot voters," and I'll write a program that applies it to the data and show you the result.  Something like "for precincts of size greater than X take Y percent of Paul's votes and give them to Romney" or whatever you think it is.   I have reasons for thinking that's not going to work but couldn't get anyone interested in anything but cumulative graphs.  If you think flipping can explain this and have a testable hypothesis for what the flipping algorithm would have been doing, let's give it a try and see if it explains the data.  

Again, if you're convinced and only care about convincing people who are in the flipper camp already, then you can ignore all of this.  If you want to convince the sort of people who don't think that a larger biased sample lets you apply mathematical theorems that assume sampling without bias, etc., then please consider these suggestions for strengthening the argument for that audience.







> Did I hear someone doubting the massive vote-rigging evidence that has been accumulated the past 3 months? DSW you've yet to explain how this could be caused by anything other than election fraud. I have posted your graph from the Alabama thread below.
> People, this graph plots "reported votes minus reported delegates" in each precinct of Alabama. Look what happens to Romney's (reported vote totals minus his reported delegate totals) after the 300k vote mark. Understand, up until this graph, ALL vote "flipping" was based on the fact that Romney receives a much higher percentage of votes in the largest vote total precincts than in the small ones. NOW we see, totally independent from the small-large precinct comparison, an increase in Romney's vote receiving percentage which CANNOT be explained by his very own voters in Alabama. This is simply as concete proof of election rigging as you will get in this farce called the GOP Primary. 
> 
> Each line represents a different Romney Delegate position. All of them show the same glaringly obvious pickup of unexplained votes by Romney.
> If you are reading this, copy this graph onto your computer harddrive. IMO, this is simply not reasonably debateable from the "no flipper" POV.

----------


## drummergirl

I suppose you have nothing else to do in life but watch this thread, but some people have to balance their political activities with other obligations (you know, work, family, that sort of thing).  So I expect it will be done as soon as they can get it done.  Quit getting your panties in a knot.




> You claim to have evidence of 143 precincts in Iowa having verifiable manual counts that differ from the official results.  So send it to Doug Wead, Ben Swann, bradblog, black box, Maddow, everyone who has shown any interest in election fraud.   
> 
> How does delaying help anyone but Romney?  Why wasn't this evidence released back in January, when it could have made a real difference in all of the caucuses and primaries that have happened since then?   _What are you waiting for?_

----------


## drummergirl

> Do you want to make a case that will convince people who aren't in the inner circle of flippers?  If not, then skip the rest of this.  If so ...


Why oh why do you have such a need to say the same debunked things over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again?  Repeatedly.

Rhetorical question because the answer is obvious.  You and your counter persona, da32130, never post anywhere on the forums but the flipping threads.  You use all the usual tactics of trolls; distraction, obfuscation, confusion, misdirection, and assorted logical fallacies.  You toss out mathematical terms as though you understand them, but repeatedly use them incorrectly.

Go back under the bridge please.

----------


## drummergirl

Here it is; I know you've all been waiting patiently for "Flipping made Easy".  Here's a two page summary for the non-math people.  Please let me know what you think.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...bk4bDl0jE/edit

----------


## The Man

> First, that graph sorts the precincts by total votes cast, and a handful of high population-density counties dominate the precincts being counted on the right side of the graph, but contribute a small percentage on the left side of the graph.   To people who don't think that a larger biased sample is a good-enough substitute for random sampling that's going to raise red flags.  But for what you're trying to show, it should be easy to demonstrate the pattern in a much more standard fashion that won't raise those red flags.  Again, ignore this if you don't care about convincing anyone who isn't already in the flipper camp.


 The whole point is that Romney is receiving unintended votes in the larger precincts. The graph above shows that the difference between candidate votes and delegate votes begins to increase linearly at around 350k total votes. Again, we're NOT comparing small precincts to larger precincts anymore; the SLOPE of the line represents the percentage at which Romney is receiving new votes ABOVE his delegate votes. I've read your #1 multiple times and can make zero logical sense of it. There's simply ZERO reason why you'd expect the percentage of a candidate's votes to increase above his delegates... ZERO. Population density is totally irrelevant. How else is one supposed to show that Romney is receiving unintended votes in the largest precincts if you don't group from small to large?



> Second, what are you assuming about "idiot voters" who voted in every delegate race?  Because of the way the precincts are sorted, *if* there were idiot voters then you'd *expect* the lines to increase toward the right, because Romney tended to do better in the precincts on the right.  I'm not saying this explains all the data -- don't try to lump me in with parocks here.  I'm just pointing out that this is a possible factor that would *tend* to cause those lines to increase to the right, so to make a case that will convince those who are not already in the flipper camp, it needs to be addressed and shown not to be a contributing factor.


Romney tended to do better in the larger precincts- for argument's sake OK. BUT that's ALREADY been accounted for in the delegate totals. The X Axis IS the delegate total or the "Zero" path. The graph represents the DIFFERENCE of Votes minus delegates cumulative. I'm scratching my head here DSW. We have a single state where the vote tabulators screwed up and forgot to rig the delegates and their oversight 100% independently suppports the hundreds of pages of graphs and charts in these 5 threads... that Romney is receiving an artificial boost in the largest precincts, usually beginning around 50% of the cumulative vote total. Now what are the odds that this "boost" just happens to corroborate the previous work? Someone in this thread needs to list ALL of the supposed debunks that not only fell flat, but eventually ended up corroborating the vote flipping hypothesis (corruption in Lousiana, Graphing via Republicanness, DA32130's Va Beach graph, etc.). You know DSW- IF your job responsibiilty does NOT involve trolling AND you are intelligent (which you are), you are forced to admit there is NO other explanation for this... PERIOD. You will gain my respect by admitting that this evidence in Alabama is simply independently corroborative of vote manipulation. 




> Finally, if you think flipping can explain it, then suggest a flipping algorithm, with whatever assumption you want to make about "idiot voters," and I'll write a program that applies it to the data and show you the result.  Something like "for precincts of size greater than X take Y percent of Paul's votes and give them to Romney" or whatever you think it is.   I have reasons for thinking that's not going to work but couldn't get anyone interested in anything but cumulative graphs.  If you think flipping can explain this and have a testable hypothesis for what the flipping algorithm would have been doing, let's give it a try and see if it explains the data.


Well, Anybody can dream up formulas that will produce these results, so I am of the opinion that this is a worthless exercise. But here you go anyway off the top of my head- I have NOT plugged these in but I remember from previous study and these are approximate:

Gingrich (reported)= Gingrich (actual) untouched start to finish
Paul (reported)= 5% start to finish- excess above 5% goes to Romney and Santorum (see below).
Romney(reported)= Romney (actual)+ 1% in precincts less than 500 votes, +3% in precincts betweeen 500 and 1000 votes, +5% above 1000 votes  
Santorum (reported)= Santorum (actual)+[Paul(actual) minus 5% minus Romney's cut of Paul's votes]

All percentages are relative to the total number of cast votes in a precinct. All of Romney's unintended votes come from votes intended for Paul. The precinct individual delegate totals err widely due to true voter error. DO NOT create a strawman argument by comparing individual precinct totals; These formulas work only when looking at groups of precincts, again, due to delegate voter error. Obviously, for example in Jefferson County, there were votes being created from thin air for Romney- and it sticks out like a turd in the punch bowl- a fart in a scuba diver's helmet if you will.

----------


## RonRules

DSW and da32130:

----------


## dsw

> Romney tended to do better in the larger precincts- for argument's sake OK. BUT that's ALREADY been accounted for in the delegate totals. The X Axis IS the delegate total or the "Zero" path. The graph represents the DIFFERENCE of Votes minus delegates cumulative.


I appreciate the polite reply, but I'm not sure how this is responding to the point about idiot voters.  

Here's what I'm saying:  *if* there was some percentage (average) of idiot voters, and some percentage (average) of Romney voters who voted for his delegates correctly, then the more votes Romney got the larger the difference will tend to be between Romney's candidate vote and his delegate vote.  

Suppose there are 10 idiot voters in a precinct of 100 (assume for simplicity that none of them are Romney supporters), and half of the actual Romney supporters vote for his delegate #N, and the other half don't bother.  Just round numbers to illustrate the point.   Let's suppose it's a precinct where Romney had 20 votes out of the 100 total.  Half of those (10) voted for the delegate, plus the 10 idiots, for 20 in all.  The difference between the candidate vote and delegate vote is zero.  But suppose it's a precinct where Romney got 40 votes.  The delegate got votes from half of those (20), plus the 10 idiots, for 30 in all.  But now the difference is no longer zero, it's 10.  If Romney got 60 votes, the delegate got 30+10=40, and now the difference is 20.  

As the percentage of votes for Romney goes up, so does the difference between the number of votes for the candidate and the number for the delegate, assuming that there is a non-zero percentage of idiot voters.   When you graph it in a way that correlates with Romney's percentage of the vote, the line will slope upward as you go to the right.  

That's why I think one of the obvious questions is:  to what extent is the slope of the line in the graph the result of idiot voters, plus the fact that the data are being graphed with precincts sorted so that has Romney's percentage of the vote tends to increase from left to right?  Because when you put both of those things together then to some extent you should expect to get a line sloping upward.

----------


## Liberty1789

> Suppose there are 10 idiot voters in a precinct of 100


Those imagined idiot voters would carry on voting at least partially into Santorum's favor. They would have voted for Paul's delegates. That would create some correlation between the presidente/delegate vote differences of Romney and Santorum. The R2 between Romney's last delegate error and Santorum's first delegate error is 5 10-5. Between Paul's last and Romney's first? R2 = 0.0076. Theory does not fit data. Theory should be abandoned.

----------


## RonRules

Has anybody contacted the Secretary of State in Alabama? At this point, We've proven Alabama beyond a reasonable doubt. We're now well into the unreasonable doubt and only one poster (DSW) is unreasonable.

Time to act. Anybody here in Alabama?

----------


## drummergirl

> Here's what I'm saying:


Once again, you are just rehashing arguments already disposed of in another thread.  Time to go back under the bridge da.

----------


## dsw

> Has anybody contacted the Secretary of State in Alabama? At this point, We've proven Alabama beyond a reasonable doubt. We're now well into the unreasonable doubt and only one poster (DSW) is unreasonable.
> 
> Time to act. Anybody here in Alabama?


http://www.stopvoterfraudnow.com/



> MONTGOMERY - Secretary of State Beth Chapman has announced a new Voter Fraud Unit within the Secretary of State’s office dedicated to dealing with reports of voter fraud.  With claims of voter fraud continuing to come in, Secretary Chapman has appointed members of her legal and elections staff to be trained to speak with those individuals who have such reports.  “It is important for the citizens of Alabama who have reports of voter fraud to know that someone is here to listen and to gather the information in a manner which complies with the law.  It is also important for these individuals to know that appropriate action is being taken with their complaint” Chapman stated.  Secretary Chapman emphasized that all reports will be kept confidential.
> 
> In conjunction with the new Voter Fraud Unit, Secretary of State Beth Chapman has also announced her office’s new website and toll free number for citizens to report incidents of voter fraud.  The site will provide a report/complaint form that will be collected and reviewed by the Secretary of State and the Voter Fraud Unit and forwarded to the Attorney General for further review.
> 
> The website www.StopVoterFraudNow.com  is up and running today and available for reports or confidential meetings to be scheduled to report such abuse.
> 
> “My staff and I are proud to provide these tools for people to use to report voter fraud,” Chapman said. “We will continue to rattle the swords of democracy until voter fraud is stopped in Alabama.”





> Contact Us
> 
> Email:
> voterfraud@sos.alabama.gov
> 
> Toll Free:
> 1-800-274-VOTE (8683)
> 
> Fax:
> ...


EDIT:  I don't see why it would have to be an Alabama resident reporting the fraud, but if you want to find someone from Alabama because they would be more likely to get some attention, why not do even better than that and get someone whose name was actually on the ballot?  The Ron Paul delegates were *personally* affected by the outcome, if fraud kept Ron Paul from getting delegates he should have gotten.  Several are members here: http://alabamac4l.ning.com/ and there's a link for the facebook page there too, and I see several other Alabama facebook pages for Ron Paul supporters.  One of the delegates is the state director for the campaign, and has an email address and phone number that you can find via  http://www.ronpaul2012.com/ .   If you can make a case that convinces one of them, then they'd be an ideal person to take the case to the sec of state.

----------


## RonRules

Well little fishies, I've got something that bound to interest the GOP leaders. And it won't help party unity!

I've been analyzing the 2008 Primaries in California in order to PREVENT the problem here. I'll be doing all 58 counties and see what brand of central tabulators they used in 2008, if any.

I wonder how McCain will react when he eventually sees this?





Let's not forget about her:



PS: Data is available here: http://swdb.berkeley.edu/d00/s08.html

----------


## RonRules

Missed it by _that_ much:

----------


## RonRules

Here's San Bernardino county, just north of Riverside. Another good flipper:



I've also checked a couple of propositions. In CA we get to vote on things that our Reps won't touch with a 10 foot pole. The're flatlining, but not perfectly.



Prop 8 was the Gay Marriage thing that failed. The Mormons spent a lot of money opposing that, which landed them with a fine from the Election Commission.

----------


## drummergirl

That's some hardcore flapjack flipping there.  Somebody REALLY wants a president Romney and they have for about 5-6 years now...  which is another puzzle piece!  The Flipper has been on Romney's bandwagon since at least 2007.





> Missed it by _that_ much:

----------


## drummergirl

Has anyone checked the Romney's Massachusetts gubernatorial races for flipping?

I say that because a working assumption for me has been that Romney has the support of the upper echelons of the GOP.  Perhaps the con runs a bit deeper?

----------


## The Man

I spoke with the Jefferson County Alabama supervisor of elections today. After explaining to him the many precincts in Jefferson County where Romney had hundreds more candidate votes than delegate votes, he couldn't think of an obvious explanation. He offered to send to me the link to a .PDF file that contains the data from EACH voting machine, which can be found at ftp://ftp.jeffcointouch.com/election...t_031312un.pdf. This document is almost 4000 pages and each voting machine has its own detailed data, just like we're accustomed to seeing the precinct data.

----------


## drummergirl

Could be just me, but the ftp site isn't working for me.  Not sure why.  I'll have to look at it tomorrow after coffee

----------


## The Man

> Could be just me, but the ftp site isn't working for me.  Not sure why.  I'll have to look at it tomorrow after coffee


It's working fine for me. Try again.

----------


## RonRules

> I spoke with the Jefferson County Alabama supervisor of elections today. After explaining to him the many precincts in Jefferson County where Romney had hundreds more candidate votes than delegate votes, he couldn't think of an obvious explanation. He offered to send to me the link to a .PDF file that contains the data from EACH voting machine, which can be found at ftp://ftp.jeffcointouch.com/election...t_031312un.pdf. This document is almost 4000 pages and each voting machine has its own detailed data, just like we're accustomed to seeing the precinct data.


Thank you for getting this report. What bothers me from this is that although it claims to be from the individual voting machines, it is clearly generated from the evil Central Tabulator software. Remember Alabama has the slick SOS software, which makes their job real easy, including putting together the final webpage for display.

We need the "Poll Tapes" that come out directly out of each machine. Not the centrally generated report. My guess is that report will produce exactly the same numbers as on the website.

BTW, we have not seen a single Poll Tape for all the 2012 elections. That's what we need.

Also the format of the above report sucks for us to analyze.

----------


## RonRules

Also VERY interesting, was Hillary Clinton a Flipper?

This is Orange County, California:





PS: I've got a local Democratic Party executive doing Java charts!

----------


## RonRules

Here's something that we, flippers already knew but will be informative for newcomers. The flipping occurs in larger precincts.

Here's California 2008 San Bernardino again:



I separated the smallest precincts 0-40% in this chart: (Note no flipping for Romney)



Now the largest 40% (60% to 100%) of the precincts : Note how much steeper the slope is:

----------


## dr.k.research

> How long do we have to wait to see those 143 precincts in Iowa with verifiable evidence of manipulation by the central tabulator?


Tsk, tsk, Mr. dsw. You really should learn to be more patient. And, yes, the terminally corrupt GOP was caught in the act in a number of instances, not once, as you so vociferously claim. Here is one notable example, as found on Google Docs:

Original results
*4010, Appanoose-Union*
Number of voters: 40 
votes for Paul: 2
vote count for Gingrich: 3
vote count for Santorum: 32
vote count for Romney: 0
vote count for Perry: 3

Updated results (as of January 6/2012)
*4010, Appanoose-Union*
vote for Paul: 2
vote count for Gingrich: 3
vote count for Santorum: 3
vote count for Romney: 0
vote count for Perry: 3

Note that Appanoose-Union has a total population, today, of 150. Now, there is no way that 40 people from such a township would show up at a caucus. Plus, of course, there are other people of that population who are of non-voting age such as infants, children, and teens. What is a realistic voter number in the township--perhaps 100-max? Thus, just as in the town of Moulton in Appanoose-Union the ballot was stuffed in Santorums favor. This was by adding 29 votes, in Mouton 20 votes. 49 votes in a mere two precincts. Such a trend is sufficient to fabricate a win for Santorum, largely at Pauls expense. By the way for those who might insinuate otherwise, there is only one Appanoose-Union, #4010.

A smaller but still significant issue is in Coralville-04, where eyewitness counters listed 65 votes but according to the GOP, as downloaded directly from the site, the count was 72. If no more than an average of 2 or 3 votes are addedor stolenfrom each precinct, ballot stuffed to another candidate, the winner is cheated and the loser granted the win. 

So, don't keep trying to convince us there was no fraud:




> In spite of a lot of people looking for discrepancies, the only one that turned up was the one reported by Edward True.





> Of all the independent reports of the manual, public counts, only one turned out to differ from the central tabulator numbers.


Time for you to go clean up your posts. A bit embarassing, isn't it?

Copy of the original link here by an Iowa activist: http://blog.shawnhyde.com/post/2012/...d-Numbers.aspx

----------


## drummergirl

> We need the "Poll Tapes" that come out directly out of each machine. Not the centrally generated report. My guess is that report will produce exactly the same numbers as on the website.


They may not have poll tapes other than the zero at the beginning of the day and the number of voters at the end.  They probably just pull the card from the machine and put it directly into the central tabulator.  I'm finding that a lot of jurisdictions do that.

----------


## dsw

Let's see if this helps more.  I'll write down what I know about, then you fill in the gap between that, and what you claim to have.

There were eight precincts not certified, allegedly because they were missing the "form E."  IIRC about 250 votes not counted.

There were several alleged "typos" corrected before the results were certified.  Fayette county, two precincts; after the correction Mitt lost 105 votes, Santorum gained two.  Appanoose, three precincts (including True's, and Union); after the correction Mitt lost 20 and Santorum lost 28.  Buena Vista, two precincts; after the correction Santorum gained 12 and Romney gained 6.
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.co...nt-unresolved/

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong but AFAIK the only one of those changes that weren't made "voluntarily" was the one that Edward True filed the affidavit about.  They had to be forced to admit that the one he discovered was an error, and if it weren't for his independent record of it they probably wouldn't have changed it.  That took 20 votes away from Romney (not Santorum, as you say below) that he otherwise would have had.  You've also now mentioned Coralville-04, where eyewitnesses reported a total of 65, but the official result shows 72.  

Unfortunately none of these "typos" caught the flipper in action.

Does that bring us up to date?   

Now:  if you have evidence of 120+ *other* discrepancies between the central tabulator results and the manual counts, as you were claiming, the chances are very, very high that at least a few of them will be "flipper" precincts.  I don't care why that evidence hasn't come out before.  If you really do have it, please post it.  I'm skeptical, but if you have it I'll admit I'm wrong ... but why do you care so much about that?   If you have what you claim then making it public will help Ron Paul.  If Romney was the beneficiary of the flipping then no matter how much he claims he didn't know (even if he really didn't know) he would be *out*.   

So I'm hoping you have what you say you have.  But don't do it to prove that my skepticism is unfounded.  Do it for Ron Paul.







> Tsk, tsk, Mr. dsw. You really should learn to be more patient. And, yes, the terminally corrupt GOP was caught in the act in a number of instances, not once, as you so vociferously claim. Here is one notable example, as found on Google Docs:
> 
> Original results
> *4010, Appanoose-Union*
> Number of voters: 40 
> votes for Paul: 2
> vote count for Gingrich: 3
> vote count for Santorum: 32
> vote count for Romney: 0
> ...

----------


## The Man

Actually, the entire state of Alabama uses ES&S machines AND the tabulation is performed BY each county locally- according to the official. He said emphatically that NO tabulation is performed in Spain, like was incorrectly published on the internet. I did NOT learn HOW the tabulation is accomplished though.

Now please look at this chart below. Precincts with abnormally high Romney votes minus delegates AND with two EVM's that have substantially different totals were examined to see IF Romney receives a higher % in a EVM with a higher total when compared to his % in the lower vote total machine. This could potentially reveal IF this algorithm is implemented in the EVM firmware and needs more study. If you have a way to grab the data from the PDF more efficiently than I, please have at it.

----------


## RonRules

> Let's see if this helps more.


No it doesn't.





> There were several alleged "typos" corrected before the results were certified.  Fayette county, two precincts; after the correction Mitt lost 105 votes, Santorum gained two.  Appanoose, three precincts (including True's, and Union); after the correction Mitt lost 20 and Santorum lost 28.  Buena Vista, two precincts; after the correction Santorum gained 12 and Romney gained 6.


This analysis is not about the odd typo, especially in small precincts. Again you are wasting everyone's time, trying to misdirect and obfuscate, pretending to be helpful.

We have to concentrate in the TOP 40% precincts and we need the Poll Tapes, DIRECTLY from the voting machines. These are available.

Here's where the crime occurs:

----------


## RonRules

> If you have a way to grab the data from the PDF more efficiently than I, please have at it.


Thank you The Man for another possibly very revealing deep analysis. That's why it's important to not rule out anything and I encourage everyone to look deep down this rabbit hole.

What is most pressing right now are Poll Tapes. Please get all the copies you can, mostly from the larger precincts. Large hand counted precincts would be the best.  On the other hand if the flipping occurs at the EVM, the poll tapes will match the central tabulator.  Based on my results in WI, I kind of doubt it, but we definitely need  more hands on deck to analyze this.

Here's the PDF converter I use. It's the best free one I could find:

----------


## tommyrp12

im not sure but this may be of intrest to you guys. this was in a link on anther site http://patriotupdate.com/articles/wh...very-concerned


WHAT is Scytl & WHY Should You Be VERY, VERY Concerned?

Written on Tuesday, April 10, 2012 by Ann-Marie Murrell


Here’s another of those quiet, subtle, but very dangerous little stories that has somehow slipped past all the mainstream media outlets.

The United States of America has a brand new private VOTE COUNTING company that the Obama administration has personally handpicked.

The company is called Scytl and it is based in Michelle Obama’s most favorite vacation spot, Barcelona, Spain. 

Forget the fact that Barack is once again providing jobs for people in another country; there are much bigger fish to fry in this story.

According to the “About Us” section of the Scytl website:

Scytl is a worldwide leader in the development of secure solutions for electoral modernization.

 Scytl was formed as a spin-off from a leading research group at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. This group, funded by the Spanish Government’s Ministry of Science and Technology, has pioneered the research on e-voting security in Europe since 1994 and has produced significant scientific results, including 25 scientific papers published in international journals and the first two European Ph.D. theses on electronic voting security, by Prof. Joan Borrell and Scytl’s founder Dr. Andreu Riera (in 1996 and 1999, respectively). This research group also participated in the first Internet binding election in Europe (i.e., the 1997 election to the Presidency of the IEEE IT Spanish chapter).

 Scytl has customers both in the private and public sectors. Some of these customers represent leading references in the electoral modernization market (e.g., governments in Spain, the USA, France, Austria, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Philippines, Argentina, Mexico, Finland and Australia) and are pioneering new electronic voting applications. Scytl’s solutions have been successfully used in multiple projects worldwide, some of which represent breakthrough projects for the electoral modernization industry.

So what does this mean for all us non-European voters here in America?

According to Michael Savage, “[T]his critical component to a free election, the transparent tabulation of votes, will not be handled by individual precincts but by a company over which we will have little control…The problem is that once the votes are merged, it will be impossible to go back and check their integrity at the local level.  It is very likely that this is the final step in Barack Obama’s corruption of the voting process.  It has the promise of enabling him and his cohorts to control the outcomes of federal elections with no accountability.  On top of that it’s one more step toward a global government.”

There are no Americans on the Board of Directors of Scytl—but CEO Pere Valles once lived and worked in Barack’s old stomping grounds, Chicago.  From the Scytl website:

Mr. Valles joined Scytl in March 2004 after spending most of his professional career in the United States. Prior to joining Scytl, Mr. Valles was Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of GlobalNet, a NASDAQ publicly-traded telecommunications company headquartered in Chicago. Mr. Valles assisted GlobalNet in becoming one of the leading providers of Voice-over-IP in the world and was instrumental in the successful sale of the company to the Titan Corporation, a NYSE defense company. At GlobalNet, Mr. Valles was responsible for designing and executing the strategic plan that led to an increase in revenues from US$ 25 million to over US$ 100 million and brought the company to profitability. Previously, Mr. Valles had worked as Senior Manager for KPMG‘s Mergers & Acquisitions group in Los Angeles and Miami providing financial and strategic consulting services to private equity groups and corporations involved in acquisitions in the United States, Latin America and Europe. During his career at KPMG, Mr. Valles actively participated in more than 20 transactions in the telecommunications and technology areas. Mr. Valles has a bachelor degree in Economics and a bachelor degree in Law from the University of Barcelona and a MBA (summa cum laude) from Indiana University.

In 2008 the Florida Department of State looked into using Scytl’s remote voting system but turned it down.  Their reasons:

Our findings identified vulnerabilities that, in the worst case, could result in (i) voters being unable to cast votes, (ii) an election result that does not accurately reflect the will of the voters, or (iii) disclosure of confidential information, such as the votes cast by a voter. The extent to which these vulnerabilities could actually be exploited in the ODBP is beyond the scope of this report given our lack of system context. Secure handling and audit of the Voter Choice Records may defend against some or all of these vulnerabilities, but these procedures were not available for review.

We identify three findings of particular significance: 
 •The use of supervised polling stations provides significantly better protection against voter coercion or vote-  selling than is present in some other absentee voting systems, such as voting by mail. 
•Two copies of each vote are stored: one electronically, and another on paper as a Voter Choice Record. This pro- vides redundancy that is not present in existing vote-by-mail systems. If the electronic votes are well-protected, then they can enable audit of the paper records in ways that are not currently possible. 
•After casting their ballot, each voter is given a receipt that is intended to give voters confidence that their votes were “Counted as Cast”. These receipts do not achieve their stated goal of allowing voters to “independently verify that their ballots have been correctly accounted for.” These receipts might indicate that a vote was received and decrypted by the county (a property not typically provided by current postal voting systems), but they do not provide assurance that the voter’s vote was correctly recorded. 

Also interesting to note, one of the organizations on “Scytl Partners” tab is Oracle, a major supporter to all-things-Democrat.  And another Scytl Partner is a spooky “global governance” organization called Gov2u.org.  Check them out.  Yikes.

There are many, many reasons for all of us to be concerned about Obama’s choice in vote-counting this November—yet no one seems to be up-in-arms about this other than Michael Savage and a handful of Internet bloggers.



Goodbye ACORN, hello Scytl…

----------


## RonRules

OK folks, this is what a Poll Tape looks like. I just need the top part like this:


Please get them from the largest precincts.

Thanks.

----------


## dsw

> This analysis is not about the odd typo, especially in small precincts. Again you are wasting everyone's time, trying to misdirect and obfuscate, pretending to be helpful.
> 
> We have to concentrate in the TOP 40% precincts and we need the Poll Tapes, DIRECTLY from the voting machines. These are available.


I was just getting those typos out of the way, in response to the one he posted.  He claims that there is evidence of over a hundred more discrepancies in Iowa, discrepancies between the manual count done in public and the result from the central tabulator.  If there was flipping in Iowa -- correct me if I'm wrong on this estimate -- then based on your graph something like 15-30% of the precincts were flipped, starting with precincts as small as 70 total votes or so.  If he's got 120+ verifiable discrepancies then it's a virtual certainty that some of those are in the flipped precincts.  

Even just a handful that show Romney getting the same number of "extra" votes that other candidates are losing would *end* Romney's campaign.  Imagine that happening before the Texas and California primaries.  

There are no poll tapes in Iowa.  But the count was done manually and in public, with observers allowed to record the results with video and photographs.   A lot of them were recorded.  Watchthevote2012 had an organized effort to get people to record and report the manual counts, and there were quite a few others posted to youtube, facebook, twitter, blogs, and in local papers.  

If there was flipping in Iowa, then there is zero chance that the flipped precincts would turn out to have no overlap with the precincts that had the manual counts independently recorded.   If there was flipping, then the proof that would end Romney's campaign is out there, and has been for more than three months.  Better late than never but time is running out.

----------


## RonRules

> WHAT is Scytl & WHY Should You Be VERY, VERY Concerned?


Yes indeed, I am VERY concerned about this. 

Just because the "Tabulation" computation occurs on location in the US does not prevent malicious firmware or viruses written in other countries (or even ours  ).  If they produce a software update in Spain, e-mail it to Alabama, who knows what's in there.

I don't have a big problem with the county of Spain or Canada, home of the infamous GEMS Central Tabulator. None of this stuff should be foreign made and needs to have utmost oversight. 

My approach would be to have the source code in possession of election officials, reviewed by professionals and a "cold-start" re-compile the voting machines and central tabulators done prior to elections. Gambling machines have more security than voting machines.

Flight simulators to train pilots get certified by the FAA from a cold-start compile!!

BTW, the ONLY county where I have seen that flat lines with a central tabulator is Lancaster County, PA (Amish county) and they use an American made Hart central tabulator. They are very happy with the service and care that Hart's staff takes to instruct them about vote integrity and virus protection.

----------


## RonRules

> Precincts with abnormally high Romney votes minus delegates AND with two EVM's that have *substantially different totals* were examined to see IF Romney receives a higher % in a EVM with a higher total when compared to his % in the lower vote total machine.


Can you be more specific here. How exactly were they different?

It is my contention that vote totals from a voting machine that are simply transferred to the central tabulator *MUST have ZERO tolerance for error.*

Hand counted ballots, scanned ballots, can understandably be subject to a margin of error, but no more than 1%.

However, when a count total is transmitted either electronically or even manually, ZERO error is the only acceptable criteria.

Would you expect your bank to be off a few dollars every time you get your bank statement? If the calculation is electronic and the data transfer is electronic, the numbers *MUST MATCH EXACTLY.*

The Man, if you have differences between the machine total and what is shown on the central tabulator reports, that's a HUGE find. Please describe in detail.

Thanks.

----------


## Liberty1789

I am converting The Man's pdf into something hopefully more exploitable. Using a professional multithreading OCR on an octal PC took 2 hours to generate an Excel file of... 235,365 lines... Gulp... I'm gonna look at it in detail now to see if the output data is workable or a useless mess. Might be a while. Hope to be able to post clean excel/csv files at some point this week-end. No promises...

----------


## affa

> Can you be more specific here. How exactly were they different?


He's talking about precincts with multiple machines that have vastly different usage rates.   Some of this is to be expected, since, for example, the first machine in a row is more likely to be used than the last.   But he's then examining both the 'high vote' and 'low vote' machines against the respective second delegate tallies, since the Alabama delegate anomaly is so easy to pick up on.

----------


## RonRules

> But he's then examining both the 'high vote' and 'low vote' machines against the respective second delegate tallies, since the Alabama delegate anomaly is so easy to pick up on.


That's another good way to rule out demographics, except if someone is going to claim that old people don't like to walk much and are more likely to use the closest machine, or some similar BS argument.

----------


## The Man

OK. Allow me to better explain my intent here. IF the Romney high vote total "flipper" is in EVM firmware, it can be determined by analyzing multiple EVM's from exact sam precinct with significantly different vote totals from each other. IF there is a "flipper" in the EVM's, it would be obvious from analyzing lots of EVM data. Does a single precinct where, for example, the EVM with 300 total votes and Romney with 40% of the vote AND the EVM with 600 votes and, say, 45% of the vote prove that there is an algorithm at play inside those 2 machines? Not in my opinion. BUT if we perform statistical analysis on lots of them and find a trend, then forget demographics. This would be the Holy Grail of electronic vote fraud proof. Liberty1789, Affa, RonRules, DSW, JJockers, & (sorry if I left you out here), I'm open to suggestion on the best way to analyze this. Understand that we can do the same analysis anywhere there's individual EVM data. One simple analysis is to simply reconstruct all of the graphs by VOTE MACHINE TOTALS. IF Romney's % correlates higher with vote machine totals than even with precinct vote totals, this would be extremely damning IMO. 
If you don't understand the chart that I posted earlier, it's simple: find two or more EVM's from the same precinct with substantially different vote totals and analyze IF there's a substantial % difference in a candidate's score at, say, 200 votes (machine#1) and 500 votes (machine 2) etc. From talking with the Jefferson County official who was very helpful, they do NOT run the totals up high at all when there is a test run; So theoretically there is currently NO safeguard that would catch IF a vote reassignment algorithm kicks in at a count of, say, 250 total votes.
I have NOT considered how to best use the delegate votes. So just to give the clearest concise explanation on my idea:
The ideal precinct would be one with 10 EVM's with totals of 100, 200, 300, 400, ... 1000. Because there is ZERO reason that any single EVM would vary significantly regarding vote  pecentages to each candidate, one can determine IF there is a vote tally dependent algorithm at play. I'm not sure how to explain any simpler, but maybe one of you that understands my base idea would be so kind as to help me out. This was a thought in my mind before the electronic vote-flipping thread ever existed.
In the chart below, each precinct has 2 EVM's from the GOP Primary. Focus on the green highlighted column "Romney delta %". That is how much Romney gains or loses from the lower vote total EVM to the higher one in a single precinct. He does not gain in all of them. These precincts were chosen because they were previously identified as Romney having huge "votes minus delegates" gains.

----------


## The Man

> I am converting The Man's pdf into something hopefully more exploitable. Using a professional multithreading OCR on an octal PC took 2 hours to generate an Excel file of... 235,365 lines... Gulp... I'm gonna look at it in detail now to see if the output data is workable or a useless mess. Might be a while. Hope to be able to post clean excel/csv files at some point this week-end. No promises...


Allright Liberty1789. You are truly "The Man".

----------


## drummergirl

That is some serious elephant eating; good luck liberty.





> I am converting The Man's pdf into something hopefully more exploitable. Using a professional multithreading OCR on an octal PC took 2 hours to generate an Excel file of... 235,365 lines... Gulp... I'm gonna look at it in detail now to see if the output data is workable or a useless mess. Might be a while. Hope to be able to post clean excel/csv files at some point this week-end. No promises...

----------


## dsw

> Because there is ZERO reason that any single EVM would vary significantly regarding vote  pecentages to each candidate, ...


Where I used to vote the voting stations tucked away in the far corner (the way they arranged the room for major elections) would have pretty much only been used during the evening rush, mostly people voting on their way home from work.  The voters who showed up during the day, including most of the retirees in my neighborhood, would almost all have voted on the row of voting stations closest to the tables where you picked up the ballots.  I don't know how big a difference that would have made, but presumably not zero. 

But suppose you're right.  Then isn't BHM Botanic Gardens the smoking gun you're looking for?  Romney has 15% more of the vote on one machine than the other.  Interestingly, from the delegate data on your other chart it looks like the only delegate excess is for Santorum on the second machine, but not nearly by enough votes to explain Mitt's gain via flipping.  For that matter, Mitt's delegate vote increases from one machine to the other just like the candidate vote, so if it was fraud the delegate vote was adjusted to be consistent.  Anyway, *if* there's zero reason for one EVM to vary significantly from another regarding the candidate vote percentages, then haven't you already found evidence of fraud?

----------


## RonRules

Repost from the "Mitt-s-lawyers-are-trying-to-remove-our-Massachusetts-delegates" thread:

Help me find the Precinct-Level data for Romney's 2002 gubernatorial elections. I will analyze this in detail and find out if he was flipping the vote back then. I need the number of votes for each precinct for each candidate for each year he was elected. I have preliminary (coarse) results.


Mitt was sworn in as the 70th Governor of Massachusetts on January 2, 2003 and his single term ended on January 4, 2007. He ran for president after that.

The only data I have found so far is the statement of vote, which gives the results, but not the low level data:
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/eleres/statewide.htm
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/2002rov.pdf

Here's the chart from Romney's 2002 elections. Note that the number of data points is small (14 counties), but includes 2.2 million votes. Romney did beat his strongest opponent in the four largest counties: 55%, 56%, 53%, 49% as well as the 6th largest with 58%. This is consistent with the vote flipping that we've seen Romney benefit from throught 2012 and some 2008 races.

Here's the 2002 Governor race chart:


I need to "Precinct-Level data" in order to analyze this more conclusively. Please help me find this data.

----------


## RonRules

> The voters who showed up during the day, including most of the *retirees in my neighborhood, would almost all have voted on the row of voting stations closest to the tables* where you picked up the ballots.  I don't know how big a difference that would have made, but presumably not zero.


HA Ha Ha, I knew it. DSW would use a BS argument that I predicted he would use a few posts ago (Post #630)

----------


## The Man

> Where I used to vote the voting stations tucked away in the far corner (the way they arranged the room for major elections) would have pretty much only been used during the evening rush, mostly people voting on their way home from work.  The voters who showed up during the day, including most of the retirees in my neighborhood, would almost all have voted on the row of voting stations closest to the tables where you picked up the ballots.  I don't know how big a difference that would have made, but presumably not zero. 
> 
> But suppose you're right.  Then isn't BHM Botanic Gardens the smoking gun you're looking for?  Romney has 15% more of the vote on one machine than the other.  Interestingly, from the delegate data on your other chart it looks like the only delegate excess is for Santorum on the second machine, but not nearly by enough votes to explain Mitt's gain via flipping.  For that matter, Mitt's delegate vote increases from one machine to the other just like the candidate vote, so if it was fraud the delegate vote was adjusted to be consistent.  Anyway, *if* there's zero reason for one EVM to vary significantly from another regarding the candidate vote percentages, then haven't you already found evidence of fraud?


I don't consider a single precinct as evidence of anything- even at 15% gain. But if there's a clear trend comparing multiple machines with significantly different vote totals from the same precinct, NOTHING explains this except EVM algorithm. The demographics within a single precinct are the same for each machine without a doubt, regardless of vote totals. The official gave me the totals of a precinct over the telephone and after doing the quick math, it was one that Romney gained 4%. I told him that it was disturbing to me. He could NOT explain to me a natural cause for such a discrepancy. DSW your "evening rush" alibi is pretty creative, but it's too creative. Not to speak for anyone else, the election commissioner would not agree with you from my brief conversation with him.
I don't assume that we're going to find anything here and RonRules feels confident that the central tabulation is the culprit. I have theorized from the start that when Romney's slope is constant then, bam, increase at 250 EVM votes- then 500- then 1000- etc., what we could be seing are what I coined "harmonics", or the effect of the same single hinge point in every EVM but with multple EVM's in a precinct, we wouldn't see that particular precinct increase Romney's % until 2x, 3x, or 4x the original hinge point in relation tothe precinct vote total. Example: if every machine were programmed so that at 250 votes Romney begins receiving 5% extra of the vote from Gingrich, a precinct with a single EVM would be affected at a precinct vote of 250 votes; a 2- EVM precinct with equal votes in each machine would be affected at 500 votes- and so forth.

----------


## dsw

> HA Ha Ha, I knew it. DSW would use that BS argument and I predicted a few posts ago (Post #630)


There were two rows, one conveniently facing the tables, and you'd have to walk around that row to get to the second row behind it.  When there was no line (such as during the day) why would people not go to the more convenient row?  But you don't let reality intrude into your arguments, so you can ignore this.

And by ignoring this, look at what you win!  As I said, *if* his assumption is correct that there's no non-fraud reason for some machines to have a significantly different percentage for the candidates, *then* just the tiny bit of data he posted already proves fraud.  Turning up a few more cases would just nail it down tighter, but *if* his assumption is correct that one data point by itself is pretty damn conclusive.  If his assumption is correct then how do you explain it, other than ballot stuffing with Romney ballots (complete with appropriate delegate votes).  How awesome is that?  One step closer to getting Romney booted.

It reminds me of your probability calculation proving that the absentee vote for Mitt was *impossible*.  Now that's as clear and simple a calculation as anyone could hope for.  *If* you are applying the math correctly, you've proven fraud.  Seriously.  Unlike the cumulative graphs, which require some explaining, your calculation there is so straightforward that *if* you've correctly understood the math, then you've proven fraud in a way that anyone with even a little statistical background can understand very quickly.  

That's two ironclad proofs (if there aren't any silly mistakes).  Both are so simple that they can be explained in one paragraph each, in mathematical terms that are completely standard and straightforward.   You could have it validated by a statistical consultant (http://www.amstat.org/consultantdirectory/index.cfm) if you wanted.  Probably pretty cheaply, too, because neither one would take more than a quarter hour of time for an expert to verify that no faulty assumptions are evident (or else, the opposite).  Or just get some feedback on it via something like the stats board at reddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/statistics/) for free.  You'd probably have an answer within five minutes of it being posted.  It's *that* straightforward.

*If* you understand the math correctly, you've got TWO proofs that could knock Mitt out of the race.  Simple, straightforward proofs that could be analyzed by an expert in minutes.  Wouldn't it be nice to see the stench of fraud attached to Romney before the Texas and California primaries?  Yes?  Well then, what are you waiting for?

----------


## The Man

DSW- there are certainly lots of precincts where this trend will hold, BUT there are also precincts where the opposite is true- Romney loses a few votes. For me, we have to look at as many multiple- machine precincts with varied vote counts as possible. I really have no idea if we will see a trend or not.

----------


## dsw

> I don't consider a single precinct as evidence of anything- even at 15% gain. But if there's a clear trend comparing multiple machines with significantly different vote totals from the same precinct, NOTHING explains this except EVM algorithm. The demographics within a single precinct are the same for each machine without a doubt, regardless of vote totals. The official gave me the totals of a precinct over the telephone and after doing the quick math, it was one that Romney gained 4%. I told him that it was disturbing to me. He could NOT explain to me a natural cause for such a discrepancy. DSW your "evening rush" alibi is pretty creative, but it's too creative. Not to speak for anyone else, the election commissioner would not agree with you from my brief conversation with him.
> I don't assume that we're going to find anything here and RonRules feels confident that the central tabulation is the culprit. I have theorized from the start that when Romney's slope is constant then, bam, increase at 250 EVM votes- then 500- then 1000- etc., what we could be seing are what I coined "harmonics", or the effect of the same single hinge point in every EVM but with multple EVM's in a precinct, we wouldn't see that particular precinct increase Romney's % until 2x, 3x, or 4x the original hinge point in relation tothe precinct vote total. Example: if every machine were programmed so that at 250 votes Romney begins receiving 5% extra of the vote from Gingrich, a precinct with a single EVM would be affected at a precinct vote of 250 votes; a 2- EVM precinct with equal votes in each machine would be affected at 500 votes- and so forth.


It's not so much "creative" as just what voting was like where I used to live.  I voted there for fifteen years, and for various reasons was often there several times during the day on election days.   

But let's ignore that.  I think you're underestimating the impact of that one data point.  If your assumption is correct, then you're definitely onto something.  Even if you don't find a pattern, if your assumption is correct then that's sufficient.  (And in the seven cases you've got, Romney had a positive difference between the smallest and the largest in six cases out of seven.   Already down to just a 5% chance of that being random right there.  If that continues with pairs taken from the same precinct, then all kidding aside, that's very interesting.)

BTW, is your theory still that the delegate count is accurate, and only the candidate votes were changed?  Then if there's a threshold, even a probabilistic one, it would be interesting to see the set of EVMs for which there are no delegate discrepancies, i.e., a subset for which there was no flipping.   Or the set of precincts with no delegate discrepancies, for that matter.  (EDIT:  there are a lot of delegate excesses even for precincts with very low vote totals.  Two votes for a Paul delegate, but zero for Paul, for example, in a precinct with less than ten votes total, that sort of thing.  What does that do to the threshold theory?) 

I think that even if it were done at the central tabulator, with the EVM numbers faked to be consistent (if they aren't consistent you've got an even simpler proof of fraud, obviously), there's a chance of detecting it with this data.  Consider the trickiness of divvying up the faked numbers so that they add up to the precinct total, but also so that each EVM has the right total.  If they were careless enough not to adjust delegate numbers, maybe they handled rounding in a clumsy fashion.  It would show up in the low-order digits.  Easy to check.  At least for the machines with larger totals, the low order digits should be uniformly distributed (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford's_law).

----------


## dsw

> DSW- there are certainly lots of precincts where this trend will hold, BUT there are also precincts where the opposite is true- Romney loses a few votes. For me, we have to look at as many multiple- machine precincts with varied vote counts as possible. I really have no idea if we will see a trend or not.


I look forward to seeing multiple-machine precincts where the vote counts are similar, too.  If those have significant differences, then either your assumption is wrong or there was tampering of a different sort.  Or maybe just a probabilistic threshold.  Or if there are no significant differences when the counts are similar, but there are when the counts are different, that would make your case stronger.  

If fraud was at the tabulator, why release the EVM data at all, when it means having to construct fake EVM data in a way that is consistent with both the precinct total and the individual EVM totals?   And if they were constructing fake EVM data, is there a plausible way of doing it that would result in a difference like that one data point, where the one machine looks pretty much like the other one except that Romney got a bunch of extra votes -- and they got the delegate count consistent in that case, but way off in other precincts?

----------


## RonRules

> I don't assume that we're going to find anything here and RonRules feels confident that the central tabulation is the culprit.


I still am . That's because the nice PDF report they gave you came out of the Central Tabulator software.

I'll admit I'm wrong immediately, but right now I'm still sticking with the CT theory.

All I want is Romney in handcuffs. I don't care where the deed was done.

----------


## dsw

> I need to "Precinct-Level data" in order to analyze this more conclusively. Please help me find this data.


Try:
http://www.commonwealthmagazine.org/...l-results.aspx
which links to a spreadsheet in the first paragraph.

----------


## RonRules

> It reminds me of your probability calculation proving that the absentee vote for Mitt was *impossible*.


Give it up DSW. [personal attack removed by moderator]

The probability DSW is referring to, (for you new to this thread) is an absentee ballot count in the Village of Greendale, WI were Ron Paul got 3 votes vs. 133 for Mitt Romney. Comparing the statistics of those precincts with the overall performance of Ron Paul in Wisconsin, my statistical calculator came back with a probability result of ZERO. 

In other words the calculator said those results were IMPOSSIBLE, considering the statistical population basis being compared to.

----------


## dsw

> All I want is Romney in handcuffs. I don't care where the deed was done.


If you didn't misunderstand the math in your proof that Romney's absentee percentage was *impossible*, then it's a very straightforward proof.   If the same pattern holds in more than one state, and you aren't wrong about the math, then you've caught him redhanded, and with a proof that anyone with just a little bit of background in statistics will understand.   

If there was flipping in Iowa, and if you understand the math about flatlining graphs correctly, then a substantial percentage of the precincts there had to be flippers.  The votes were counted manually, and in public, and Ron Paul supporters were encouraged to record the results of those manual counts.  It's virtually certain (if you're right) that some of the flipper precincts had their manual counts reported independently, and (if you're right) they'll show tell-tale manipulation that moves votes from one candidate to another but keeps the total the same.  One would raise suspicions and get big attention.  Two would probably doom Romney's campaign.  Three or more and he'll be shopping for mansions in a country without an extradition treaty.  And, if you're right about the flipping, the chances of a few flipper counties being among those with independent reports of the manual counts are a virtual certainty.   All that needs to be done is collect them, and compare against the central tabulator numbers, until you find the flippers.

Either of these, unless you've made a very basic mistake in your understanding of the math, would be the kind of easily-accessible proof that would knock Romney out of the race.

----------


## dsw

> Give it up DSW. [personal attack removed by moderator]
> 
> The probability DSW is referring to, (for you new to this thread) is an absentee ballot count in the Village of Greendale, WI were Ron Paul got 3 votes vs. 133 for Mitt Romney. Comparing the statistics of those precincts with the overall performance of Ron Paul in Wisconsin, my statistical calculator came back with a probability result of ZERO. 
> 
> In other words the calculator said those results were IMPOSSIBLE, considering the statistical population basis being compared to.


Um, I'm agreeing with you that (unless you are misunderstanding something very basic about the math) you've proven that the result is impossible.  Wasn't there another outlier that turned out to be absentee votes, too, one where (if flipper math is correct) the last point on the graph took an impossible upward jump?   I'll bet you can find others too, but impossible means impossible.  If it's impossible without fraud, then it must be fraud (or else you don't understand the math).

I'm agreeing with you!  You have proof that the result was impossible, unless there was fraud (or unless you have some basic misunderstandings about the math).  You want to see Romney defeated.  Proof that he benefitted from fraud would knock him out of the race.  You have that proof (unless you are mistaken about the math), and in a very, very straightforward argument.  Why let that proof languish in a comment on a forum like this?  Put it out there, post it widely.  It's such a simple, straightforward argument that anyone with just a little bit of background in statistics will quickly see it for what it is.

UPDATE!  Mitt won Kalamazoo County in Michigan by just 663 votes ... 9,671 to 9,008.  But the absentee vote went 2,479 to 1,052 for Romney.  Plug that one into your calculator!  Or Macomb county, Romney edges it out with 23,188 to 22,999 on election day but ... brace yourself ... 14,650 to 7,219 absentee!   Holy cow.  It's less than 1% difference at the polls but two-to-one absentee?   What are the odds??   Either this is fraud, or ... well, you know.

----------


## drummergirl

> Or maybe just a probabilistic threshold.


Please define this term.





> If fraud was at the tabulator, why release the EVM data at all?


Because the election officials are ignorant of the theft in their own house.

----------


## drummergirl

> Why let that proof languish in a comment on a forum like this?  Put it out there, post it widely.  It's such a simple, straightforward argument that anyone with just a little bit of background in statistics will quickly see it for what it is.


well, DSW, I've talked with lots of people about this IRL, online, everywhere I have influence.  Of course, I'm not Rupert Murdoch.  I happen to know that RonRules has gone to universities, presented this work to statistics professors and grad students, and is working with his local election officials.  What exactly have you done?  Besides make circular arguments, of course.

----------


## drummergirl

> If you didn't misunderstand the math in your proof that Romney's absentee percentage was *impossible*, then it's a very straightforward proof.   If the same pattern holds in more than one state, and you aren't wrong about the math, then you've caught him redhanded, and with a proof that anyone with just a little bit of background in statistics will understand.   
> 
> If there was flipping in Iowa, and if you understand the math about flatlining graphs correctly, then a substantial percentage of the precincts there had to be flippers.  The votes were counted manually, and in public, and Ron Paul supporters were encouraged to record the results of those manual counts.  It's virtually certain (if you're right) that some of the flipper precincts had their manual counts reported independently, and (if you're right) they'll show tell-tale manipulation that moves votes from one candidate to another but keeps the total the same.  One would raise suspicions and get big attention.  Two would probably doom Romney's campaign.  Three or more and he'll be shopping for mansions in a country without an extradition treaty.  And, if you're right about the flipping, the chances of a few flipper counties being among those with independent reports of the manual counts are a virtual certainty.   All that needs to be done is collect them, and compare against the central tabulator numbers, until you find the flippers.
> 
> Either of these, unless you've made a very basic mistake in your understanding of the math, would be the kind of easily-accessible proof that would knock Romney out of the race.


This has to be your most hideous post yet.  DSW, go back under your bridge.

----------


## dsw

> Please define this term.


(Probabilistic threshold)  If there's a sharp threshold, with flipping above X votes total and not below, then pairs of EVMs that straddle the threshold point would show a sharp and repeatable contrast.  A smarter algorithm would "throw the dice" to decide whether to flip, and maybe how much to flip, with the probability and maybe also magnitude of flipping increasing with larger vote totals.  That wouldn't show up as dramatically but it should still show up if there's enough data to look at.

----------


## drummergirl

that's quite a bit different than the definitions of the two words would tend to indicate.

Probabilistic - having to do with the statistical possibility that an event will occur

Threshold - a minimum level needed for something to take place. e.g. A sustained nuclear reaction requires a mass of fissionable material above the critical mass threshold.




> If there's a sharp threshold, with flipping above X votes total and not below, then pairs of EVMs that straddle the threshold point would show a sharp and repeatable contrast.


Yes, that's been discussed for a number of posts now.  What do you see as "probabilistic" in such a number?




> (Probabilistic threshold)  If there's a sharp threshold, with flipping above X votes total and not below, then pairs of EVMs that straddle the threshold point would show a sharp and repeatable contrast.  A smarter algorithm would "throw the dice" to decide whether to flip, and maybe how much to flip, with the probability and maybe also magnitude of flipping increasing with larger vote totals.  That wouldn't show up as dramatically but it should still show up if there's enough data to look at.

----------


## dsw

> This has to be your most hideous post yet.  DSW, go back under your bridge.


I think the absentee argument is bogus, and is based on a misunderstanding similar to the one behind the "graph must flatline" argument.  If it were valid then it would be a proof, and a very simple and straightforward one, of fraud.  Enough to knock Romney out of the race.  But it's not valid, and it's wrong in a very basic way.

If there were flipping in Iowa then the number of precincts where the manual counts were independently reported is large enough, and the number of precincts that would have had to have been flipped (if the "graph must flatline" argument were valid) would be large enough, that there would have had to have been some overlap and flipping would have been obvious.  There were some "typo" kinds of errors, but no "flippers" with Romney +N and Paul -N or anything of the sort.  So it's a debunk.  

But I think you're right about one thing.   Pointing out these things is clearly not welcome.  And more and more I've descended into mocking what I regard as bogus arguments, and mocking people for pursuing something they feel passionately about, in whatever way they feel like pursuing it, is hideous.

Thanks for saying that.  I apologize for the mocking tone.

----------


## drummergirl

> If there were flipping in Iowa then the number of precincts where the manual counts were independently reported is large enough, and the number of precincts that would have had to have been flipped (if the "graph must flatline" argument were valid) would be large enough, that there would have had to have been some overlap and flipping would have been obvious.  There were some "typo" kinds of errors, but no "flippers" with Romney +N and Paul -N or anything of the sort.  So it's a debunk.


Unfortunately, you are wrong on this one.  There has been a great deal of controversy in Iowa since election day about many issues.  You keep saying everything is ok, but I've never seen anything from you but hand waving arguments to explain this:   



and, now I must get some sleep; I have a gig tomorrow.

----------


## Pauling

> I was just getting those typos out of the way, in response to the one he posted.  He claims that there is evidence of over a hundred more discrepancies in Iowa, discrepancies between the manual count done in public and the result from the central tabulator.  If there was flipping in Iowa -- correct me if I'm wrong on this estimate -- then based on your graph something like 15-30% of the precincts were flipped, starting with precincts as small as 70 total votes or so.  If he's got 120+ verifiable discrepancies then it's a virtual certainty that some of those are in the flipped precincts.  
> 
> Even just a handful that show Romney getting the same number of "extra" votes that other candidates are losing would *end* Romney's campaign.  Imagine that happening before the Texas and California primaries.  
> 
> There are no poll tapes in Iowa.  *But the count was done manually and in public*, with observers allowed to record the results with video and photographs.   A lot of them were recorded.  Watchthevote2012 had an organized effort to get people to record and report the manual counts, and there were quite a few others posted to youtube, facebook, twitter, blogs, and in local papers.  
> 
> If there was flipping in Iowa, then there is zero chance that the flipped precincts would turn out to have no overlap with the precincts that had the manual counts independently recorded.   If there was flipping, then the proof that would end Romney's campaign is out there, and has been for more than three months.  Better late than never but time is running out.


Yo dog...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...cret-location/

----------


## melodicEntropy

> [system won't let me post an image]


For the sake of clarity, the X-axis is what, here?

----------


## RonRules

> For the sake of clarity, the X-axis is what, here?


Cumulative Precinct Vote Tally expressed in %. 

That's all the precincts vote counts added up with each other from left to right. The last point on each trace on the chart includes ALL precincts, therefore ALL demographics. 

That's important to know because these types of charts tend to remove the demographics effects. If you plot pure demographics with these charts, they will flat line. (almost perfectly).

Here's an example of different types of Republican females, voter registration:


Also this:


This technique is so good that I suspect census fraud with Hispanic Democrats with the 2010 census. There are benefits to cheating the census: Electoral College votes, Delegates, Congressional Reps, Federal aid.

----------


## affa

> Example: if every machine were programmed so that at 250 votes Romney begins receiving 5% extra of the vote from Gingrich, a precinct with a single EVM would be affected at a precinct vote of 250 votes; a 2- EVM precinct with equal votes in each machine would be affected at 500 votes- and so forth.


Interesting theory.   And obviously, the actual number would show some variance.   Assuming three machines in a line, and 900 voters, we might see the first machine get 400 voters (150 votes affected), the second machine get 300 voters (50 votes affected) and the third machine get 200 voters (0 votes affected), for a total of 200 affected votes.    That's just an example, obviously - not just the voter totals, but the 'hinge point' as well.

And that's assuming it's done at the EVM and not the central tabulator, of course.

----------


## affa

> But I think you're right about one thing.   Pointing out these things is clearly not welcome.  And more and more I've descended into mocking...


Did you ever stop to think you might be conflating or confusing the reasons some people dislike you?   Just reread your own comment.   

Perhaps you get a cold reception because of your mocking tone (and tendency to drive a conversation in circles by focusing on inconsequential minutia or by re-asking questions you've already asked a dozen times) and not because of the occasional salient point you may make.

You started out acting like a doddering professor slow on the uptake, asking over and over again for the same explanations.  Then you shifted to repeating the same misleading statements over and over.  Then you straight up became rude.   And the whole time?  You distract from the actual conversation being had, driving the conversation away from new points (like Romney vs. Romney delegates) into unimportant tangents.  Yea, maybe that's why you don't get a warm welcome.  Just maybe.

----------


## Aden

So if I understand things correctly, after California results come in, we can use the fantastic precinct-level demographic data to finally put to rest the notion that demographics are responsible for Romney doing better in larger precincts?

----------


## drummergirl

> So if I understand things correctly, after California results come in, we can use the fantastic precinct-level demographic data to finally put to rest the notion that demographics are responsible for Romney doing better in larger precincts?


yes

----------


## drummergirl

It's a little technical after about page 10 melodic, but it should get you up to speed pretty quick.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...1iE/edit?pli=1

----------


## melodicEntropy

> It's a little technical after about page 10 melodic, but it should get you up to speed pretty quick.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...1iE/edit?pli=1


Thanks. I'll take a look at this a bit later when I have more time. I have a fairly significant background in stats, so I'm very curious to see what this is all about.

----------


## andrer

> It's a little technical after about page 10 melodic, but it should get you up to speed pretty quick.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...1iE/edit?pli=1


You could include the whole Swedish general election beneath the german.



Also this one should be included.

----------


## drummergirl

Sweden does have such lovely election data.  I know I have both of those charts in my notes; I'm not sure why they aren't in the addendum (other than I was trying to get it done and had to pick and choose kinda fast).  Oh, and I think at the time, I didn't want to open the 2008 can of worms.  I've since come to understand that it isn't the flipping that's new; it's the detection method that's new. 




> You could include the whole Swedish general election beneath the german.
> 
> 
> 
> Also this one should be included.

----------


## RonRules

This may require a separate California thread, but here's about 15 charts I did for 2008. 

These charts cover the entire state (8.1 Million votes, including absentee votes). Since we can't have enough flat lines, in case the die-hard skeptics don't think these lines MUST be flat, here's a whole bunch of them flat lines. 

BTW, the data comes from here: http://swdb.berkeley.edu/d00/s08.html (SOV column)

American Independent Party:



Libertarian Party:



Peace & Freedom Party:

----------


## RonRules

Propositions:

Note that propositions are like separate elections for each proposition yes/no vote. If I put them all in the same chart all 7 elections (total of 700%) have to share the same scale. That's why they're all bunched up at the bottom here:



So, I split them up in groups of 2:

----------


## RonRules

Here's where the crooked crooks come in:

This one surprised me. I re-extracted the numbers and double checked everything.

*The Green Party is a flipper!.* 

Either someone hates Ralph Nader (that's easy), or loves Cynthia McKinney (That's less likely, click here: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_oOJMYL8TW6...a_mckinney.jpg)




Here's our friend Romney, flipping the bird to all of California in 2008:



Next I'll do all 72 counties, county by county. I'll just post a few 

All 5 SoCal counties are flippers. Shasta county is not:



I have to find out which of the 72 California counties are not flippers and what equipment/procedures they use. We'll hopefully be able to *prevent* the problem in California in 2012.

Texas is also URGENT to analyze. We need see which counties are flippers and write a report to all the county vote administrators well BEFORE their election in 3 weeks.

We need more volunteers here. This is crucially important and I'm convinced that we can win in 2012 by exposing this *blatant Election Fraud.*

----------


## RonRules

MASSIVE vote flipping against Ron Paul found in the 2008 North Carolina primaries, Wake county home of Raleigh (College Town)

I got an emergency charting request this morning, given that the NC elections are today.

I was given this screen shot taken during the 2008 elections. Note Ron's numbers at 70% of the vote reported compared to 100%. Normally, this is IMPOSSIBLE: *Ron Paul dropped from 27% to 3% !!!*



I downloaded the data from the NC Elections website and analyzed Wake county specifically. 

*What I found is THE most extreme case of vote flipping that have ever seen:*



Ron Paul should have gotten about 34% of the vote and McCain 26%. This is absolutely outrageous.

Date source: http://www.ncsbe.gov/content.aspx?id=69

If you live in NC. DEMAND that these 2008 results be reviewed. Do not accept for an answer: "It was certified!"

In today's election: 
DEMAND copies of the poll tapes, 
DEMAND all the information you can about these voting machines and the Central Tabulator. 
DEMAND Make, model, software version, time of last update, testing procedures, time of last test, time of last software update, connection to the internet yes/no, use of anti-virus software. 
Ask anything you can.

IT GETS EVEN WORSE:
Note the second screen shot (to the right, with 100% of the vote in) It shows *Ron Paul at 3%*. That's nowhere what he actually got. *His exact percentage was 11.36 %*

Talk about a slap in the face to finish the night.



Wake county and North Carolina uses SOE voting equipment. This is from the Spanish owned Syctl company.

----------


## Liberty1789

> I was given this screen shot taken during the 2008 elections. Note Ron's numbers at 70% of the vote reported compared to 100%. Normally, this is IMPOSSIBLE


40,000+ votes were cast in Wake County and the screenshot shows like 3,000... Not too sure what to make of this... Feels like rubbish...

----------


## RonRules

> 40,000+ votes were cast in Wake County and the screenshot shows like 3,000... Not too sure what to make of this... Feel like rubbish...


That's just the specific Raleigh precincts within Wake. Wake is the entire county.

Regardless, with 70% reporting, you know as well as I do that the final candidate percentages at 100% reported should be extremely close to those at 70%

----------


## RonRules

Hey Liberty, any chance we could get an update on this chart? We're in the process of writing to a LOT of election officials and we need an update on who's been cheated by this vote flipping. 
Thanks

----------


## Liberty1789

> That's just the specific Raleigh precincts within Wake. Wake is the entire county.
> 
> Regardless, with 70% reporting, you know as well as I do that the final candidate percentages at 100% reported should be extremely close to those at 70%


Hmm... Cannot see the Raleigh precinct in the dataset. What would "PRECINCTS: 70% reporting" mean then? I am just confused frankly.

Getting a vote count going back is easy anyway. You've showed it eloquently with Florida: just need to insert a card in the machine for a few seconds with a non-zero starting counter...

----------


## dr.k.research

> ... Feels like rubbish...


What? And your supposed to be a researcher? Statistically, this is indicative of gross fraud. Rubbish????

----------


## Liberty1789

> What? And your supposed to be a researcher? Statistically, this is indicative of gross fraud. Rubbish????


OK, let me rephrase: the data feed looks erroneous. I cannot reconcile "Raleigh", "precincts: 100% reporting" and ca. 3,000 votes. Now the denomination on the chart might not match the denominations of the data set provided by RonRules. In which case, we could be looking at a beautiful evidence of real time, post polling station closure vote tampering. Which depresses me no end...

----------


## RonRules

I've been asked to analyze Indiana and West Virgina, but I've got trouble finding adequate data.

Indiana has scanned images, so I can't use that. Can someone here help find electronic text, Excel or ".csv" data to facilitate the analysis?

Here's what I found on the Indiana website:
http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/file...404_152743.pdf

West Virginia does not seem to have precincl-level results, although it may be possible to do one county at a time by selecting the menus. Basically, it sucks. Can anybody help find the right type of data

http://apps.sos.wv.gov/elections/res...ionid=3&type=0

Thanks.

----------


## drummergirl

I used to live near there.  So, a couple of things.  Wake county has several municipalities, Raleigh being one.  It's the state capitol and used to be the largest.  There are suburban communities that are most of the county population these days.  It is home of NC State University, which I'd expect to be big for RP.  Long history of election fraud in that area, so not too shocking if you know the tarheel state.  And now I'm homesick for Brunswick stew...  so the question becomes, do I have time to cook and watch election returns?




> OK, let me rephrase: the data feed looks erroneous. I cannot reconcile "Raleigh", "precincts: 100% reporting" and ca. 3,000 votes. Now the denomination on the chart might not match the denominations of the data set provided by RonRules. In which case, we could be looking at a beautiful evidence of real time, post polling station closure vote tampering. Which depresses me no end...

----------


## RonRules

No flipping in North Carolina today! It was a total flat line:



I need to point out that this is *THE FIRST TIME ROMNEY FLAT LINES in 2012.* (Except Puerto Rico).

This is HUGE and we need to maximize the benefit of that information.

IMPORTANT: If you live in NC, PLEASE call your county clerk responsible for elections and ask when the voting machine software was last updated. This is especially the case for the Central Tabulator.

Please get all the information you can about the Central Tabulator. It should be an SOE, but I need the exact software version, when it was updated, if anybody came around to do maintenance on it, what date, etc. Ask if the Central Tabulator computer is ever connected to the internet, if USB keys are occasionally plugged into it, if they use Anti-Virus software.

With Romney now the "Presumptive Nominee" it looks like they though it was a good idea to turn off the vote flipping. That's only going to get them into more trouble because it shows they have recently accessed the machine.

Edit: Updated chart with 100% of the data and including absentee votes.

----------


## drummergirl

> Hmm... Cannot see the Raleigh precinct in the dataset. What would "PRECINCTS: 70% reporting" mean then? I am just confused frankly.


That would mean 70% of the precincts had turned in their results to the state elections office.

----------


## RonRules

Here's preliminary results for Indiana. Not all the data is available yet but it looks like we have a flipper! 

Note that the flipping was specifically targetted on Santorum. Interesting!



Data source: http://www.in.gov/apps/sos/primary/sos_primary12

----------


## drummergirl

So now the key piece of information is what software/firmware/whateverware update did they get in North Carolina but not in Indiana?

64 dollar question...

----------


## RonRules

Here's West Virginia. I guess they got to that machine, because it looks like a flat-liner.



Data Source:
http://apps.sos.wv.gov/elections/res...ype=UNOFFICIAL

----------


## drummergirl

And here I thought from watching the returns it would be a flipper.  Go figure.




> Here's West Virginia. I guess they got to that machine, because it looks like a flat-liner.
> 
> 
> 
> Data Source:
> http://apps.sos.wv.gov/elections/res...ype=UNOFFICIAL

----------


## RonRules

I'm doing all California counties for 2008. 

Note at how Mitt Romney specifically was trying to oppose Ron Paul even back then:



We are a huge threat to the establishment, lets not let it go to waste! Talk to statisticians about these charts, talk to your election reps. Basically, get the word you but hold off on the media for now. We need overwhelming support from academicians first.

----------


## RonRules

> And here I thought from watching the returns it would be a flipper.  Go figure.


The live returns from WV were fluctuating, not necessarily going up steadily. I have many screen shots from last night. With 6% reporting Romney was at 73% and ended up at 70%, but with variations in-between. (on CNN). The number of data points on my chart is only 41 (the number of counties), so the chart won't be smooth.

If you happen to be watching between 20-30% you would have thought he was going up. Same for a little later on. (Mind you that the cumulative charts are not necessarily a match with the live returns, but they seem to, probably because on average smaller precincts get counted first)

----------


## drummergirl

I take it that we don't have precinct level data yet then?




> The live returns from WV were fluctuating, not necessarily going up steadily. I have many screen shots from last night. With 6% reporting Romney was at 73% and ended up at 70%, but with variations in-between. (on CNN). The number of data points on my chart is only 41 (the number of counties), so the chart won't be smooth.

----------


## Aden

It would be interesting to see what charts for 2008 West Virginia and North Carolina look like.

----------


## RonRules

> I take it that we don't have precinct level data yet then?


Precinct-level data is VERY important. NC in 2008 was mostly flat-lining until I looked at only Wake county, where it was the worst flipper ever.

Please DEMAND from your election officials textual (".txt", ".xls", ".csv") files from every precinct and copies of poll tapes to match. 

Most of my time is spent chasing and converting lousy PDF data.

----------


## RonRules

> It would be interesting to see what charts for 2008 West Virginia and North Carolina look like.


See above. The overall NC 2008 was lame but one county was horrible. I'm expecting the same in Milwaukee county WI. I have yet to get Precinct-Level data from the City of Milwaukee. They appeared to have skewed the entire county.

I'll see if I can find WV 2008.

Edit: http://apps.sos.wv.gov/elections/results/index.aspx

The WV website is screwed up. When you select 2008, you only get 2012 data. If this has changed, please notify me.

----------


## RonRules

California 2008 is going well. About half are flippers. They didnt' seem to bother with small counties or there was no Central Tabulator present:

Here's some Duzies:

----------


## RonRules

Time for the Flipper song:
http://www.televisiontunes.com/Flipper.html



I have no idea who the cow represents.

----------


## DanK22

I noticed that Rockingham county, NC had all 4 candidates around 20-35% with 6.5% reporting in and at 100% reporting it's 65/10/10/9. Might that be a case of flipping?

----------


## RonRules

The people at AdWords have a great sense of humor:



That's the ad I get when I go to play the flipper song:
http://www.televisiontunes.com/Flipper.html

I have never once installed a Ring Tone. This one I MUST have.

----------


## RonRules

> I noticed that Rockingham county, NC had all 4 candidates around 20-35% with 6.5% reporting in and at 100% reporting it's 65/10/10/9. Might that be a case of flipping?


FLIPPING ALERT! Get me the precinct-level data and I'll get right to it.

----------


## DanK22

> FLIPPING ALERT! Get me the precinct-level data and I'll get right to it.


2012 results not up yet: http://www.co.rockingham.nc.us/pView...5148&catid=407

Also, I took a screenshot of the results at 6.5% but they're on my home computer, I'll post them as soon as I can. I looked at surrounding counties and they're results-in % varied but they were 60% and up, nothing near what Rockingham was reporting.

----------


## RonRules

> 2012 results not up yet: http://www.co.rockingham.nc.us/pView...5148&catid=407
> 
> Also, I took a screenshot of the results at 6.5% but they're on my home computer, I'll post them as soon as I can. I looked at surrounding counties and they're results-in % varied but they were 60% and up, nothing near what Rockingham was reporting.


Thanks for looking at the county data. 

About 75% of the counties publish election data and it's often little gold nuggets, like Outagamie County, my favorite county in all the USA. 

I'll probably retire there, just because they do elections by hand and it's got the cutest website:
http://www.outagamie.org/

----------


## RonRules

Based on some PM's I received, I decided to analyze the two most populous counties in NC: Mecklenburg and Wake Counties in North Carolina.

What I found REALLY surprised me. (and at this point, I need some pretty good surprises to startle me)

Even though the whole state flat-lines, Mecklenburg is flipper and a pretty strong one at that:



And so is Wake county. (That was a very strong flipper back in 2008)



Why would the whole state be flat and these two large counties (~1 mil each) be strong flippers? Is that a new way to hide the fraud? Let's have all hands on deck to help analyze this.

Chart re-post: (Entire State) Note that it's flat within one pixel:




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

----------


## drummergirl

Just knowing North Carolina, I would say because the statewide impact of something like that would be seriously diluted there.  NC has lots of small cities around the state, so if you are ordering precincts by size throughout the state, the Mecklenburg and Wake results won't be grouped together but will be mixed in with Durham, Orange, the triad, etc. precincts.  It's like the opposite of Nevada that way.  In other words, if those 2 counties were the only flippers, they'd give Romney a boost of about 20,000 votes statewide, but there would be enough other precincts in that size range unflipped to hide it in the statewide graph.




> Based on some PM's I received, I decided to analyze the two most populous counties in NC: Mecklenburg and Wake Counties in North Carolina.
> 
> What I found REALLY surprised me. (and at this point, I need some pretty good surprises to startle me)
> 
> Even though the whole state flat-lines, Mecklenburg is flipper and a pretty strong one at that:
> 
> 
> 
> And so is Wake county. (That was a very strong flipper back in 2008)
> ...

----------


## RonRules

I'm going for a deep dive in North Carolina. Those results are too weird.

At this time only one county has been "canvassed" (whatever that means when a single computer runs your entire state election)
http://results.enr.clarityelections....ct-county.html

Robeson county has been canvassed. I'm going to analyze it and about a dozen other uncanvassed counties and see what I see.

I'll be doing: Cabarrus, Catawba, Dare, Henderson, Gaston, Guilford, Lincoln, McDowell, New_Hanover, Pender, Stanly, Wilkes, Yadkin counties.  
Edit also: Rockingham (requested above) and Tyrrell because it's the smallest county (4,440 people) and they really seem to hate Ron Paul.

I've already done: Mecklenburg and Wake and are shown above.

----------


## economics102

Just stopping by to say hello. I have no idea what you guys are doing exactly but I'm glad you're doing it

----------


## RonRules

> Just stopping by to say hello. I have no idea what you guys are doing exactly but I'm glad you're doing it


Thanks for dropping by.  

It's all pretty easy. If the lines are not horizontal (with a little bit of wiggling on the left), then it's ELECTION FRAUD.

The flippers slope up, the flippees slope down.

BTW economics102, Austrian or Kensyian?

----------


## economics102

> Thanks for dropping by.  
> 
> It's all pretty easy. If the lines are not horizontal (with a little bit of wiggling on the left), then it's ELECTION FRAUD.
> 
> The flippers slope up, the flippees slope down.
> 
> BTW economics102, Austrian or Kensyian?


Thanks for the simple explanation!

The story behind my alias is basically one of those "I thought I was being clever but later realized it didn't make any sense" stories. Now I'm stuck with it!

----------


## dr.k.research

> And so is Wake county. (That was a very strong flipper back in 2008)


Excellanto!! This goes along very well with what activists are saying on the ground, including poll watchers and canvassers, that the results CANNOT be correct. Let's us research as much as possible to find other evidence of fraud in NC

WV is important, too. There is a city, Huntington, where the ClearChannel host frequently promoted Dr. Paul. He had Rand Paul on his highly popular show. I promoted the good doctor several times there over the years. All precincts in this region must be extensively analyzed. Showing only 11,600 votes in the entire state for Paul should help. Affidavits, anyone? www.ronpaulvotecount.org

----------


## Jingles

Can someone please summarize this for me? I really don't feel like reading a 70something page long thread to know what I'm dealing with this here. Is this basically some kind of conspiracy in regards to if you vote more for one the votes to another or something?

----------


## RonRules

> Can someone please summarize this for me? I really don't feel like reading a 70something page long thread to know what I'm dealing with this here. Is this basically some kind of conspiracy in regards to if you vote more for one the votes to another or something?


Since you're from Virginia, here's a real quick way to explain this.

Go to your Virginia State Board of Elections website:

https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virginia.g...cial/1_s.shtml

Click on Votes by county/city:
https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virginia.g...56EC47_s.shtml

Click on "RICHMOND CITY"
https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virginia.g...4356EC47.shtml

Look carefully and note how much better Romney does in the precincts with more votes total.  Do you find this strange? 

Precinct size has essentially no relation to candidate popularity. It's a totally independent variable with nearly zero correlation to vote results.

This is happening in just about every single precinct, county and state in the Union.

If you chart the above data you get this:



This above chart was so incredible that another flipper analyst did not believe it. He did the chart himself to confirm:



In every single case of vote flipping, in every precinct, county, state the probability of such results happening by luck is infinitesimally small, sometimes exceeding the capacity of computers to represent such small numbers.

If you don't believe what I just said, use the data and charts I have just shown you and take them to a statistician.

I hope you're hooked now.

----------


## drummergirl

> Can someone please summarize this for me? I really don't feel like reading a 70something page long thread to know what I'm dealing with this here. Is this basically some kind of conspiracy in regards to if you vote more for one the votes to another or something?


the basic idea of vote flipping is you take a certain percentage of your opponent's votes and make them yours.

for instance, if an actual precinct vote total was Romney 100, Paul 100, but Romney is flipped and extra 10% the reported results would be Romney 110, Paul 90.

These are much shorter than the threads.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...nfdkBzdBw/edit

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...1iE/edit?pli=1

----------


## RonRules

I've completed all of California 2008. About 1/2 are flippers but I have not yet established if it's due to size or the use of Central Tabulators or not:

Here's some more interesting ones:







Truly bizarre:


There's a few close kissers like this one:





*I count 39 out of 58 counties flipping favorably for Romney.* The others are flat or bumpy lines.

----------


## RonRules

Napa county, rich wine regions was exceptionally flat:



Gotta give them a call tomorrow.

----------


## MelissaCato

How did you make out with the info I sent ya?

----------


## rb3b3

well we are $#@!ed then, because no matter how hard we bust our ass to win ca, the flipper was there in 2008, i am sure it will return in 2012 !!!!!! god dam it!!!!!!!! SOMEONE $#@!N DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS $#@! !!!!!!!!!!!!! INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT IT EVERYDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DO SOMETHING WITH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## RonRules

> well we are $#@!ed then, because no matter how hard we bust our ass to win ca, the flipper was there in 2008, i am sure it will return in 2012 !!!!!! god dam it!!!!!!!! SOMEONE $#@!N DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS $#@! !!!!!!!!!!!!! INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT IT EVERYDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DO SOMETHING WITH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Yes, and that's why this discovery is so huge. It also shows a terrible problem with Republican party unity back in 2008, where by that time McCain was essentially the "Presumptive Nominee", yet Romney was trying to steal the election from under him. I have also made other discoveries in California that are equally shocking. I have more analysis to do to prove it. Note that we still don't know WHO is causing this, so we need more analysis and discussion.

But I do get encouraged when people "see" the problem.

Although I personally put a lot of charts in this thread, there's also a fair bit of background work that goes on. We also need a LOT more people to help and that includes you. If you have a certain skill that could help such as formalizing the proof, writing letters, making calls, by all means, please do.

We have drafted a letter that will go to all the California counties to alert the election registrars and clerks of the problem and how to prevent it. That should go out in two or three days. It's pretty urgent.

Some election officials have been served papers by a process server for their failure to provide basic election information. That costs money.

I met and exchanged about a dozen e-mails with Riverside elections officials. I suggest you bring our data to your own county election officials. 

I have personally met twice with a person from the main campaign, who tours with Ron Paul himself. This person has the right credentials (math degree, for one) and can understand the problem and act on it. The campaign, through this person now has a well structured 3GB database describing this fraud as well as all the various reports that we have produced.

We also have two people from other counties that have provided substantial help in terms of making phone calls and collecting information.

We need to contact more members of academia. These people are busy and it will take a while before we find someone that's willing to drop their current research and tackle this rather large problem. Most likely they will need funding. 

The UCR Statistical Consulting Collaboratory (collaboratory.ucr.edu, see video on main page) would love to help but they also love to get paid. They proposed to do a large multi-variate study that will eclipse any doubt opponents would claim. If you have money and want to see a formal scientific paper written, please call their office at 951-827-7939. Their On-Campus Rate is $62/hour.

How Can You Help:
http://collaboratory.ucr.edu/gift.html

Gift Student stipend:
$30: 1-day of work in the Collaboratory
$150: 1-week of work in the Collaboratory
$1500: 1 full quarter of work in the Collaboratory
$4500: A full year of work in the Collaboratory
All gifts are greatly appreciated!

So as you can see, we are not just "talking" about it.

----------


## RonRules

> How did you make out with the info I sent ya?


The upload to the picture sharing site reduced the resolution of the images, which caused several items to be nearly unreadable. That's why I had asked for the original pictures by e-mail. Also, because the official numbers have not yet been released, we won't be able to do anything "official" with your data just yet.

But I thank you for all the effort you put into this and I encourage everyone to do their part like Melissa did.

----------


## RonRules

Just got a call from Rhode Island's election IT manager. He just gave me some fresh bait.

I'll chomp on that and eventually come back to NC, CA and MA 2002's Governor's race. You know who won that right?


With respect to statistical professors willing to write scientific papers on the subject, please call their office at 951-827-7939. The rate is $62/hour. 

Until someone pony's up the money, you'll just have to content yourselves with the 4-5 free volunteers on this thread.

----------


## RonRules

Rhode Island is as bad as it gets:



Currently working on the delegates. The're a ton of those and plenty of nice data.

Data source (Long Format)
http://www.ri.gov/election/results/2..._primary/data/

----------


## devil21

Im glad you found the Mecklenburg data useful RonRules.

Something else you may want to cross reference is the results on the gay marriage amendment that passed in this state.  Only 8 counties total voted against the amendment while the rest voted for and the results were very lopsided.  IIRC, Wake and Mecklenburg (urban areas) voted against.  Of course this was voted by more than just Republicans and Indys but comparing the GOP primary results to the marriage amendment votes could give some insight into whether flipping actually occured.  I don't suspect the amendment tally was tampered with.  Just a thought.

----------


## RonRules

These are the Rhode Island District 1 (of 2) delegates that were voted for on May 2, 2012.



Note that there is a "Lynda ADAMS-ROBITAILLE (ROMNEY delegate)" and a "John F. ROBITAILLE (ROMNEY delegate)" on the chart. The legend makes them look identical, but if you look carefully, one is a "j" and the other is an "L".








What is instructive here is that the candidate flips, but not the delegates.

Demographic arguments would fail to explain why the candidate flips, but not the delegates.

Clearly Houston, we have a problem with the American 2012 elections

----------


## jct74

In case anyone is wondering where their posts went, a bunch of posts were moved to the "no fraud" thread.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ing-(no-fraud)

Please stay out of this thread unless you have something productive to contribute.  If you want to criticize the project, do it in one of the "no fraud" threads linked in the OP.  This set up isn't perfect but it was the solution agreed upon by the admins/mods to the heated arguments and disruptions that were occurring in earlier threads about this topic that were distracting from the work that was trying to be done. It is a practice that has been adopted by the admins in the past to avoid these type of problems on grassroots projects.  If you don't like the way this has been set up, there is also a thread about it in Forum Feedback where you can voice your concerns.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...sition-allowed

----------


## Barrex

> Just got a call from Rhode Island's election IT manager. He just gave me some fresh bait.
> 
> I'll chomp on that and eventually come back to NC, CA and MA 2002's Governor's race. You know who won that right?
> 
> 
> With respect to statistical professors willing to write scientific papers on the subject, please call their office at 951-827-7939. The rate is $62/hour. 
> 
> Until someone pony's up the money, you'll just have to content yourselves with the 4-5 free volunteers on this thread.


How many hours would be needed?

Start a chip-in?

----------


## RonRules

> How many hours would be needed?
> 
> Start a chip-in?


I've personally been on this about 560 hours. That's $34K. I think we'll have trouble raising something like that, but a few thousands could at least confirm the work that's been done currently.

----------


## drummergirl

It depends on what you want them to look at.  We have way more data than 5 people can look at in 2 months of part time and there is more data every week with additional primaries.  That doesn't include historical data either.

I'd say ballpark, you'd need about $40,000 to get going.




> How many hours would be needed?
> 
> Start a chip-in?

----------


## Barrex

> I've personally been on this about 560 hours. That's $34K. I think we'll have trouble raising something like that, but a few thousands could at least confirm the work that's been done currently.


Not realistic to get that amount of money....on the other hand you guys/girls/people (with all due respect) dont seem to move from the spot (are not going to deliver killing blow)....Maybe try to find newspaper to finance it instead with promise to get exclusive or something like that...

----------


## kathy88

> Not realistic to get that amount of money....on the other hand you guys/girls/people (with all due respect) dont seem to move from the spot (are not going to deliver killing blow)....Maybe try to find newspaper to finance it instead with promise to get exclusive or something like that...


That's a great idea, Barrex. I would be willing to chip in on this, but corporate cash may be the way to go.... Brainstorm on possibilities?

----------


## chri5opher

//

----------


## Bohner

> We need to contact more members of academia. These people are busy and it will take a while before we find someone that's willing to drop their current research and tackle this rather large problem. Most likely they will need funding. 
> 
> The UCR Statistical Consulting Collaboratory (collaboratory.ucr.edu, see video on main page) would love to help but they also love to get paid. They proposed to do a large multi-variate study that will eclipse any doubt opponents would claim. If you have money and want to see a formal scientific paper written, please call their office at 951-827-7939. Their On-Campus Rate is $62/hour.
> 
> How Can You Help:
> http://collaboratory.ucr.edu/gift.html
> 
> Gift Student stipend:
> $30: 1-day of work in the Collaboratory
> ...


Hey RR...

Have you considered proposing this to one of Paul's SuperPACs?

I personally don't see the Paul campaign putting money into this as they need to use their funds wisely, and investing in this would sort of reinforce the "there goes crazy uncle Ron babbling about another conspiracy" stigma. 

The SuperPACs on the other hand have cash on hand, and would allow Paul to personally distance himself from the whole flippergate scandal if they were the ones funding it. 

Just a thought.

----------


## drummergirl

> Hey RR...
> 
> Have you considered proposing this to one of Paul's SuperPACs?
> 
> I personally don't see the Paul campaign putting money into this as they need to use their funds wisely, and investing in this would sort of reinforce the "there goes crazy uncle Ron babbling about another conspiracy" stigma. 
> 
> The SuperPACs on the other hand have cash on hand, and would allow Paul to personally distance himself from the whole flippergate scandal if they were the ones funding it. 
> 
> Just a thought.


I suggest we try the Colbert Super PAC; they seem to have plenty of cash to throw around.

----------


## Steve-in-NY

Yknow, I stop in this thread pretty often, I find it very interesting. Im honestly not sure if I believe whats happening is what is being claimed, but I am also keeping an open mind. I think that just maybe you may be onto something... just not sure what. Yet.

That being said - I'll reach right to the top and say this:
If you guys are correct, and there is voter fraud going on, it seems to me that even $100,000 is nothing if it can definitively prove fraud taking place, considering the ramifications of such a scenario on the country.
If you guys are wrong and there's some previously overlooked data set that causes this phenomenon it would seem that it would be caught rather quickly, therefore ultimately costing perhaps a few thousand and put it to bed.

Therefore, I would start a chip-in to have an experienced, accredited third party have a look and if they smell a rat so to speak, THEN would be the time to push to drive the study forward.

</IMHO>

----------


## drummergirl

> If you guys are correct, and there is voter fraud going on, it seems to me that even $100,000 is nothing if it can definitively prove fraud taking place, considering the ramifications of such a scenario on the country.
> 
> </IMHO>


I keep having nightmares about what happens the first week of November when massive voter fraud is uncovered the day after the election by the Democratic party in several key states.  It would make Florida 2000 look like a kindergarden playground fight.  So, compared to that scenario $100,000 is an incredible bargain.

----------


## RonRules

A few posts ago, I think I was doin't wrong.  

Because there were so many delegates in RI I grouped them with one chart per candidate. Of course, there is no competition between delegates for the same candidate! That was the wrong way to chart delegates. 

Instead you have to pit each candidate delegates against one-another, for each corresponding delegate slot.  

Specifically: Romney's Delegate #1 vs. Paul's Delegate #1 vs Gingrich Delegate #1 vs. Santorum Delegate#1.

Here's the four RI delegates in position #1:  *Note how the evil is unveiled?!!* 

As it looks in RI, they were flipping the delegates!  Good job Romney!



May I kindly ask if the volunteer analysts of the Alabama thread could chart each delegate position for each candidate? I just want to see if the same things happens in AL.

Maybe they were careless in AL and rushed to fix it in RI.  Inquiring minds want to know!

----------


## RonRules

For your enjoyment:

*The Rhode Island District 1 Delegate Battle Royale!*

----------


## The Man

Hey RonRules- good work. In Bama Romney's delegate positions show a rise in ascending precinct total order, but remember that we found a hinge point where Romney's "votes minus delegates" takes off. This is probably as strong evidence as there is to date independent of simple comparison of low and high vote total precincts. It would be interesting to create the same plot "votes minus delegates" for the RI Primary.

----------


## The Man

> The UCR Statistical Consulting Collaboratory (collaboratory.ucr.edu, see video on main page) would love to help but they also love to get paid. They proposed to do a large multi-variate study that will eclipse any doubt opponents would claim. If you have money and want to see a formal scientific paper written, please call their office at 951-827-7939. Their On-Campus Rate is $62/hour.
> How Can You Help:
> http://collaboratory.ucr.edu/gift.html
> Gift Student stipend:
> $30: 1-day of work in the Collaboratory
> $150: 1-week of work in the Collaboratory
> $1500: 1 full quarter of work in the Collaboratory
> $4500: A full year of work in the Collaboratory
> All gifts are greatly appreciated!
> So as you can see, we are not just "talking" about it.


Make sure Dr. K is aware if this opportunity. He may have the financial means to get started.

----------


## RonRules

> It would be interesting to create the same plot "votes minus delegates" for the RI Primary.


Here it is:



It was worth the effort. Both Romney's line and Ron Paul should be completely flat, but as always, Romney's goes up, this time completely independent of demographics effects, just like in Alabaman.  The slope is not as steep, but the effect is confirmed.

Grinch & Santo look like their voters were perfect! The candidate votes almost match the delegate votes perfectly. It's much more likely instead that because they were not subjected to vote flipping (see straight lines on candidate chart, post #713) the subtraction yields near zero.

----------


## The Man

> Here it is:
> It was worth the effort. Both Romney's line and Ron Paul should be completely flat, but as always, Romney's goes up, this time completely independent of demographics effects, just like in Alabaman.  The slope is not as steep, but the effect is confirmed. Grinch & Santo look like their voters were perfect! The candidate votes almost match the delegate votes perfectly. It's much more likely instead that because they were not subjected to vote flipping (see straight lines on candidate chart) the subtraction yields near zero.


OK. You graphed the delegates cumulative graph. What happens when you create "votes minus delegates" for each candidate in each precinct and graph only the difference? This is the controversy in Alabama.

----------


## RonRules

> OK. You graphed the delegates cumulative graph. What happens when you create "votes minus delegates" for each candidate in each precinct and graph only the difference? This is the controversy in Alabama.


Here's the simpler "votes minus delegates", but because it is raw data it looks nasty. I included a polynomial fit to express the trend.

Romney minus each of his delegates:



Santorum minus each of his delegates:



And clearly the victim of abuse, Ron Paul:



The difference is absolutely startling. One more reason to act.

----------


## drummergirl

Holy hand grenades, batman!  The resemblance to Alabama is astonishing.  Just. Absolutely. Mind boggling.   






> Here's the simpler "votes minus delegates", but because it is unfiltered it looks nasty. I included a polynomial fit to express the trend.
> 
> Romney minus each of his delegates:
> 
> 
> 
> Santorum minus each of his delegates:
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## hosef

Hey all, I want to thank everyone who helped out on this.

I am a Ron Paul supporter and I was a delegate to the Nevada State Convention this last weekend. I am sure many of you know how much effort was put into Nevada in the weeks leading up to the caucus here. Unfortunately even after all the work put in by the supporters here, the final results were quite disappointing. However, after reading this and related posts I am no longer disappointed, I am rather upset. If I can help with this in any way, please let me know.

My background on the subject:
Over the last 2-3 days I have read several of the PDFs that have been made by you guys and I have read most of this thread. I have a thorough understanding of what we are looking for and what has already been used as arguments to debunk this.

My technical knowledge level:
I have a fairly advanced understanding of computers and am getting into programming. I have a fair understanding of mathematics, although I have never studied this advanced statistical stuff.

I don't want fraud to happen in TX or CA.

----------


## RonRules

> My technical knowledge level:
> I have a fairly advanced understanding of computers and am getting into programming. I have a fair understanding of mathematics, although I have never studied this advanced statistical stuff.
> 
> I don't want fraud to happen in TX or CA.


Welcome to the Ron Paul forums. This thread has brought in several new people to the forum and we're glad to see new people join.

What would be really useful is for someone to write a script in the statistical language "R" to produce the cumulative charts. I was going to do that, but every time I try to sit down to learn R, some new election has produced results that need to be analyzed quickly and I revert back to either Excel or Program4Liberty's Java program.

R is used widely in academia and has the richest set of charting options. If we code our analysis and make our charts with R, academia will much more quickly jump in and help. They use standard tools and right now, we're not. In my discussions with professors and graduate students, they see this effort as a really big project and would need considerable funding to get started, primarily to write the software needed. By having scripts that run off the tools they already use, they will be more likely to participate.

Ultimately, the R script needs to be set up to read the election data directly. It is likely that someone has already done that, so please scour the landscape thoroughly to see what has already been done in R with regads to election analysis.

For your sake, since you are getting into programming, that's a great opportunity to learn the most popular language that's used in statistics. I also need to mention that we don't use any "advanced" statistical stuff. We just happen to use a technique that is rarely used (Cumulative Vote Tally), but it's not complicated at all. It's just a matter of adding the votes from each precinct from smallest to largest and chart the corresponding candidate results.

So again welcome and don't hesitate to ask questions. Most likely, others that want to participate will have similar questions.

----------


## hosef

Alright, I am going to look into R after work today.

In the mean time could I have a more definitive feature list to work with. Eg. Do you want to do multiple states/counties on one chart? How many different ways do you want the data to be graphed? How will the input data be formatted? In some states the delegate votes have uncovered large issues with the election, how do you want the program to handle that? Also, how should I format the output to make it easier for a paid professional to work with, and therefore reduce the cost of a formal review?

----------


## RonRules

> Alright, I am going to look into R after work today.
> 
> In the mean time could I have a more definitive feature list to work with. Eg. Do you want to do multiple states/counties on one chart? How many different ways do you want the data to be graphed? How will the input data be formatted? In some states the delegate votes have uncovered large issues with the election, how do you want the program to handle that? Also, how should I format the output to make it easier for a paid professional to work with, and therefore reduce the cost of a formal review?



It's best to start small, achieve one little thing and grow from there. You'll make small mistakes and that's fine, but you'll get quick feedback. (The internet is good about that). If you try to plan a whole large project, most likely you'll make large mistakes and maybe it won't get done.

I would recommend for now to just try to make a cumulative chart with "R".  The data format we have been using is like this:


You save that data in the ".csv" format, a common format for exchanging between databases and spreadsheets.

The algorithm you use to produce the cumulative chart is this:




You can also learn how to produce the cumulative charts from the Java program that's been written by "program4liberty". That's what I use most of the time. The code in there should help you code the R script.  http://sourceforge.net/projects/voteanalyze/ (Latest version is 1.4)

If you can manage to do only that, that would be huge.  I now have over 2,100 ".csv" files that could readily be analyzed with "R". 

"R" has a rich set of graphics and people share their R scripts in the public domain:

http://rgm2.lab.nig.ac.jp/RGM2/image...ll&pageID=1042


It's quite likely that there's R scripts that read election data directly from the various state and county websites. (If anybody here could help him find that, that will help a lot). If not, that would be the next part of the project.

Presentation is a huge part of conveying information and getting accepted. People who won't understand the charts will not accept them.

Salesman dictum: "A confused mind always says no."

The fact that many people on this very RPF don't accept Vote Flipping is an indication that we have not presented the results correctly.

Good luck and give us an update regularly.

----------


## RonRules

Here's a ".csv" file reader written in R.

Load Data from csv File:
http://rgm2.lab.nig.ac.jp/RGM2/func....getSymbols.csv

The free programming environment for R that I use is this:
R for Windows, Version for R-2.15.0 (That's the latest)
Download here:
http://cran.r-project.org/bin/windows/base/

----------


## hosef

I am not that new to programming(by 'getting into it' I meant that I was trying to make money at it). I just wanted to get an idea of what you wanted it to do and what you might want it to do in the future. Also, From my work on an open source project called Drupal, I have had quite a lot of experience with people on the internet telling me about my own code.

----------


## RonRules

> I am not that new to programming(by 'getting into it' I meant that I was trying to make money at it). I just wanted to get an idea of what you wanted it to do and what you might want it to do in the future. Also, From my work on an open source project called Drupal, I have had quite a lot of experience with people on the internet telling me about my own code.


OK that gives me a better idea of your skill level. Ultimately the purpose is to nail down the cause. We have not done that yet, as you know.

To find the cause, we need to analyze various states, counties, different years, different candidates, different parties, caucuses or primaries.  We don't necessarily have to do ALL of it, but we need a wide variety of elections to analyze, all the while keeping track of what flips and what doesn't. We need to establish clear criteria to distinguish a flipped election and one that is not. We also need to correlate that with what kind of equipment is used for voting and tabulating the results.

This can only be done efficiently through automation and I think that the R statistical system could be at the center of that. Ideally the program would fetch the election data directly and upload the results to a website. Election data formats vary a lot, but many states use SOE software and those are all very consistent. We could start with those. AL, AZ, NC are some example. I think 26 states use SOE. 

Program4Liberty's Java program helped me a lot. As soon as I get a properly formatted ".csv" file, I can produce a chart and post it in 10 minutes max. The problem is that nobody else seems to use it.

It's also important to analyze "deep", like Liberty1789 and The Man did in Alabama. I consider that their results are undeniable evidence and action needs to be taken.

Finding flat-lines is important too because you can find out why they got good results. So far I've discovered that it's related to counties that don't use central tabulators.

Another effort would be to do software forensics on a Central Tabulator, with the assistance of an election county clerk. If people reading this have such connections and have to technical knowledge to investigate a compromised computer, that could very well be the quickest way to find the cause.

I see that Drupal is a content management system. Maybe it would be great to use it to host all the various data and charts we have. An interface between R and Drupal, if possible would be great to have.

If we are successful, I see such a fraud detection system to be mandatory and run on all elections.  It's totally baffling that such obvious discrepancies have been missed or ignored for decades. We have what appears to be clear flipping dating back many years.

----------


## RonRules

First TEXAS chart!

Because elections are coming up fairly shortly, I thought I'd do a quick overall analysis of the entire state. (Does TX really have 254 counties?!!)

Looks like a flat liner, but we should check individual counties to be sure. Romney was down in the noise by that time since he had pulled out:



Data source:
http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist.exe

Their election results page looks homebrew. That's a good thing. 

Can anybody brief me on what type of equipment they use, especially the central tabulator? Please tell me that it's a Hart Inter-civics, all USA made in Austin TX.  That's the only central tabulator that I've seen flat line so far (Lancaster, PA).



Edit: Travis County, home of Austin TX, the Capital *ONLY uses Hart equipment!*
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections...s-bycounty.pdf

TRAVIS
DRE Hart eSlate 4.1.3
Optical Scan Hart Ballot Now Scanner 0
Other Hart Judges Booth Controller (JBC) 4.1.3
Software Hart Ballot Now 3.2.4
Software Hart BOSS 4.2.13
Software Hart eCM 1.1.7
Software Hart SERVO 4.1.6
Software Hart Tally 4.2.8

----------


## drummergirl

> First TEXAS chart!
> 
> Because elections are coming up fairly shortly, I thought I'd do a quick overall analysis of the entire state. (Does TX really have 254 counties?!!)
> 
> Looks like a flat liner, but we should check individual counties to be sure. Romney was down in the noise by that time since he had pulled out:


now that is some good news!

I'm traveling for a few days, so only on sporadically; welcome hosef

----------


## dr.k.research

> First TEXAS chart! Travis County, home of Austin TX, the Capital ONLY uses Hart equipment


This is exceedingly important. We have a chance to see what are the real Paul numbers, here. This is especially true by combining getting out the vote WITH exit polling and grass-roots certification (through www.ronpaulvotecount.org).

I will work with grass-roots to ensure our own counting in some of the Travis county precincts. Any volunteers out there willing to help?

See this, also, where there is a huge focus on direct mail campaign for Travis County: http://www.dailypaul.com/232729/if-j...lotto-get-1500

----------


## RonRules

Let's talk about North Carolina. There's quite a bit to say.

First this: *Bribery of a North Carolina Election Director*

*What Happened:*
 •Conviction and Prison time for that Official - Bill Culp. 
 •Guilty Plea to Bribery charges for the Microvote Salesman - Ed O'Day.
 •Salesman still selling voting machines today, and is Vice President of United American Election Supply.
 •Insufficient Laws, North Carolina laws do not prohibit Ed O'Day from selling voting machines to the counties in NC, just from selling directly to the State of NC for a 10 year period.
 •Defective Machines - 400 of the Microvote DREs sold to Mecklenberg County were already known to be defective, were the source of a lawsuit between Microvote and the state of Pennsylvania.  Pennsyvania refused to buy the machines, or at least not all that Microvote tried to sell them, and Microvote sued. Microvote lost the suit.  The machines malfunctioned after North Carolina bought them (some were sold to Indiana too). But since our election director was taking bribes, he couldn't say much.

*Meet Ed O'Day, Voting Machine Salesman Extraordinaire:*

He bribed a North Carolina County Election Director, entered a guilty pleas for bribes in 1998, and in 2004 he is sponsoring a hospitality room for Georgia State Election Officials!

That should be of great concern to voting activists. Wouldn't a clean criminal background be important for Executives that influence State Election Officials? 

1. This all came to a head in 1998: 

A voting machine salesman and repairman admitted earlier this week that they gave Culp more than $134,000 since 1990 in bribes and kickbacks as rewards for county business. Ed O'Day, 63, of Columbia, S.C., and Gene Barnes, 64, of Stuarts Draft, Va., entered guilty pleas Tuesday.

They and Culp will be sentenced later this summer, the U.S. Attorney's Office said.

Culp pleaded guilty to accepting 122 bribes from O'Day and Barnes and to three counts of mail fraud stemming from his operation of the *Mecklenburg Elections Tabulation Service*, which provided news organizations with unofficial election night results. He allegedly double-billed the county and news outlets, pocketing $21,131 between December 1994, and January 1998.

O'Day is president of United American Election Supply Co. and was also an independent sales representative for MicroVote of Indianapolis. He sold Mecklenburg County more than $6 million in voting machines since 1994.

Barnes, who serviced the county's voting machines for more than 30 years, raised his prices so Culp could get a kickback of $25 per machine repaired, authorities alleged.

We'll get back to Mecklenburg in a little while.

----------


## RonRules

Let's look at North Carolina's elections from a few days ago. 

I posted a chart from NC on elections night that looked liked it totally flat lined. (See Post #696) Note that not ALL the data was in. Some people told me that the election night returns looked strange as the evening was developing so I decided to analyze individual counties and found several flippers.

Now that all 100% of data in I re-did the State chart again and notied that although, it looks pretty good, but it's not exactly as flat as last time:



Even though this looks very flat, there is a problem.

----------


## RonRules

Here's why:

The three largest counties in NC are: Mecklenburg County, Wake County and Guilford County.  The 4-5 top counties contributed to more than 50% of the votes and their results were quite similar. 

That's what made the State chart look flat.

Guilford: Romney 69.76%
Mekelenburg: Romney: 67.86%	
Wake county: Romney: 65.22%

Here's a straight precinct count tally chart (Not cumulative). As you can see the largest counties (on the right) take up most of the cumulation and have similar results for Romney. 

On the left of the chart, you can see an upslope through the noise indicating that there's quite a bit of flipping on the smaller counties, as a function of precinct size.



Because those results are very similar, this makes the cumulative line look straight. But underneath there's quite a bit of flipping!

Data source:
http://results.enr.clarityelections....862/en/pr.html

----------


## RonRules

Looking at Guilford, Mekelenburg and Wake county by themselves, we see quite a bit of Vote Flipping underneath it all:







Mekelenburg is the worse offender in all 100 NC counties.  I wonder if Ed O'Day, Voting Machine Salesman Extraordinaire had anything to do with this.

That's why it's important to dive deep in this stuff. There's always fraud to be found.

----------


## RonRules

These charts show the variation of what was found in the 31 counties I analyzed:

Clearly flipping


Clearly not:


Someone asked me for Roebeson:



The rest are here:
http://s269.photobucket.com/albums/j..._NC/?start=all

----------


## RonRules

> I noticed that Rockingham county, NC had all 4 candidates around 20-35% with 6.5% reporting in and at 100% reporting it's 65/10/10/9. Might that be a case of flipping?


Here's the chart: (You may have seen Ron, Santorum, Gingrich with the same values but missed Romney)

----------


## RonRules

In North Carolina, Liberty lover Glen Bradley's should have come in in second place. 

If you know him, can you please send him this chart and tell him to contact me. Scrhiver totally stole votes from him and Barefoot. This is serious stuff.

----------


## RonRules

I'll be doing a presentation this weekend and most likely the subject of demographics will come up.

My audience will be Californians, so here's some comparisons of the 2008 Republican votes with key demographics for all counties in California.

Here's all of the State of California in 2008:



In my analysis, I noticed that a lot of smaller counties were NOT flipped. This largely explains Romney's curve trace shape on the left part of the chart. 
All charts are here if you want to see them:
http://s269.photobucket.com/albums/j..._CA/?start=all

Compare that with key demographics. Note that black poor have similar shape to Romney's results! Have I made a big discovery that Romney has secret support among poor blacks?



As Freud said: "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar".

The demographics data source is from here:
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/data_d.../data_via_ftp/

----------


## RonRules

California counties vary in size greatly, so I represented the chart's x-axis on a log scale.

Alpine county only has 1,175 people and Los Angeles county has 37,253,956. That's a huge difference that is not well shown on a linear scale.

This new chart is showing the exact same data, but represents the wide range in county sizes better. 

It also shows interestingly that black poverty % increases in larger counties. In other words, there's much less poor blacks in rural areas compared to the rest of poor people. (This could indicate the failure of large social programs in big cities) 

Note that these are the most extreme demographics I can find. Don't jump to conclusions that one line is not horizontal!



(For some reason I could not get the third line (Per-Capita average) to follow the log scale below. It has to do with the fact that the data is plotted on two different vertical axis.)

----------


## RonRules

While we're on the subject of North Carolina, James O'Keefe (VeritasVisuals) has a new Voter Fraud video:

----------


## RonRules

Here's a much shorter video from North Carolina. It's simply amazing that considering the theathrics that O'Keefe puts on, the precinct workers are practically begging him to vote!




Texas analysis coming up next.

----------


## RonRules

Loving County, Texas, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/o...articles/hcl13

*1 Cafe, 1 Gas Station, 2 Roads: America's Emptiest County*
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/25/na...ing.html?8hpib

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/o...articles/hcl13

Should I bother analyzing?

If we want Ron Paul to win ONE county in Texas, I suggest this one.

----------


## hosef

Ok, so I have been looking into R and have had a surprisingly easy time learning it. The way they deal with the data was confusing for a while, because it is very different from a traditional programming language. I have also found that there seems to be a function to do anything. I write out 15-20 lines of code to do something, and then later come back and replace it with a 1 line R function that I found.

RonRules, I think the math for computing the cumulative totals and percentages should be easy(~30 lines of R or less). The part I am having the hardest time with is rearranging the data before I do the math. If the data for TX or CA is fairly standard then it might help me to see some of the .csv files from those 2 states.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to spend as much time working on this as I would have liked.

----------


## drummergirl

> Unfortunately, I have not been able to spend as much time working on this as I would have liked.


All of us here are just doing the best we can with the time we have.  

I just got home from a trip myself.  I'm glad to be getting back to this.

----------


## drummergirl

Unfortunately, they do not have a republican primary; only a democrat one.




> Loving County, Texas, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/o...articles/hcl13
> 
> *1 Cafe, 1 Gas Station, 2 Roads: America's Emptiest County*
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/25/na...ing.html?8hpib
> 
> http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/o...articles/hcl13
> 
> Should I bother analyzing?
> 
> If we want Ron Paul to win ONE county in Texas, I suggest this one.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> In North Carolina, Liberty lover Glen Bradley's should have come in in second place. 
> 
> If you know him, can you please send him this chart and tell him to contact me. Scrhiver totally stole votes from him and Barefoot. This is serious stuff.


I'm not sure how you are getting the X-axis on these charts.  Where does count-over-time come from?

Other problem is even if this is 100% perfectly valid, I do not know what can be done or what it would change.  If it won't change the outcome wouldn't I be wasting $100k of taxpayer money to demand a recount and just look like "sour grapes" damaging any future effort to gain elective office?

Something like this, if true, should probably be brought by a 3rd party.  Perhaps some unknown "Citizens for Fair Elections" could step up and say "It won't change the outcome, but an anomaly demands transparency" for the sake of future electoral integrity.

I dunno, this is all new to me.

----------


## RonRules

> Ok, so I have been looking into R and have had a surprisingly easy time learning it. The way they deal with the data was confusing for a while, because it is very different from a traditional programming language. I have also found that there seems to be a function to do anything. I write out 15-20 lines of code to do something, and then later come back and replace it with a 1 line R function that I found.
> 
> RonRules, I think the math for computing the cumulative totals and percentages should be easy(~30 lines of R or less). The part I am having the hardest time with is rearranging the data before I do the math. If the data for TX or CA is fairly standard then it might help me to see some of the .csv files from those 2 states.


Thank you so much for taking this on. Indeed, because the data formats vary a lot, and within a state they vary, it makes the job difficult.

Nebraska's elections were just yesterday, so I jumped in and did a chart at the state level. I found that all counties report at the state level and have the exact same format. It is also tabular with columns for each candidate, making the data format nearly perfect. 

If you wan to practice with a state, I recommend Nebraska. Nebraska is one of those states with sleepy little counties like Wisconsin that likely hand count ballots. It would be a useful exercise to do the entire state. If you can do one county, the rest will be very easy.

Here's the overall state. Even though Romney had no need to flip at all, he was still a flipper. That indicates that whatever trick causes this is already installed and they can't get to it to turn it off.



Data source: (Download spreadsheet)
http://electionresults.sos.ne.gov/re...sn=100&map=CTY

I can't wait to see if Utah will be a flipper.

----------


## RonRules

> I'm not sure how you are getting the X-axis on these charts.  Where does count-over-time come from?
> 
> Other problem is even if this is 100% perfectly valid, I do not know what can be done or what it would change.  If it won't change the outcome wouldn't I be wasting $100k of taxpayer money to demand a recount and just look like "sour grapes" damaging any future effort to gain elective office?
> 
> Something like this, if true, should probably be brought by a 3rd party.  Perhaps some unknown "Citizens for Fair Elections" could step up and say "It won't change the outcome, but an anomaly demands transparency" for the sake of future electoral integrity.
> 
> I dunno, this is all new to me.


Thank you Gunny for participating here. We're all "gunning" for you.

The X-Axis does not represent time. It represents the cumulative addition of all the precincts votes from smallest to largest going from left to right on the chart. Precinct sizes vary all over the place, because of constant re-districting and for other reasons. The chart implies that you did much, much better in small precincts. Those precincts could be anywhere, but most likely in rural areas. 

Did you get the impression as you campaigned that your support varied as widely as is seen on the chart? I doubt it.

I'm now using a program to make the charts that someone else wrote. I can't make changes to the graphics routine that makes the charts, but it looks like we're changing to a better system, the statistical language "R". Hosef is learning it and I have to learn it too.

As far as a recount, I agree that this is too expensive. Because the problem is nationwide, (even yesterday's Nebraska electionas you see above), we are seeking support from academia to make a definitive statement that there is a violation of basic statistics, nationwide and we demand an investigation at the attorney general or FBI level.

I sincerely believe this problem is that serious. Whether Ron is in or out, I will continue this analysis. I believe it is the most important project I have ever taken in my life.

If you know the election clerks in WAKE county and if printed ballots are still available, I recommend an informal spot check on a handful of the smallest precincts and compare that to a handful of large precincts. If the informal count shows a that your true count does not match the published count, you should be able to file a suit to get a re-count done at the county's expense.

----------


## RonRules

I just had the urge to chart the largest county in Nebraska. That's usually where we see the worse shenanigans.

Sure enough Romney was flipping at his best:



Note a slight difference when you compare the entire state chart and Douglass county. Ron Paul mostly flat-lined at the state level, but was flipped down in Douglass county. That's because we have noticed that if a candidate is below the 10% level, the flipping algorithm ignores him. We believe the reason is to prevent an opposing candidate vote count to go negative. It's happened in the past (see Volusia county FL)

This is serious folks. There's a total of 3,144 counties in the US. Romney is flipping up in about 99% of them. This just can't be, it's a mathematical impossibility.

----------


## RonRules

For those new to this thread, here's how an honest election should look like:



Here's an example of the Calfornia propositions that were voted in 2008. That's how is should be:

----------


## RonRules

I'm wondering if they're going to remove Ron Paul from the Utah ballots, because he's not "actively campaigning" there. I would not be surprised.

----------


## romancito

---

----------


## romancito

---

----------


## RonRules

I thought I ran into Mexican or Spanish elections when I saw this:

*Departamento de Elecciones de Contra Costa
Elección Especial de Voto por Correspondencia de mayo 8, 2012*

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

*Nope, welcome to California.*

We have ballots in 7-8 languages, including Korean, Japanese, Chinese and Vietnamese. I wonder if SOE software got a contract to translate their website to all these languages as well.

Oh also, California has a DEFICIT of 16 Billion. 

The DEBT is 361 Billion. I don't know if that includes the debt for each county. I know Riverside has 4.3 Bil in debt.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/state-deb...ebt-clock.html

----------


## RonRules

> One case in my mind that seems clear vote flipping is the case in West Virginia where Keith Judd got approx. 40 percent of the primary vote against Obama. 
> 
> Call me an idiot but I cannot see how 40 percent of people, regardless of how they may feel about Obama voted for an unknown quantity such as a name that represents an inmate in a Texas prison. I just don't see it. And I also don't see how well after Santorum and Gingrich were known to have withdrawn from a race they can gain approximately 20 percent jointly. I just can't accept it as natural.


I had trouble finding data from West Virginia. I'll gladly analyze it for you. If you can find me data at the precinct level that has a format similar to this, it's then a 10 minute job to make a chart and post it.

This is the data format that's easiest to analyse:

----------


## RonRules

> And I also don't see how well after Santorum and Gingrich were known to have withdrawn from a race they can gain approximately 20 percent jointly. I just can't accept it as natural.


If you look through this thread I show that when Cain, Bachman, Perry and Huntsman quit, the very next election got them a minuscule portion of the vote. (all less than 0.07%) 

On the other hand Santorum (a full two weeks after he quit on April 10) managed to get 18.4% in PA and as high as 26% in some counties. That could not be explained though absentee ballots because the results were similar to walk-ins on election day. I actually suspect that the ballot configuration file switched Paul for Santorum.

----------


## romancito

---

----------


## RonRules

> I am sorry that I can't get the data you requested from me. First I am not proficient in that kind of research. But second, I do not operate anymore under a scientific paradigm, while I was raised as a scientist, like we all are, I believe science is dead - social sciences. I believe in intuition. I know when I am being cheated and 40 percent for Judd sounds like a big Turkish rug over my eyes. But I can appreciate what you are doing and value you as a non-scientific actor. Your art is spectacular.


Romantico, your post was so interesting that I dropped everything to do West Virginia. Your intuition needs to be studied scientifically because you have discovered some REALLY interesting elections.

I only have "State-Level" data, but it's interesting enough.

On the evening of the West Virginia elections, I had done a chart for the Republicans and all I could observe was "meh".  Here it is again:



Now check out the Democrat elections:



There's DEFINITELY something amiss here. Possibly some serious ballot stuffing in some counties, but I really don't know.

If someone here is from WV, please ask your individual counties for precinct level data. Thanks.

----------


## RonRules

It's often informative to chart the straight precincts size on the X-Axis (non-cumulative).

The Republican chart may indicate some ballot stuffing in some precincts:



The Obama/Judd chart is also weird. Judd exceeded Obama in several counties:



Are you from West Virginia?

----------


## romancito

---

----------


## RonRules

Welcome to Mingo county West Virginia, http://www.mingocountywv.com/ (They don't have an election section on their website. That's too bad) where *Keith Judd got 60.2% of the vote* against the incumbent president, a guy named Barack Obama.


From Politico:


Get to know Keith Judd with these 10 fun facts:
1. Better known as prisoner number 11593-051.
2. Currently resides in a low-security prison in Texas  Federal Correctional Institution Texarkana  where hes serving a 210-month sentence for extortion connected to making threats at the University of New Mexico in 1999. His projected release date is June. 24, 2013.
3. Says he has run for president in every election since 1996.
4. Finished third in the 2008 Idaho Democratic primary with 734 votes, or 1.7 percent.
5. Got on the ballot in West Virginia by paying a $2,500 filling fee and sending in a notarized certification of announcement.
6. Among the many things on his resume: Member, Federation of Super Heroes, 1976-1982, Recording Musician/Writer/Producer, Nadines Music, Hollywood, California, 1968-1998 and Agent/Individual Contractor, New
York Society of Reproductive Medicine.
7. Favorite athlete: Gary Skidmore, a pro bowler. Favorite actor: Gene Hackman. As for his favorite food, he writes, I forgot.
8. Lists his religion as Rastafarian-Christian.
9. Mozart ranks as the person hed most want to meet. He was cool, Judd writes.
10. Favorite president: Richard Nixon. He got us out of Vietnam, and began world peace with China and the Soviets.

----------


## RonRules

> Wow. If I am not wrong I read in these graphics specially in the Democrat graphics that people behave entire different from different sectors, i.e. 'precincts.' Wow. '


Well, you got it. That's the whole point of this exercise. Within a state there should not be such drastic fluctuation in support for an incumbent president.

That's why I'm here.

----------


## romancito

---

----------


## RonRules

In Grant county West Virginia, Mitt Romney has a vertical spike on the chart. Here are the results:

Party	Votes	Percentage	State Total
MITT ROMNEY	Republican	1,403	78.16%	72,430
RICK SANTORUM	Republican	149	8.30%	12,589
NEWT GINGRICH	Republican	114	6.35%	6,499
RON PAUL	Republican	109	6.07%	11,569
CHARLES "Buddy" ROEMER	Republican	20	1.11%	1,048

Does Mitt Romney gather so much love in Grant County WV to get 78% of the vote?  

Ron Paul 6.07%, really, REALLY?

----------


## affa

> I'm not sure how you are getting the X-axis on these charts.  Where does count-over-time come from?


time is not a factor in these charts.

rather, the vast majority of charts in this thread, unless label'd otherwise, are cumulative votes sorted by precinct size.

that is, you first sort all precincts by number of votes cast, then chart 'cumulative votes'.

we believe, based on historical analysis of past elections as well as study of international elections, that this should 'flat line' fairly quickly.   however, in many counties in many states across America, instead of flatlining we're seeing what appears to be a distinct 'shift' of votes, usually from one specific candidate to another, with the benefactor being Romney (and occasionally McCain in 2008).

It is our belief we've found a way to identify vote flipping -- that is, say, taking 10% of candidate A's votes and giving them to candidate D.  The specifics differ slightly by state, but generally, it seems that whoever is doing this ignores the smallest of precincts in a region (reduces chance of detection significantly for several complementary reasons) and begins doing it once vote totals cross a specific threshold.

The common 'debunk' is that the sudden shift of votes to Romney is based on 'demographics', but a lot of time has been spent researching this and demographics do not seem to be a significant factor.   Nor does population density or rural/suburban/city divides.    In fact, we see the same anomaly within 'affected' counties whether the difference in votes between precincts are only a handful or counted in the thousands... which lends credence to it being a algorithmic function.

----------


## Aden

> I'm not sure how you are getting the X-axis on these charts.  Where does count-over-time come from?
> 
> Other problem is even if this is 100% perfectly valid, I do not know what can be done or what it would change.  If it won't change the outcome wouldn't I be wasting $100k of taxpayer money to demand a recount and just look like "sour grapes" damaging any future effort to gain elective office?
> 
> Something like this, if true, should probably be brought by a 3rd party.  Perhaps some unknown "Citizens for Fair Elections" could step up and say "It won't change the outcome, but an anomaly demands transparency" for the sake of future electoral integrity.
> 
> I dunno, this is all new to me.


The X-axis is not votes over time.  The X-axis represents precincts arranged by voter size.  So precincts with 5, 10, 20 voters would be on the far left, and precincts with hundreds of voters on the far right.  What the charts show is that votes were stolen from you in larger precincts.  They choose larger precincts because they are less likely to get caught.

----------


## romancito

---

----------


## drummergirl

> Then there could be another explanation. We could all be loosing our minds very rapidly.


Collective insanity... yeah, that's the ticket!

----------


## RonRules

Over the last few days I did a lot of deep diving in Texas. Even though the election has not yet happened in 2012, it is important to analyze such large states in previous years for possible shenanigans.

I am suspecting that the brand of Central Tabulator may have something to do with the results. The Texas Secretary of State website provides a list of all equipment brands for all of Texas's 254 counties. You can download the PDF here:
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections...s-bycounty.pdf

I added a legend on the chart for the equipment used. *Look at the last color item: Z_equip:ES&S, Hart, etc.* 

It generally appears to me that charts from counties that use Hart equipment are flatter. Republican races with ES&S equipment have slopes.

I had done the overall Republican Presidential Primaries for Texas. Here's that chart again:



Here's a bunch of counties and different races:

Bexar County:




Dallas County: (2nd largest in Texas, Pop. 2,294,706)




Harris County (Largest in Texas: Pop. 3,693,050):


Jefferson County: (252,000 population)




Tarrant County: 



Finally the General Election: 


There's also a couple of democrat chart that I'm still working on that look strange, possibly a strong Black vote effect. I have to research that some more.

I'm particularly concerned about the last chart where McCain was flipping Obama. I've seen that in 2008 Ohio.

If we don't want riots in 2012, I think we better look into what's causing this.

There's plenty of strange charts here. Have at it.

----------


## RonRules

If this does not shock you nothing else will:

----------


## quizbe

- Votes are corrupted at the central tabulator.
- When calculated through Excel, there are no anomalies

Is the above true?  Wouldn't the easiest way to definitively prove the vote flipping theory be to have a county first calculate manually through Excel before plugging them into a central tabulator?  Surely there are some officials who would consider this?  RonRules, have you made strong enough connections during your California presentations to suggest this?

----------


## RonRules

> - Votes are corrupted at the central tabulator.
> - When calculated through Excel, there are no anomalies
> 
> Is the above true?  Wouldn't the easiest way to definitively prove the vote flipping theory be to have a county first calculate manually through Excel before plugging them into a central tabulator?  Surely there are some officials who would consider this?  RonRules, have you made strong enough connections during your California presentations to suggest this?


The evidence I have for that are 8-9 counties in Wisconsin. They added the precincts through an Excel spreadsheet and got flat lines.

I would like to have my county do what you are saying, but before that I want them to investigate 2008. I have met with them and I exchange e-mails with them, but they're slow and don't seem to be in any particular panic, as I would expect.

If counties have kept their precinct hand written results reports, then this check you suggest could easily be made.  Contact your local county if it happens to be a flipper.

----------


## RonRules

> - Votes are corrupted at the central tabulator.
> - When calculated through Excel, there are no anomalies
> 
> Is the above true?  Wouldn't the easiest way to definitively prove the vote flipping theory be to have a county first calculate manually through Excel before plugging them into a central tabulator?  Surely there are some officials who would consider this?  RonRules, have you made strong enough connections during your California presentations to suggest this?


dup

----------


## romancito

---

----------


## drummergirl

> If this does not shock you nothing else will:


That is a boatload of votes!

----------


## romancito

---

----------


## drummergirl

> The bad thing is that I think this has been happening for a long time and I think can explain why our political and social environments are stagnant and our economic system is drying up.


Initially, I think most of us thought that what we were seeing was something new.  That has turned out to be incorrect.  The new thing is the analytical technique/ detection method.

Imagine you own a corner store.  There are surveillance cameras installed, but no one realizes they are there.  Then one day, you look up and go, "hey, we have a surveillance system", and you sit down and start watching 3 years worth of video tapes.  How many shoplifters would you catch?  I'd say quite a few; some of them would be the same people multiple times.  You'd also see who your honest customers are.

That is basically what we are looking at here.  The earliest flipper we have so far is Louisiana 1988.  Based on my conversations with my mother, computerized central tabulators would not have been widely used before the mid 1980s.  Therefore, it is possible that Louisiana 1988 is our ground zero.

----------


## dr.k.research

> just look like "sour grapes"


The only thing that is sour would be the look on the face of the election officials if you demanded your Constitutional rights. It's about combating this terminal wickedness, not just your (the Bradley) election. I donated to you through a friend. 

Let me say this. You and I, among hundreds of others, were defrauded. That's what this is about. 

Whose worried about a "career," when the whole world is going down the toilet? Let's work together and fight this. We can't do this alone. 

Create an affidavit of service that there are irregularities and present this chart. If you won't do it, we will.

----------


## drummergirl

Fighting fraud is not sour grapes; it's fighting for the will of the people to prevail.  And it's fighting for the next election to be fair.




> The only thing that is sour would be the look on the face of the election officials if you demanded your Constitutional rights. It's about combating this terminal wickedness, not just your (the Bradley) election. I donated to you through a friend. 
> 
> Let me say this. You and I, among hundreds of others, were defrauded. That's what this is about. 
> 
> Whose worried about a "career," when the whole world is going down the toilet? Let's work together and fight this. We can't do this alone. 
> 
> Create an affidavit of service that there are irregularities and present this chart. If you won't do it, we will.

----------


## RonRules

Had a great presentation in front of about 30 people, mostly local activists that have worked very hard to stamp out local corruption.

I had great feedback from most except two. One older Romney supporter kept on saying "So What"?!! About the end of my 60 slide presentation, she walked out and yelled, I've had enough.

Another guy accused me of being a Ron Paul supporter (  )and an ideologue (another compliment, I guess). 

The best thing is that many of them came up to shake hands with me after the meeting, even though I know most of them well.

Here is where I spoke:
http://rcwdog.com/

I recommend trying to find small local groups like these, especially if you're going to talk about election fraud.

----------


## drummergirl

I think there will definitely be some very, very disappointed Romney fans when it comes out that he's never won an election without cheating.

----------


## RonRules

Here's Oregon 2012 May 15th Primaries:



Looks pretty flat, but it's still possible that underneath some counties still are flippers (as we saw in North Carolina)

Unfortuately, I checked about a dozen counties and none provide precinct-level data.

http://www.oregonvotes.org/pages/his...tyresults.html

If you live in Oregon and care about integrity, could you please bitch about it for me.

Thanks,

RR

----------


## romancito

---

----------


## romancito

---

----------


## drummergirl

> Why is it that people don't care about 'vote flipping'? Why are they not interested? But are interested in going to Iraq and Afghanistan an imposing democracy on people that are not that much interested in democracy.


You are preaching to the choir here Romancito 

In any case, books,  studies, and institutes are all fine and good.  But as for me I am focused on avoiding a catastrophe in the fall (and I'm not talking about Obama getting 4 more years).

Here is my (now recurrent) nightmare:

Romney gets the GOP nomination.  After a neck and neck electoral battle, Romney appears to win on election night with surprise victories in several key swing states (like Ohio, Florida, etc.) Then, the day after the election, the democrats come out with the vote flipping fraud, "look, the GOP knew about this in MARCH and did NOTHING to stop the fraud".  The ensuing chaos makes the Florida 2000 debacle look like a kindergarden playground fight.

Our constitutional republic has been continuing for over 200 years with a peaceful transition of power from one president to the next.  Where will this nation be if that peaceful transition does not happen?  Riots? Martial law? Civil war? Dictatorship?

These are the times that try men's souls.  We are running out of time.

----------


## romancito

---

----------


## RonRules

Here's tonight's Kentucky results:



Light flipping favoring Romney, as always.

I'll do Massie and Hightower. Should be interesting.

----------


## drummergirl

Next verse, same as the first. Could get better but it's gonna get worse.

Who wants to be that there are some large counties that account for all/most of the flipping?  Who wants to bet on which central tabulator they use?  anyone?  anyone at all?




> Here's tonight's Kentucky results:
> 
> 
> Light flipping favoring Romney, as always.
> 
> I'll do Massie and Hightower. Should be interesting.

----------


## RonRules

Here's Tom Massie's chart:



Definitely looks like they may have tried to get him flipped. There are only 20 data points on the charts so it's hard to tell. I'd have to do each county one by one. The most suspicious county would be Kenton.

----------


## RonRules

> Who wants to be that there are some large counties that account for all/most of the flipping?  Who wants to bet on which central tabulator they use?  anyone?  anyone at all?


The use SOE / Syctl software central tabulators. (That's the company that's based in Spain, with venture funding from two Ex-Goldman-Sachs executives, bla bla bla.)

Every single county/state that uses SOE has been a flipper.

I'll do Kenton county next for both Ron Paul and Massie.

----------


## RonRules

I knew someone was up to no good in Kenton County:



Not only did they try to mess with Tom Massie, but also our beloved father figure Ron Paul:



Who is Alecia WEBB-EDGINGTON (REP) and is she an "establishment" type?

----------


## RonRules

The Democrat "race" against "Uncommitted" was interesting to me, considering how well Uncommitted did.



This is a state level chart with 109 data points for each county so it's bumpy. It's possible that there was a bit a ballot stuffing, but I would call this one a flat line.

Nothing to see here folks, really this time.

----------


## Aden

> I knew someone was up to no good in Kenton County:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only did they try to mess with Tom Massie, but also our beloved father figure Ron Paul:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Alecia WEBB-EDGINGTON (REP) and is she an "establishment" type?


More than likely.  She is a current state rep, and, 



> She worked for the Kentucky State Police as the chief information officer and for the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security, where she became the first female head of the office.

----------


## RonRules

> Who wants to be that there are some large counties that account for all/most of the flipping?


This is becoming quite predictable. Jefferson is the largest county and therefore the biggest flipper.



Please don't be complacent. This chart represents 25,218 votes. Each vote is one person that took the trouble to go vote. I estimate that Romney stole some 3-4000 votes in Jefferson county, Kentucky.

----------


## drummergirl

> Besides knowing is boring.


And ignorance is bliss.  

In all seriousness, there are lots and lots of people who cannot psychologically accept what we are seeing here because the implications destroy their world.  They must remain in denial or their minds will crumble.  And I do understand that.  It is heartbreaking to realize that people you've trusted are screwing you behind your back.

----------


## arsenius

Didn't you need 15% in Kentucky to get delegates? And this dropped us just under that. What's coincidence!

----------


## romancito

---

----------


## RonRules

I charted Chris Hightower's race in Logan county. There's not many data points (20), hence the bumpiness. 

Looks OK to me considering the low # of data points:



Todd county has much less voters so the chart will be meaningless.

----------


## RonRules

> Didn't you need 15% in Kentucky to get delegates? And this dropped us just under that. What's coincidence!


Certainly if they'd removed Gingrich and Stantorum from the ballots, we would have met the requirement. I think that's all in the plan.

----------


## RonRules

Here's Arkansas. Possibly the first true flat line for Romney in 2012:



Here's how the sausage is made (Straight precinct size on the X-Axis)

----------


## RonRules

The hallmark of a good scientific theory is predictability.

I was getting concerned that Romney may have ONE clean state out of the 42 fraudulent states we've seen so far. I found the combination of largest county where Romney did the best and sure enough, like clock work, Romney's a flipper:

----------


## romancito

---

----------


## drummergirl

Can't take Santorum off the ballot or the vote sucker won't work.




> Certainly if they'd removed Gingrich and Stantorum from the ballots, we would have met the requirement. I think that's all in the plan.

----------


## brandon

> I charted Chris Hightower's race in Logan county. There's not many data points (20), hence the bumpiness. 
> 
> Looks OK to me considering the low # of data points:
> 
> 
> 
> Todd county has much less voters so the chart will be meaningless.


\

LOOKS OKAY??  Are you kidding? It looks plain as day that hightower is a flipper, right?

----------


## RonRules

> \
> 
> LOOKS OKAY??  Are you kidding? It looks plain as day that hightower is a flipper, right?


You have to account to the number of data points. There's only 20 data points on that chart and that will cause a lot of randomness. Also note that at about 20% of votes counted, Hightower is at the same level as the end. You don't see that in a flipper chart.

Jefferson County on the other hand has 561 precincts and a total of 25,218 votes. The statistical certainty is much stronger in this case



I'm working on characterizing a proper, mathematical flip/no-flip criteria.

----------


## asurfaholic

Thanks for all you are doing RonRules, and others. I keep checking this thread for updates, and I am always left in awe of how much hard work you put into this. 

What do you plan to do with all this once voting stops and you have analyzed everything you can possibly analyze?

----------


## RonRules

> Thanks for all you are doing RonRules, and others. I keep checking this thread for updates, and I am always left in awe of how much hard work you put into this. 
> 
> What do you plan to do with all this once voting stops and you have analyzed everything you can possibly analyze?


Thank you for the encouragement. 

First it's not that hard. Thank God for SEO/Syctl's data format! They are making it real easy for election clerks and in the process are making it real easy for me. Their data is in the right format with each candidate in columns. I just cut&paste in a ".csv" file and run "program4liberty" Java charting program.

Within 10 minutes of a state announcing results, I can have a chart posted here in the forum.

What's unfortunate though is that many counties use real odd formats or will not provide data at all, after numerous requests. Milwaukee City is one such local that won't cooperate.

I have a multi-step plan. Others are helping in the background, including two from other countries. I will be seeking more confirmation form academia shortly. Next ALL 3,144 county election clerks will be notified. There's other steps, but the Main Stream Media will be notified LAST.

I encourage anybody to confirm or deny the results and help out. Please use math and science, not just talk.

----------


## romancito

---

----------


## romancito

---

----------


## RonRules

Here's an example of background activities that I'm posting for everyone to see. I'm not happy with Riverside County's lack of action after my numerous contacts with them, including meeting in person about two months ago:

To: Kari Verjil, Registrar of Voter, Riverside County, California.

Ms. Verjil and staff.

Thank your for your reply. I read the test reports and canvassing documents you provided.

Unfortunately the reply and reports are not satisfactory because they completely fail to address the very serious election results discrepancies I alerted your office about approximately two months ago. 

We are witnessing a massive problem of vote exchange or "flipping" between candidates nationwide in the 2012 primaries. Similar vote problems were also present in 2008 Republican primaries in Riverside County as well as in San Bernardino county, were you worked in 2008.

I sat down with your staff to explain the problem and provided ample documentation to help you investigate to cause of the problem. I also gave a list of recommendations to help PREVENT the problem in 2012.

I have provided overwhelming evidence of this very serious problem, which is affecting thousands of votes. I did not see any specific attempt from your office to investigate "vote flipping" and prevent that specifically from happening again. I will gladly stand corrected if that's the case, but your office made no attempt contact me of that fact.

In your response, you state: "The Registrar of Voters strictly adheres to the vote counting procedures set forth by the California Secretary of State".

The California Canvass Process states on page 7: "Elections Code 15302. Tasks of the Official Canvass: The Official Canvass shall include, *but not be limited to*, the following tasks"

Note my emphasis on "*not be limited to*".

Just because you have completed the minimum procedure required by the State, does not mean that the job is complete. Let me explain and show the California Secretary of State procedures are inadequate.

The method by which this alleged election fraud takes place bypasses the weak security measures in place by the state and Riverside county.

Here are some examples:
1) In the California Canvass Process: "Tasks of the Official Canvass", section (b). "A reconciliation of the number of signatures on the roster with the number of ballots recorded on the ballot statement" (c) "... the number of ballots received from each polling place shall be reconciled with the number of ballots case, as indicated on the ballot statement." (d) "A reconciliation of the number of ballots counted, spoiled, canceled or invalidated due to identifying marks, overvote, or as otherwise provided by statute, with the number of votes recorded, including absentee and provisional ballots, by the vote counting system."

THIS CALIFORNIA STATE REQUIREMENT IS INADEQUATE in this regard and you are not LIMITED by it.

As I clearly explained to xxx xxx, counting total votes will not catch fraudulent vote switching of "flipping" between candidates, because the total will remain the same. You must check the total for EACH candidate at the precinct level. Your procedures must be updated.

2) I was also very clear about the manual sampling count. If you check the count of several machines in order to meet the minimum California State requirement of "Conduct the 1% Manual Tally of Votes", this will most likely not catch the fraud as it has been cleverly set up to avoid such detection.
The vote "flipping" occurs after a certain number of votes have been reached. It could be as high as 250. If no testing or canvassing seeks and tests voting machines with high vote counts, the problem will not be detected.

I read the testing report and no manual vote count exceeds 250 votes. They are all MUCH less than that, so the testing AND canvassing procedure is inadequate.

For example on page 15 of the report, the presidential candidates are assigned between 5-10 votes each. I clearly stated that a minimum of 250 votes (preferably) 500 is needed.

Let me add in this respect that the vote total TRANSFER between precinct and center must NOT be subject to a margin of error. The count at the precinct and the center much match EXACTLY for each candidate.

3) You state that "Riverside County" runs AVG Ver. 2012.0.1780 anti-virus software, but nowhere is it stated that the Central Tabulator WinEDS has that software installed. In fact the testing procedure lists the software installed, and the list *does NOT show the use of AVG anti-virus*. See section 5&6 of the Logic & Accuracy (L & A) tests of May 7, 2012.

4) I also have a huge problem with the same person being used to produce the "Expected Results" and the "Results" themselves in the L & A tests. In my aerospace field of work, different people always define the expectation and the final results. 

Please note: *The purpose of a test is NOT to get passing results*. The purpose of a test is to do the best your can to *make the test FAIL*. That's why you are relatively safe flying airplanes. We try to make tests fail and when we can't we are much more confident that the aircraft is safe. Looking at the very weak L & A report you provided, I don't feel safe about the testing of the voting equipment in Riverside county.

5) I had requested that the Central Tabulator (WinEDS) be zero baselined, preferably with a new disk drive and NEVER connected to the internet. Why does section 7 of the L & A tests describe an *"Internet Connectivity" demonstration*?

I have more issues to discuss. However at this point is it only reasonable that I ask you to URGENTLY correct this situation. 

1) Please get the help of a statistician to confirm my 2008 results (I attach the data files, which I extracted form Berkeley University data). The Statement of Vote from Riverside was inadequate.

2) Please hire a computer forensics expert to analyze the WinEDS central tabulator to see if any kind of infection has taken place. Have this person provide a detailed report on the date & time of and file changes or infections. 

3) I need to have a file directory listing of the WinEDS central tabulator. It is my understanding, speaking to Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting that this information is publically available.

The above steps are a minor expense to your department and will most likely uncover the cause of this massive election fraud. 

Please don't take the contrary opinion of non-professionals. Seek professional advice from statistical and computer forensics experts, willing to go through the calculations and confirm my findings.
*
You can come out of this looking great or not. It's your choice.*

Please respond as to your next steps. I am very easy to reach by email or at xxx xxx xxxx

----------


## RonRules

Just a spot check of a random county where Romney didn't do particularly well:



Not enough data to make a case. Only 17 precincts, with the highest precinct vote count = 204.

----------


## RonRules

Home of Walmart, Benton AK:



Not a whole lot to see, but I would call this one a flipper. 58 precincts with some around 1000 voters.

----------


## romancito

---

----------


## brandon

Have you done Thomas Massie's race yet?

----------


## RonRules

> Have you done Thomas Massie's race yet?


He won anyway, but here's a specific county:



What are YOU going to do about it?

----------


## brandon

what am I going to do about WHAT?  Have you done the other counties?  How many counties were there?

----------


## RonRules

> what am I going to do about WHAT?  Have you done the other counties?  How many counties were there?


Massie clearly got votes stolen in Kenton county. Pick Kenton and investigate. You should know how many counties there are, but it's irrelevant. Kenton county is anomalous. It's all that matters.

----------


## brandon

Interview them without asking a single question? WTF are you talking about?  I'm out of here, this thread sends my blood pressure through the roof.

----------


## drummergirl

> Interview them without asking a single question? WTF are you talking about?  I'm out of here, this thread sends my blood pressure through the roof.


Seriously though, if you live in Kentucky, especially Kenton county, your elections are rigged.  If you want it fixed, you'll have to pursue it.  

Besides my regular responsibilities, I spend a lot of time on this project, I'm an election judge in my state's primary next Tuesday, and I'm a delegate to the state convention.  There is plenty for me to do right where I am.

RonRules is in California and similarly situated.  There were some folks last week from North Carolina that have been going forward with what they learned from this thread and group.  

Each of us has 24 hours a day to work with; you have to decide how to spend yours.

----------


## RonRules

Here's Kentucky again with the 4th districts Tom Massie results:



Although he won, I like to analyze deeper:

Boon and Campbell flank Kenton on either side and they both look fine, chart wise.





Kenton has serious shenanigans


I'd like to see the sofware update dates on the the central tabulators for those three counties. Can someone from KY check that out for me (US all I guess).

----------


## drummergirl

This does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling seeing this in these down ballot races.  State senate in NC last week, Thomas Massie this week...  but, as usual, this actually gives us more insight to who The Flipper is...

The Flipper is not just pro-Romney; The Flipper is viciously opposed to the freedom movement.

The Flipper has become arrogant enough to believe he/she won't get caught.




> "Pride.  Pride is a weakness."  
> "Personally, I would prefer stupidity."
> "Pride will do."

----------


## RonRules

> The Flipper is not just pro-Romney; The Flipper is viciously opposed to the freedom movement.


The Flipper also hates Ron Paul delegates as I showed in Rhode Island.

I could do a thousand more charts, but at between 10 minutes to an hour each I just don't have enough time. It would be nice to have more "hands on deck". We need to check a lot more of these down ballot races.

I need to learn the XML interface with that SOE/SYCTL provides. By spending time learning and programming, maybe I could produce charts quicker. 

It's always a tough call when you have to decide to automate or not.

----------


## RonRules

If someone from KY wants to help, I need a directory list of ALL the files on the Central Tabulator computer for Kenton, Boon and Campbell counties. 

The directory list must include all the file attributes, such as "Creation date", "Access date", "Modified date" etc.

A Windows System access Log file would be useful too.

With just that, I believe I can pin point when Kenton's computers were messed with.

I'm not at all a computer forensics person. If you know someone that's in that line of work, please convince them to look at this.

----------


## RonRules

Egyptian elections!

Does anyone here have the patience to type these numbers in for me? I'll produce a chart from it. I just need columns B, F, G, H, I, J



I can't find any tabular data and I've written to the online paper to send me a spreadsheet about 12 hours ago. 
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsCont...s-preside.aspx
Still no response.

Oh BTW, it looks like the Muslim Brotherhood won, but there will be a run-off election. The opponent is Mubarak's last prime minister.

This may not end well.

----------


## RonRules

I found two online spreadsheets for the Egyptian elections and they're different! The numbers for Cairo are quite different for the Ex Mubarrak guy.

There's only 27 data points, so it's real rough and I can't call this one:

Data Source 1:


Data Source 2:


Data source 1:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...OYzhQZGc#gid=0

Data source 2:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...pZHZjbHc#gid=0

If anybody finds the low-level data, please tell me.

----------


## drummergirl

It looks suspicious, but with so few data points I can't say for sure either way.





> I found two online spreadsheets for the Egyptian elections and they're different! The numbers for Cairo are quite different for the Ex Mubarrak guy.
> 
> There's only 27 data points, so it's real rough and I can't call this one:
> 
> Data Source 1:
> 
> 
> Data Source 2:
> 
> ...

----------


## RonRules

Some Texas counties have converted to SOE/Syctl Central Tabulators. Makes my job easier, but that line does not look horizontal to me:



There are only 33 precincts, but the the line is a pretty even upwards slope. I call Kendall County, the first county I analyzed in the 2012 Primaries a FLIPPER.

----------


## RonRules

Here's Lamar county TX. 33 precincts. Another light flipper.



The fix was in a long time ago and they can't take it back. It's either in the SOE/Syctl software or a virus.

----------


## RonRules

Dallas county, 2nd largest county in TX, 775 precincts:



Absolutely no doubt about it. Dallas is a flipper. I estimate that 6,045 votes were stolen (from the People of Texas) to increase Romney's lead by approximately 7.8% from 65% to 72.8%

----------


## Copenhagen

I don't get how Romney even has votes that high in the first place. Is it all corporate voters or something?

----------


## RonRules

> I don't get how Romney even has votes that high in the first place. Is it all corporate voters or something?


For that, you have to investigate the main stream media. The media is more powerful than any branch of government. It's the biggest fraud out there, but they made it legal to treat candidates like they did Ron Paul.

----------


## RonRules

Here's Comal county, the last SOE/Syctl Texas county I can find. 

Again a clear flipper:



Please people from Texas, do something about this. If you personally don't believe it, that's fine, but please spend ONE hour to track down a statistics professor and show him/her the charts.

----------


## RonRules

Here's Tarrant county, the third largest county in TX, with 675 precincts. In previous 2008 TX charts I made, it appeared that Hart tabulators were immune to vote flipping. Tarrant county uses a Hart tabulators according to the 2009 list I got from the Secretary of State. This could have changed in 2012.

Tarrant is a flipper:



According to this thread, RP did well in Tarrant in the other races. I'll chart those just to see what really happened.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...t-County-Texas

----------


## RonRules

Look at the GOP chair race! Now THAT's how Cumulative Precinct Vote Tally charts should look like, especially when we win!

----------


## RonRules

Here's the Dewhurst, Senator race (for Tarrant county only).



Here's where I have a problem: Why is Tom Leppert sloping up? Tell me more about this guy and his establishment connections.

I know nothing about Tom Leppert. I like his TV ad:
http://www.tomleppert.com/

Here's something interesting. When you google Leppert, you get Ted Cruz! (I know we're supposed to be fans of Ted Cruz, but I find this unethical)



What would Ron Paul do? Always ask that question.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Here's something interesting. When you google Leppert, you get Ted Cruz! (I know we're supposed to be fans of Ted Cruz, but I find this unethical)
> 
> 
> 
> What would Ron Paul do? Always ask that question.


It's an ad.  Someone is paying for it.  There are also people who can do this in the regular search results if you understand google well enough, but that is an ad that someone is probably paying $.10 per click for.

----------


## RonRules

> It's an ad.  Someone is paying for it.  There are also people who can do this in the regular search results if you understand google well enough, but that is an ad that someone is probably paying $.10 per click for.


I know it's an ad, but I was just pointing out that Ted Cruz is being unethical by diverting Tom Leppert searchers to Ted Cruz.

I believe Santorum was doing that with Ron Paul. He even advertised on the Daily Paul. That was sure a waste of money, but good for Daily Paul.

----------


## RonRules

Here are the Tarrant County TX congressional Rep. races.  Please comment, I don't know any of these people:





Kenny Marchant is an incumbent, but Ron Paul gave him a nod of approval.
http://kennymarchant.com/


Seems legit: http://www.bradleyforcongress.com/, but his chart doesn't

----------


## RonRules

As expected the Balanced Budget proposition flat lines:



Just making sure!

----------


## RonRules

Anybody from Bexar county here?



Even though our man lost, don't ignore this chart. There were thousands of votes stolen by Romney here. If you live in Bexar, please bring this up with your election rep. Speak to a statistician and show that this is happening nationwide. It is simply impossible without fraud.

----------


## drummergirl

> Here's the Dewhurst, Senator race (for Tarrant county only).
> 
> 
> 
> Here's where I have a problem: Why is Tom Leppert sloping up? Tell me more about this guy and his establishment connections.
> 
> I know nothing about Tom Leppert. I like his TV ad:
> http://www.tomleppert.com/


Tom Leppert was mayor of Dallas and that's really about all I know about him.  He is better known and more popular in the DFW area than the rest of the state (Tarrant county is Fort Worth)

----------


## RonRules

Things look pretty legit in the Senate race:

EDIT: In the context of this single chart, things look acceptable. But I've charted three charts with Leppart and all three have a slope up, whereas everyone else flat lines. In those cases, a slight slope should be considered suspicious.



But I must say, you guys sure have some suspicious names running: Curt_Cleaver, Ben_Gambini, Tom_Leppert

----------


## RonRules

> Tom Leppert was mayor of Dallas and that's really about all I know about him.  He is better known and more popular in the DFW area than the rest of the state (Tarrant county is Fort Worth)


Maybe I'll do his chart in Dallas.

----------


## RonRules

Here's the Dallas County US Senate chart. I don't trust what's going on chart-wise with that Leppart guy.



What other big wig (besides Dewhurst) should I chart?

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> I know it's an ad, but I was just pointing out that Ted Cruz is being unethical by diverting Tom Leppert searchers to Ted Cruz.
> 
> I believe Santorum was doing that with Ron Paul. He even advertised on the Daily Paul. That was sure a waste of money, but good for Daily Paul.



Ok.  Maybe some other people didn't know.  I don't find keyword triggered ads to be unethical.

----------


## Ender

> I know it's an ad, but I was just pointing out that Ted Cruz is being unethical by diverting Tom Leppert searchers to Ted Cruz.
> 
> I believe Santorum was doing that with Ron Paul. He even advertised on the Daily Paul. That was sure a waste of money, but good for Daily Paul.


I don't think Santorum was advertising on Ron Paul, per se; a lot of ads you see on sites are open ended and will show whatever you may have been googling or writing about online. Because I am in Utah, Orin Hatch shows up constantly on sites that would not necessarily welcome him.

I also do a lot of writing online and many subjects I am writing about will suddenly appear in ad space over a range of various different sites I am on, from emails to forums.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> I don't think Santorum was advertising on Ron Paul, per se; a lot of ads you see on sites are open ended and will show whatever you may have been googling or writing about online. Because I am in Utah, Orin Hatch shows up constantly on sites that would not necessarily welcome him.
> 
> I also do a lot of writing online and many subjects I am writing about will suddenly appear in ad space over a range of various different sites I am on, from emails to forums.



That's because they (usually google/doubleclick) are tracking you around the web with cookies, flash cookies, or IP address, and they call it "retargeting."

----------


## drummergirl

> What other big wig (besides Dewhurst) should I chart?


21st congressional district (for Mack) and 36th congressional district ( for Stockman)  Mack and Stockman are the liberty candidates.  And Stockman will be in a primary runoff with Stakach.

----------


## RonRules

I've charted a variety of other Texas counties. All the counties I've done so far are all flippers for Romney and all three Central Tabulator brands are represented. Hart, Premier, ES&S/SOE/Syctl. 

When I charted the Texas 2008 data (see about 12 pages back) it appeared that Hart Inter-Civics tabulators were unaffected, but now seeing the 2012 results, I don't believe that the brand of central tabulator matters anymore. Evidently what ever causes this has managed to infiltrate Hart tabulators.

You can see what kind of voting equipment is used in each county here:
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections...s-bycounty.pdf

----------


## RonRules

Here's a map of Texas District 21:



At least for Comal and Kendall counties, Sheriff Mack looks like he lost fair and square:

----------


## RonRules

The brand new Texas 36th district is an amalgam of a bunch of little counties that all have the same website and very little election data. 

http://www.co.jasper.tx.us/ips/cms/o...elections.html 
http://www.co.newton.tx.us/ips/cms/o...elections.html 
http://www.co.tyler.tx.us/ips/cms/co...untyClerk.html 
http://www.co.hardin.tx.us/ips/cms/o...elections.html 
http://www.co.polk.tx.us/ips/cms/oth...elections.html 
http://www.co.liberty.tx.us/ips/cms/...elections.html 

Orange County just has local elections on the website
http://www.co.orange.tx.us/voterweb/default.htm 

The only "data" is from Chambers and it's tiny:
http://www.co.chambers.tx.us/Countyc...rimary2012.pdf 

I thought it would still be worth charting because of our Liberty candidate Steve Stockman. There's only 14 data points for each trace on the chart, but there might be shenanigans going on there:



Note that the largest "precinct" is the "Early Voting" precinct, a single voting machine that the voters can use before the elections. This particular Early Voting precinct has a big effect on the race and comprises 51% of all the votes. Stephen Takach got 32% of the vote in the Early Voting precinct, but that was not the highest value.

This next chart represents the same data, but the X-Axis is straight precinct vote count. Note how just one precinct, the "Early Voting" precinct takes up the of the election's vote counts. 

 

tl,dr; I don't like "Early Voting", "Vote by Mail" and Absentee voting unless absolutely necessary as they open up the door to fraud.

----------


## RonRules

Here's the Presidential contest in Chambers county TX. 

This chart may not scream "riots in the street", but in the context of some 800+ charts where Romney flips the middle finger to the entire country, some serious protesting is warranted:



Hey Texas, I'm not hearing much from your guys. A vote is a vote. It doesn't matter that "Romney would have won anyway". Please deal with this.

----------


## Ender

> That's because they (usually google/doubleclick) are tracking you around the web with cookies, flash cookies, or IP address, and they call it "retargeting."


Exactly my point.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Exactly my point.


You didn't make it clear you knew who or how, so I was just providing more info for you or anyone else reading.

----------


## drummergirl

Even if you leave off early voting totals, that still looks dicey.  

Which, early voting typically runs for two weeks ending on the Friday before a Tuesday election.  A lot of people vote early, especially in the rural counties, because you can go vote while you are in town doing other errands.

I'll see who I can get ahold of from the Stockman campaign so we can get some data.




> The brand new Texas 36th district is an amalgam of a bunch of little counties that all have the same website and very little election data. 
> 
> http://www.co.jasper.tx.us/ips/cms/o...elections.html 
> http://www.co.newton.tx.us/ips/cms/o...elections.html 
> http://www.co.tyler.tx.us/ips/cms/co...untyClerk.html 
> http://www.co.hardin.tx.us/ips/cms/o...elections.html 
> http://www.co.polk.tx.us/ips/cms/oth...elections.html 
> http://www.co.liberty.tx.us/ips/cms/...elections.html 
> 
> ...

----------


## octojofo

Hello,

I am new to this thread- well, _chronologically_ new, but I have spent an inordinate amount of time here in the last 3 days, first reading the entire 2000+(!!) posts in the original thread, then another 2200 in the "We need more hands..." thread until (just as I was getting close to the end - I _thought_) it split off to here, (which seems to have been renamed again?) and believe me, it's been one heck of a ride! Especially since I am not a statistician. But I do have a brain and I have used Excel a bit (20 years ago!) so I have been able to follow along with most of it, and I am interested in plotting a few things myself. 

I read all these posts for a few reasons, one, to be clear as possible on what is being presented, and two, so I would not waste peoples time with duplicate posts and questions. I can see now that I may never get to the end so I am leaving the last 60 or 70 posts unread (for now anyway) and just getting on with my questions.

I cannot justify in my logical mind how the increase in vote % can be a function of size of the precinct (by vote total that is.) I think this is pretty simply against all odds. (This same innate clarity is the reason I also don't buy lottery tickets!) In any case, it doesn't take a leap of faith for me to suspect fraud.

I _can_ see how a central vote tabulator could be the culprit, since vote machine software writer, Clinton Curtis in the testimony below, states clearly that the tabulator can change the vote and then update the uploading machine to reflect those corrupted figures. This all makes sense to me and explains how the fraud could have been perpetrated. 

What I can't see is how in hell you could use this same algorithmic function on-the-fly, as it were, in a hand-count scenario. I believe it was Liberty1789 that produced some charts in New Hampshire that attempted to split the hand-count from the machine-count votes, but what I saw was a little disturbing since it seemed to suggest that the same algorithms were in play? They did not flat-line. 

To me this seems impossible and suggests there is something else at play here that we are not seeing. I suspect that there was cheating in both New Hampshire and Iowa (where they practically _advertised_ for weeks prior, the GOP's intention to cheat Paul of any victory forthcoming in the Caucuses) However, that it shows the same pattern as the others, to my admittedly untrained eye, means there MUST be another explanation, and believe me, I _prefer_ *fraud*!(Couldn't help but bold it! )

However, I was with the WatchtheVote2012 group and witnessed the hand count in the Strafford precinct (about 900+ votes?) and if they did anything out of the ordinary, I'd love to know how. They were quite nice there and instead of being insulted by my presence, rather enjoyed that I was there to validate their honesty and plainly said so.

So what I want to do is take the results from all the hand-count towns in NH and see how they compare with the the remaining NH precincts. Of the 131 hand count precincts we only had witnesses in 25. We called towns we missed and got (with our 25) a total of only 79 precincts with info supplied by town clerks. I would like to compare those numbers with state results as posted. (Stafford comes out as I witnessed but I want to compare them all.)

Finally, the spreadsheets and raw data that you all have kept posting as being on Filedropper do not appear to be there. Can you supply me with a new sourcefile location? Also, RonRules had posted a method for setting up the Excel spreadsheet (gotten from Liberty1789 I believe.) Could you supply me a posting number for that as well?

Thanks in advance and keep up the great work!

Whoops! I meant to post the link for that video but I don't have the clout! (this is my first post) Maybe later!

----------


## RonRules

Welcome to the longest thread in RPF history (I think) and thank you for the Herculian task of merely reading all of the threads. That's a big job in itself.

I'm also a member of WatchTheVote2012, but in a Facebook friend kind of way. Facebook destroyed the meaning of "friends", "fans" and "members".

There were precincts watchers in Iowa and NH and probably many other states. In the case of Iowa, the final count was made in secret, in another state (Kansas I believe). In the case of NH, indeed there were hand counts but the whole stat flipped to favor Romney anyway. I'd like all the precinct-level NH data published on election day, the official certified cout (after the central tabulator) and the WatchTheVote counts. If you can gather all that up clearly, with official references, I'd like to see that.

Meanwhile, here's Liberty's explanation on how to make cumulative charts with Excel.


Excel is a fairly quick way to get ONE chart done, but it does not scale well. The Java program is better, because you can run the entire county all at once, but the development has stopped, it's not the type of thing used in academia.

I am switching to the Statistical language R, but I have yet to produce anything with it. That's a much more powerful tool and will allow you to communicate your results with universities.

As you have read in the thousands of posts, many people want another explanation besides fraud. So far none has stood up to the more obvious, likely motive of fraud.

----------


## Barrex

As much as this thread annoys  me with its lack of any sort of plan and clearly set goal I return to see what is "new" from time to time. Same old same old.....new charts and pages of new charts..... whats next? (like I allready mentioned 9000 posts ago and few times after that)

Maybe you should *contact competition*of owners of machines that are involved in rigging results...."Enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing. They would be extremely interested in taking down competition and getting millions and millions of dollars instead them.  am sure they got experts in statistic, algorithm, software, firewall, hardware and any other knowledge needed to resolve this. What is more importasnt they got financial power and strong motive to do it


P.s.
You really really really (to ∞) got no idea how annoying your infinite loop is.

----------


## RonRules

> As much as this thread annoys  me with its lack of any sort of plan and clearly set goal


I believe that replied adequately to your last similar post. There are plenty of background activities going on that you don't know about. Some are going on today in fact.

But don't let that stop you. 

For example: "Maybe you should contact competitionof owners of machines ..."

That would be a good job for you. We will anxiously wait for your report.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> As much as this thread annoys  me with its lack of any sort of plan...


It's an exercise in documentation.   The people that sell the machines profit from the work of the machines.  Contacting the machine sellers will be of little use.  An open source vote counter with transparency would be easy, and you'd have no problem finding volunteers for such an undertaking.  Look at what is already accomplished with open source, and we are only talking about counting machines here.  It's hardly difficult.

----------


## RonRules

> .


Is that you?

----------


## RonRules

I inadvertently ran into some easy data to analyze. I just love how easy that SOE/Syctl data is to analyze, but I also hope that this will be their downfall.

Anyway, here's some Florida charts. Those elections have been certified.



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

----------


## RonRules

Here's an article about SOE/Syctl. It's not new for many on this thread but important to read for those not familiar with SOE/Syctl:

http://www.knowthelies.com/node/7598

Excerpt:

"When the Spanish online voting company SCYTL bought the largest vote processing corporation in the United States, it also acquired the means of manufacturing the outcome of the 2012 election.

For SOE, the Tampa based corporation purchased by SCYTL in January, supplies the election software which records, counts, and reports the votes of Americans in 26 states–900 total jurisdictions–across the nation.

"As the largest election results reporting company in the US, SOE provides reports right down to the precinct level. But before going anywhere else, those election returns are routed to individual, company servers where the people who run them “…get ‘first look’ at results and the ability to immediately and privately examine vote details throughout the USA.”

In short, “this redirects results …to a centralized privately held server which is not just for Ohio, but national; not just USA-based, but global.”

"And although the votes will be cast in hometown, American precincts on Election Day, with the Barcelona-based SCYTL taking charge of the process, they will be routed and counted overseas...

*Bev Harris* is truly a warrior when it comes to vote fraud in this country. Her web site, BlackBoxVoting, is dedicated to nothing but vote fraud and a lot of hard work goes into keeping us informed. Bev breaks it down even further:

"In a major step towards global centralization of election processes, the world's dominant Internet voting company has purchased the USA’s dominant election results reporting company.

"When you view your local or state election results on the Internet, on portals which often appear to be owned by the county elections division, in over 525 US jurisdictions you are actually redirected to a private corporate site controlled by SOE software, which operates under the name ClarityElections.com.

"The good news is that this firm promptly reports precinct-level detail in downloadable spreadsheet format. As reported by BlackBoxVoting.org in 2008, the bad news is that this centralizes one middleman access point for over 525 jurisdictions in *AL, AZ, CA, CO, DC, FL, KY, MI, KS, IL, IN, NC, NM, MN, NY, SC, TX, UT, WA.* And growing.

"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.

"In 2004, many Americans were justifiably concerned when, days before the presidential election, Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell redirected Ohio election night results through the Tennessee-based server for several national Republican Party operations.

"This is worse: This redirects results reporting to a centralized privately held server which is not just for Ohio, but national; not just USA-based, but global.

"A mitigation against fraud by SOE insiders has been the separation of voting machine systems from the SOE results reports. Because most US jurisdictions require posting evidence of results from each voting machine at the precinct, public citizens can organize to examine these results to compare with SOE results. Black Box Voting spearheaded a national citizen action to videotape / photograph these poll tapes in 2008.

"With the merger of SOE and SCYTL, that won't work (if SCYTL’s voting system is used). When there are two truly independent sources of information, the public can perform its own “audit” by matching one number against the other.

"These two independent sources, however, will now be merged into one single source: an Internet voting system controlled by SCYTL, with a results reporting system also controlled by SCYTL.

"*With SCYTL internet voting, there will be no ballots.* No physical evidence. No chain of custody. No way for the public to authenticate who actually cast the votes, chain of custody, or the count.

"SCYTL is moving into or already running elections in: the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, South Africa, India and Australia.

"SCYTL is based in Barcelona; its funding comes from international venture capital funds including *Nauta Capital, Balderton Capital and Spinnaker*."

*Who in your state authorized SCTYL to count your vote?

Your state legislature? Get on the phone and find out.

Do YOU want our voting system to be controlled globally?*

----------


## octojofo

Thanks for _all_ of that except for possibly (no, _definitely_) the part where you left out the new address for all those raw data files that appear _not_ to be on FileDropper anymore. 

TIA

----------


## octojofo

This is that video I referenced before, Programmer testifying:

----------


## RonRules

> Thanks for _all_ of that except for possibly (no, _definitely_) the part where you left out the new address for all those raw data files that appear _not_ to be on FileDropper anymore. 
> TIA


Those are not my files, they were Liberty1789. He uses Excel and if you want to do a lot of analysis, I don't recommend it. You should be able to get that data from the state and the WatchTheVote people. I prefer to get data from original sources anyway.

----------


## Barrex

> I believe that replied adequately to your last similar post. There are plenty of background activities going on that you don't know about. Some are going on today in fact.
> 
> But don't let that stop you. 
> 
> For example: "Maybe you should contact competitionof owners of machines ..."
> 
> That would be a good job for you. We will anxiously wait for your report.


I am from and in Croatia and  since you know it you know that I can not do that... But dont let that stop you. You are mentioning "activities" and whenever someone asks you for any evidence you go on attacking (example: posting pictures of animals "hugging" and saying it is a person who you dont agree with and more./ Just like you did with that video of "me") people. From so many activities not a word. If you did them you did a poor job because there is no result.




> It's an exercise in documentation.   The people that sell the machines profit from the work of the machines.  Contacting the machine sellers will be of little use.  An open source vote counter with transparency would be easy, and you'd have no problem finding volunteers for such an undertaking.  Look at what is already accomplished with open source, and we are only talking about counting machines here.  It's hardly difficult.


They want take SCYTL-s place in the market. SCYTL (company that earns millions of dollars from elections) must have competition and that competition would be extremely interested in taking down SCYTL (and the rest of my previous post). It was mentioned before (long long time ago) that people here simply dont have resources to take it on next level. SCYTL competitors have it.  





> Is that you?


No.Since we are obviously not on friendly terms and "tone" of your posts is hostile I guess that is an insult.?!(crazy guy trying to be funny making things up)  If so: $#@! you....If not nothing... Are you complete $#@!? Rethorical question dont answer.

I actually thought (and still think) that contacting competition is really good idea that would get you out of your "infinite *loop"(unproductive loop).*(An *infinite loop* (also known as an *endless loop* or *unproductive loop*) is a sequence of instructions in a computer program which loops endlessly, either due to the loop having no terminating condition, having one that can never be met, or one that causes the loop to start over.) For those of you who actually care more about resolving this than getting power trip Ill repeat:


and I *promise* you this is my last post in this thread so dont bother responding. 

Good luck (sincerely).

----------


## RonRules

> 


Let me briefly why planning, especially detailed planning is the EXACT wrong thing to do when investigating and researching. That's why government research usually FAILS. They spend an inordinate of time amount planning and everyone on that project cannot deviate from that plan and never get anything done. 

In software development the corresponding example is the Waterfall Software Development process that the government insists government contractors use. In the commercial world, developers use various flavors of the Agile process. That's why commercial software gets written 10X quicker (and better) than government software.

Instead of a detailed plan, it is MUCH more important to remain agile, nimble, alert and ready to change the direction of the research at a moment's notice. If you have a detailed plan, and stick to it, most likely you will FAIL at this sort of thing.

We are trying to find alleged fraud. We don't know where the fraud is. That's why we must remain agile. I took on the job of accumulating data, among other things. This large database is useful in detecting patterns. Others have done a tremendous job at a deep dive analysis in Alabama for example. They have, in my opinion proven that fraud has occurred. Others need to follow up and file papers such as a Grand Jury request for investigation. Others have written very useful tools like the Program4Liberty Java program that I use all the time. All that is useful work. 

Yesterday, I ordered from Riverside county the complete file directory and Windows log of their central tabulator. (It's $35.00 and I recommend you also ask for a copy from your county). Riverside uses a WinEDS central tabulator. If your county uses something else, please ask for a detailed directory list (with all time stamps file attributes). 

This data could totally change the direction of our investigation and that's why we need to remain agile, nimble and alert. If anomalies are found, I'll stop making charts and work on that instead. BTW, I'm not a computer forensics expert. If anyone here is, please offer your service.

Next I will post an example of why we need to remain agile, nimble and alert.

----------


## RonRules

Here's an example of agility instead of following a detailed plan.

"octojofo" posted the Clint Curtis testimony video. I had seen it before but it was good to listen to it again. There is no better smoking gun, yet most people are complacent.

Clint on the other hand DID something about it. Since that video, he became a lawyer and ran for office twice. He moved to Congressional District 4 in California.

Instead of doing more charts this morning, I researched Clint some more. Here's an interview with Clint on the excellet Brad Blog:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8021#more-8021

Here's what caught my eye:
"Jim Cirile: Sounds like a fair fight. How is the area for election integrity? (Referring to California Congressional District 4)

Clint Curtis: Everyone tells me it's good. A lot of it's done by mail here because people live up in the mountains. They take the mail, they check signatures, they go through the whole routine of verifying it. *Everything's paper, not these nasty machines that you can't ever check on again.* And of course we have Deborah Bowen as the Secretary of State, and she's done wonders as far as actually pushing integrity issues. I'm not too worried about that here. I haven't seen any indication or heard from anybody that thinks there is a problem.

Here's California CD-4:


I had done all the charts for California in 2008. 38 out of the 54 were flippers. You can see them all here:
http://s269.photobucket.com/albums/j..._Primaries_CA/

Now have a look at the counties that comprise California CD-4:















Most flat-line except for ElDorado and possibly Lassen. Does anybody want to bet that ElDorado uses voting machines? BTW they fired the Riverside County Registrar in 2010 and she's now running ElDorado elections. (neither here or there, but if an election rep is fired for incompetence, maybe they should look for another line of work)

----------


## RonRules

I just called ElDorado county and they use the Premier (AKA GEMS Diebold) Central Tabulator.

Need I say more?

Edit:
Yes, I do. Here's the up-to-date list of equipment that will be used for the June 5th elections in California:
http://www.sos.ca.gov/voting-systems...s-2012-6-5.pdf

----------


## RonRules

> I found two online spreadsheets for the Egyptian elections and they're different! *The numbers for Cairo are quite different for the Ex Mubarrak guy.*
> 
> There's only 27 data points, so it's real rough and I can't call this one:
> 
> Data Source 1:


Remember when I pointed out discrepancies in the Egyptian elections, Cario specifically?

Today, I see this video:

*Egyptians Denounce Election Results in Cairo and Alexandria*




Please watch the video. That's exactly what will happen in November when the general election is called and it's discovered to be fraudulent.

----------


## drummergirl

[QUOTE=Barrex;4462133]

They want take SCYTL-s place in the market. SCYTL (company that earns millions of dollars from elections) must have competition and that competition would be extremely interested in taking down SCYTL (and the rest of my previous post). It was mentioned before (long long time ago) that people here simply dont have resources to take it on next level. SCYTL competitors have it.  
/QUOTE]

Ummm... perhaps you missed this point.  There are only 2 companies that control over 80% of the counties in the United States.  They have no significant competition.  THAT'S THE PROBLEM!

----------


## drummergirl

> Please watch the video. That's exactly what will happen in November when the general election is called and it's discovered to be fraudulent.


And that is my nightmare.  224 years of peaceful presidential changes thrown on the trash heap of history.

----------


## octojofo

> That's exactly what will happen in November when the general election is called and it's discovered to be fraudulent.


It seems to me nothing of the sort will happen because if this flipping _is_ occurring, there does not seem to be any way of _proving_ it. I think everyone's work over the last 3 months is really amazing but it remains inconclusive. Worse, by the time anything might eventually be proved, it will be too late- the voting will be historic. We've already seen how a case for fraud, and therefore ineligibility, has fallen on deaf ears once a president has been elected- _nothing is going to happen._ Charting every election around the world since the history of elections _still_ will prove nothing. It's all just a theory and more charting does not seem to be helping. 

We need a way of determining if in fact this is occurring. Further charts are not helping with this effort (or at best, quite minimally!) I can see only one possible way. We must have accurate results to weigh these up against. Either the affidavit thing or exit polls seem to be the only way. Do we just not have any exit polls from any of these elections? I haven't been able to find any from 2012 anywhere. Someone has to be conducting them, no? There was much talk on the DailyPaul about getting volunteers to exit poll in Texas and California and how important this could be. But checking after, that thread reports that no one actually got it together in Texas to do this _at all!_ 

Is it too late to get some teams together (I would think a minimum of three would be essential) to exit-poll at polling stations in precincts that you have seen flipping in California? I know there is only a few days but it seems this is the only way to prove any of this is going on. 

I am not at all wealthy, (quite the opposite) but if I weren't driving 20 hours to stream the Illinois convention on weds. I would seriously consider flying somewhere in Cali. to do just that. (it's actually too late even to _drive_ from here) But frankly, it is not a job that can be done alone. Some polls have multiple entranceways/exits and people realistically need breaks too. Some are just logistically impossible for a variety of reasons, but I really can't see any other way of proving flipping without this.

Does anyone have any suggestions or input along these lines? RonRules is from CA, anyone else? Can you organize and hit even one polling place in this election in this little time? It certainly seems to me this would be a better use of time than continuing to make charts.

And please, this is _not_ to take away from your time and incredible effort on this. I know many of you have spent crazy amounts already on this! But Hell, I've spent more time _reading_ all these posts than the hours exit-polling could _ever_ take! Maybe people like me who are less capable and only read these postings, could now pick up some clipboards, put on a shirt and tie, and stand with a few friends at some polling places this Tuesday!

Does anyone see any _other_ solution toward _proof_?

----------


## RonRules

> I think everyone's work over the last 3 months is really amazing but it remains inconclusive.


Hey look, if you're da32130 or DSW, I guarantee you, I will ruthlessly ridicule you.

The charts alone PROVE there is fraud. We just don't know who did it.

BTW, where is the evidence that you were going to gather from NH?

----------


## octojofo

> Hey look, if you're da32130 or DSW, I guarantee you, I will ruthlessly ridicule you.


You really do have a bad habit of jumping to the defensive quite easily I see! I fear with this attitude, you probably alienate quite a few from genuinely trying to help and that's a shame. I really have to say I take umbrage at you accusing me of being a troll, when I have worked so hard on this campaign for so long and at such great personal expense both in time and money, but I don't want to get baited into a discussion about _that_. 

I _will_ just say, I am not bringing anything up for the sake of undermining you, I honestly want to see this thing _proved_ to the _rest of the world_! NOT just to people like you and ME, who seem to agree that this is plainly, logically _impossible_ without fraud, but you must realize, that without some overwhelming, damning evidence, that is never going to happen. 




> The charts alone PROVE there is fraud. We just don't know who did it.


Again, the charts alone prove there is fraud to SOME of us! I agree. But I maintain that if this was proof _enough_ that something would already be being done about it! Why hasn't this been pushed into in a court of law? Where are the subpoenas? Why aren't the machines being confiscated as evidence and their software being analyzed? What is the hold-up? Why is this information just sitting here on this one forum and nowhere else? WHAT HASN'T THIS GONE VIRAL AMONG ALL PAUL SUPPORTERS? I seriously think the whole world _should_ be talking about THIS and nothing else! But they are not! WHY? It seems the hold-up is _absolute proof_! Which I think Exit polls could BE!




> BTW, where is the evidence that you were going to gather from NH?


I am sorry that I haven't finished this yet. I told you I was not proficient in all of this and I had some very out-of-date experience in Excel as my only crutch. I have the watchthevote2012 results and I told you that they were incomplete so I am actually adding the results that I could find at the nh.gov site and I want to graph all the hand-counted precincts to hopefully show there is no flipping evidenced.

Frankly that is why I was looking for all the data and charts - even though you said it was all in Excel and that was a poor choice, I was hoping to use it as a template for how to output these charts, because frankly I am having trouble. Perhaps I am better off giving you the data and having _you_ output it? I am more than happy to. 

Actually, you said you were part of the FaceBook WatchtheVote2012 group so you should have access already. My biggest fear is that there would be flipping still evident (as Liberty1789's charts seemed to suggest) since I feel that would hurt this effort immensely, since it would be inexplicable under that premise. On the other hand, I feel that charting the hand-counts and finding flat lines would go a _LONG_ way toward _proving_ just the opposite -- the flipping by machines!

I work long hours on the weekend and have not had time to get this done and I apologize that I am not hand typing all these figures in right now instead of answering your baseless accusations!  

Seriously, if you want any of the WTV2012 data for any reason, please ask and I will PM you the links.

And trust me, I am on your side -- and more importantly, on Ron Paul's side.

----------


## RonRules

> Seriously, if you want any of the WTV2012 data for any reason, please ask and I will PM you the links.
> 
> And trust me, I am on your side -- and more importantly, on Ron Paul's side.


Yes, please PM me the links to the WTV2012 data. If I'm a little testy it's because thousands of posts have been wasted discussing this topic with trolls. I see a repeat of incorrect claims, with no proof wasting everybody's time and causing doubt. That's why people are waking away.

There's only a handful of productive people in this thread and several were clearly on a mission to discredit the project.

If you want to participate, post your data, calculations, charts, letters to election officials, subpoenas, court filings, etc.

BTW, yesterday I was notified to meet with University of Riverside professors again. With the session over, they now have more time to work on this. Please do the same with your local university.

----------


## hosef

Hi, everyone. 

Again, sorry it is taking me a long time to write a program in my free time.

The primary election early voting has started here in Nevada. And I have found out that Clark County(if not the rest of the state) uses the Sequoia Edge voting system. I will try to find out more about our states equipment(software versions, central tabulator, service schedule, the usual) and will also make charts for the races where liberty minded people are running.

@RonRules The output from the Java program has a file called "votes2012-CorrelationCoefficientsAndStdDevs.csv". What do the numbers in that file represent, and could you post links to a video telling me how to calculate those numbers, or if those are not really important to what we are doing then I might just leave out that function. Also, I think all I have left to do is make R spit out pretty looking charts.
On a related note I was thinking about what you said earlier about an interface between Drupal and R. I was wondering about a website were you could upload .csv files for state and county races and then the website would pass them into R to get graphs and format the data for display on the website. That would save you time and would give us a place where we could send academic people who are interested in our research. We could also have the website generate a total of the probability of Mitt's nation wide totals for people who aren't mathematically inclined enough to understand what an astronomically high number actually represents, something like "The probability of Mitt Romney's nationwide vote total being legitimate is less than the probability of the same life form randomly forming on two different planets simultaneously." or whatever it actually compares to.

@octojofo, Unfortunately, there is fraud in hand counted races. Here in Nevada the caucus was hand tabulated at every level, all the way up to the state total, and yet the charts made by Liberty1789 and RonRules have shown the same steady climb for Romney, the same line smoothing, the same EVERYTHING as electronically tabulated races. In Clark the county total was tabulated in the presence of several media people and lawyers. However, after the vote was counted and everyone left, the party officials said there was a mess-up and they need to recount. It was that second count were no media or representatives of any of the campaigns watched that they announced as the official results.  At the time of the caucus the secretary of the Clark County Executive board was the only position we held on the E-Board. She said that buses from UT and CA showed up at the county GOP HQ full of Romney supporters to help with the counting. Unfortunately there was no way for the secretary to make sure that there was no fraud because of how many people there were.

----------


## RonRules

> She said that buses from UT and CA showed up at the county GOP HQ full of Romney supporters to help with the counting. Unfortunately there was no way for the secretary to make sure that there was no fraud because of how many people there were.


Thank you very much for your update. These last two lines absolutely freak me out.

----------


## RonRules

I had not done any work on Neveada, but I saved some of the charts Liberty1789 had made. They are absolutely stunning (and not in a good way):









This one, I remember that he thought it was anomalous but could not precisely explain it:

----------


## RonRules

The New York data (official) is finally out, but at the State and CD level only. They had promised me precinct level but it's not on their website. If you can get it, please inform me.

The NY chart is pretty weird. It's almost like they could not do the vote flipping in a few counties. If you live in NY, try to find out what may have happened in the high Romney % and the low Romney % counties. What kind of central tabulator were they using, if any. They may have had better procedures to prevent virus infections. Ask all the questions you can, because something fishy was happening, but not everywhere.

Here's the cumulative chart:


Here's the straight precinct vote tally chart:

----------


## drummergirl

> You really do have a bad habit of jumping to the defensive quite easily I see! I fear with this attitude, you probably alienate quite a few from genuinely trying to help and that's a shame. I really have to say I take umbrage at you accusing me of being a troll, when I have worked so hard on this campaign for so long and at such great personal expense both in time and money, but I don't want to get baited into a discussion about _that_.


Please understand that while you may have taken time to read through these threads, there have been well over a thousand posts deleted by the moderators which you did not have to read or respond to on the days when those events happened.  So please forgive RonRules if he is a little skeptical; everyone here has been burned at least once by someone initially offering to help who then played kinda dumb and successfully turned the conversation in circles for days or weeks.




> I _will_ just say, I am not bringing anything up for the sake of undermining you, I honestly want to see this thing _proved_ to the _rest of the world_! NOT just to people like you and ME, who seem to agree that this is plainly, logically _impossible_ without fraud, but you must realize, that without some overwhelming, damning evidence, that is never going to happen.


The bottom line is that the math is conclusive.  As I recall there were several counties in South Carolina where I calculated the odds of the Romney surge in each of the counties were the same as the odds of my buying 1 quick pick lottery ticket per week and winning the Texas state lottery 5 weeks in a row.  And this has happened now in every state primary conducted to date (except Puerto Rico) where we have data.  I'd venture a guess that the odds of this being random are about the same as the odds of a catastrophic meteor hitting the earth in the next 10 minutes.

All that remains is WHO did it and EXACTLY HOW.  And we have some ideas there too.

At this point we lack a lawyer who understands math (does such a creature even exist?), a computer forensics expert, and a grand jury.

EDIT:  I would like to add that the number one obstacle we have with our fellow Ron Paul supporters is that they are in deep denial about this problem.  One doesn't have to ponder the implications for long before nausea and vomiting set in.  Most people literally do not have the stomach for this.  "It just can't be true, so say it ain't so Joe, please for God's sake say it ain't so!"  And so in the face of all the evidence, the emotional response takes over and says, this isn't happening.  Ophelia didn't fare so well in the face of reality either.

----------


## RonRules

Here's more info about NY:



Romney did worse in Erie county and best in Weschester, Suffolk, Nassau counties. The State of NY is widely different from West to East. I've lived in Suffolk, Nassau and those are heavy Establishment counties.

Here's a different way to look at the same data. The counties are on the X-Axis in increasing size. Note that wherever Romney does well Paul does poorly. The difference is so stark that even the best vote flipping algorithm can't make a straight line out of it. That's my explanation. Chime in if you feel differently.

----------


## drummergirl

Oh man, I can hardly wait to see the precinct level data.  

On a lighter note, do you think we might find one of these lurking around the central tabulators?

----------


## Carson

Yesterday 09:33 AM #885
*RonRules
*

I haven't been watching but your Egyptian video makes a great sound track for the thread.

I sort of figure if any of us makes any noise about the election what-so-ever it will be more in the line of a Baa Baa Baa


I still can't get over the only place I am hearing about any election fraud is on the Ron Paul Liberty Forest message board. Well here and on FOX with Ben Swann ...

----------


## Carson

> Oh man, I can hardly wait to see the precinct level data.  
> 
> On a lighter note, do you think we might find one of these lurking around the central tabulators?


Working it with it's tail while hissing a greeting at us?

----------


## RonRules

> @RonRules The output from the Java program has a file called "votes2012-CorrelationCoefficientsAndStdDevs.csv". What do the numbers in that file represent, and could you post links to a video telling me how to calculate those numbers, or if those are not really important to what we are doing then I might just leave out that function. Also, I think all I have left to do is make R spit out pretty looking charts.


Liberty1789 thought it was important to point out how straight the cumulative lines were. Program4Liberty hand coded a correlation coefficient and Std Deviation calculation in Java. Liberty1789 felt that it was highly unnatural (and a clue to fraud) for the lines to be so straight. He often calculated the correlation/std dev and added the numbers on the charts. I also did that for a few charts. I remember that the entire state of VA had a correlation slope of .993.

As you can see in the above NY chart, the line is not so straight and the correlations and Std dev calculated by the Java program are:

Santorum: -0.902983538
Gingrich: -0.583204951
Paul: -0.831071705
Romney: 0.939621774

Standard Deviations:
Santorum: 0.011651986
Gingrich: 0.00546811
Paul: 0.011088592
Romney: 0.024399177

These correlations are not as good as .993 like in VA, but still excellent. Most social scientists would agree to vote Republican for data like that.

All it means really, is that we have undeniably strong correlation between Romney's share of the vote and the arbitrary independent variable, precinct size. It just make the proof stronger for a statistician to appreciate.

----------


## RonRules

> I still can't get over the only place I am hearing about any election fraud is on the Ron Paul Liberty Forest message board. Well here and on FOX with Ben Swann ...


Was the snake picture taken in America? It's got the head of a viper, it seems.

I want a solid support from Academia before contacting the media. I doubt they lurk here much and that's fine with me. On the other hand, if Ben wants to do this story, I'll do everything I can to help him out. He deserves it.

----------


## drummergirl

> Was the snake picture taken in America? It's got the head of a viper, it seems.


That is a western diamondback rattlesnake (10ft 4in, 108lbs) taken by a friend of a friend in a neighboring county.  The ag people have been saying for a couple of months that conditions are ideal for snakes this year, so I found the supporting evidence interesting.

----------


## affa

> Does anyone see any _other_ solution toward _proof_?


Proof is impossible in this day and age.   If someone came forward with photographic evidence that they killed Kennedy, they'd be ridiculed as an attention hound by 25% of the people, ignored by 25%, believed by 25% of the people, and called a liar and a fake by the rest.

You say exit polls would 'prove' something, but they don't and they won't.   When Ron Paul performs under polls, people just dismiss it.   People are incredibly good at dismissing anything they don't want to believe true.   And others are paid to.

----------


## Pauling

Wasn't Ben Swann taking a look at this a while back? What happened with that?

----------


## RonRules

THIS is the most important chart comparison I've ever made. Thanks to Octojofo for providing the WatchTheVote2012 data.

This is a chart made directly from the New Hampshire 2012 Pres Primary website:
http://sos.nh.gov/2012RepPresPrim.aspx (Use "Download in Excel Format")

Here's what I get: (The chart looks the same as Progra4Liberty's chart)


(Note that there's only 10 counties, so the chart is rough but the chart should include all votes, except for write-ins and very low vote count candidates)

Now, look at THIS:



That's straight from the WatchTheVote spreadsheet. You can download it here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...l=en_US#gid=99

Watch the vote was only able to "watch" 79 out of the 126 precincts in New Hampshire. That's a damn shame, because the ones that they DID watch produce a flat-line chart.

Folks if that's not the smoking gun, I don't know what is. PLEASE do something about this!!!

----------


## RonRules

Octojofo entered the remaining 47 hand counted precincts from the individual county results. (They were all in pdf and it was a pain to convert them)
Those results can be found here:
http://sos.nh.gov/2012RepPresPrim.aspx?id=12943


You can download his complete spreadsheet data here:
https://www.yousendit.com/download/Q...Tk1GR0hWUThUQw


Now check this out. Here's the final result of the Watch The Vote plus the hand counted results reported by the state:



Any questions?!!!

----------


## RonRules

> Wasn't Ben Swann taking a look at this a while back? What happened with that?


I never contacted Ben Swan and I don't know that anyone else has. He was interested very early on and we had very little data to offer.

It's best at this point to get support from academia before going to the media. But if Ben wants to run with this now, it's his choice.

----------


## RonRules

Riverside County will have to MANUALLY re-count all electronic votes after the electronic count. I believe that only applies to Direct Entry type machines. That re-count will start on June 7, 2012.

http://www.voteinfo.net/docs/NOTICE_100PercentTally.PDF

They also do a random 1% manual vote tally for all other votes:
http://www.voteinfo.net/docs/Notice_OnePercentTally.pdf

Some of their voting equipment was de-certified by the State:
WITHDRAWAL OF APPROVAL OF SEQUOIA VOTING SYSTEMS, INC.,
WINEDS V 3.1.012/AVC EDGE/INSIGHT/OPTECH 400-C DRE & OPTICAL SCAN VOTING SYSTEM

They were later re-certified with the following stipulation:
"Elections officials are required to conduct a 100% manual tally, by the process described in Elections Code section 15360, of the electronic results tabulated on each DRE machine in use on Election Day. Notice to the public of this manual
tally may be combined with the notice required by any other manual tally required in this order or by Elections Code section 15360."

Since I am now a Certified Poll Observer, I will be observing this re-count.

I would prefer all manual voting. The 1% sample is very small, particularly if large precincts are not going to be included because they are large.

----------


## hosef

So, for the first time in history someone is going to look at the receipts from the touch screen voting systems?!? How did you get them to agree to that one?

----------


## The Man

> Octojofo entered the remaining 47 hand counted precincts from the individual county results. (They were all in pdf and it was a pain to convert them)
> Those results can be found here:
> http://sos.nh.gov/2012RepPresPrim.aspx?id=12943
> 
> 
> You can download his complete spreadsheet data here:
> https://www.yousendit.com/download/Q...Tk1GR0hWUThUQw
> 
> 
> ...


This is explosive. Please explain/ link to more information on how thw WatchTheVote2012 data was gathered. Of all the incriminating evidence in the thousands of posts on this Site, this one may be worth staking a reputaion on.

----------


## drummergirl

Can you imagine the difference in the momentum, fundraising, and election coverage if the actual results had been reported on election night instead of the faked/flipped results?  It's absolutely gut wrenching. 





> Octojofo entered the remaining 47 hand counted precincts from the individual county results. (They were all in pdf and it was a pain to convert them)
> Those results can be found here:
> http://sos.nh.gov/2012RepPresPrim.aspx?id=12943
> 
> 
> You can download his complete spreadsheet data here:
> https://www.yousendit.com/download/Q...Tk1GR0hWUThUQw
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## RonRules

> So, for the first time in history someone is going to look at the receipts from the touch screen voting systems?!? How did you get them to agree to that one?


I believe the credit goes to THIS guy: (Tom Courbat, who has made Riverside famous only second to Cayuhoga county Ohio for discovering election fraud) There are others that have worked hard too. I'm a newbie compared to these guys.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4445
Tom is recovering from a serious illness that had him in the hospitals for weeks. I believe he's winding down his efforts on election fraud, but he's been at this for many years and definitely deserves a great 2nd retirement.

Tomorrow, I will be a poll watcher at the Registrar of Voters building in Riverside, home of the WinEDS Central Tabulator! 

I'll be there all day from 6:30 AM till past midnight, so I won't be boring your with "explosive" charts.

It is my sincere hope that Riverside will be the only California county that will flat-line. I did everything I could to make that happen.

----------


## octojofo

> This is explosive. Please explain/ link to more information on how the WatchTheVote2012 data was gathered. Of all the incriminating evidence in the thousands of posts on this Site, this one may be worth staking a reputation on.


I am so happy these results are as I had anticipated! (Thanks RonRules for getting them right up!) 

The WatchTheVote2012 data is compiled by attending and witnessing the hand-count wherever we had bodies willing to go. In my case, I sat and took pictures and video of the counting process in Stratford, NH and as soon as I left, I (along with all the other poll-watchers in their respective towns) called in the figures witnessed, and those were used to update a WTV2012 google.docs page that I took the data from. I then added the NH official reported results to fill in the data from all the remaining hand count polling locations. It's unfortunate we could not get someone at every location but there you have it. (As it was, I drove 4 hours to get to Stratford, and again weeks later to watch in Maine, where unfortunately I could only _watch_, not record final figures!)

----------


## octojofo

> Tomorrow, I will be a poll watcher at the Registrar of Voters building in Riverside, home of the WinEDS Central Tabulator! 
> 
> I'll be there all day from 6:30 AM till past midnight, so I won't be boring your with "explosive" charts.


Well, I will definitely miss the charts! 

Any chance you will be able to do any exit-polling? I still think this is important as it can make apparent any machine cheating... 

btw folks, I'm still waiting for the iPhone version but there is a really spiffy exit-polling app for the Android out there!

----------


## RonRules

Here's a quickie of Maine 2012 using the Watch the Vote data before I go poll watching.

Here's the overall state chart that I had done months ago:



Here's the watch the vote data charted: (Ron's a flipper on the last point! Not really, there are only 15 data points here and this is just likely to be low sample count statistical variations.) However, the WatchTheVote chart is definitely not trending the same way as the state chart. I certainly think form these two charts, that the GOP/Romney was up to no good in Maine.



https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...uR3QwTWc#gid=1

Octojofo or others, can you please round up ALL the Watch the Vote 2012 data and post the links. Thanks.

----------


## RonRules

> (As it was, I drove 4 hours to get to Stratford, and again weeks later to watch in Maine, where unfortunately I could only _watch_, not record final figures!)


Why could you not record the final figures, were they counted in secret and reported straight to the GOP as Pastor McDonnall had been asked?

This is very serious stuff folks (not just for NH, ME or course). We now need FOLLOWUP! We can't just sit there and take this.

----------


## RonRules

That's where we're heading if we don't deal with this NOW:

*Protests Turn Into Occupations Throughout Egypt*

----------


## RonRules

*I'm in the Belly of the Beast!!*

Early this morning, I had a 1/2 hour meeting with the Registrar and her assistant. Voting was slow so we had plenty of time to talk. As an official Poll Observer, I got the VIP tour of their facilities, the vote handling process, counting and a visit in the central room where all the votes are counted and the lair of the WinEDS Central Tabulator. 

In Riverside about 95% of all votes are paper votes that are scanned in centrally at the Registrar's office. Riverside is a large county, spanning most of the width of California. This evening, Sheriff deputies and helicopters (!) will be transporting the paper ballots from the 540 precincts all over the county. There's another nearly 300 "Vote By Mail" precincts, where groups of people are located that can only vote by mail. (I have a problem with that, but that's another story)

The Belly of the Beast is like a small factory assembly line with dozens of Optech-400C Central Count Scanners. There were stacks of ballots on some tables, so I was restricted as to what pictures I could take.

Here's one of the Optech-400C Central Count Scanners:





All these Optech-400C scanners are connected though a private (totally local) network to the central tabulator, which itself is made up of two machines. One the WinTtl collects the data from all the scanners and transfers it to the WinEDS machine, which is the actual computer where all the votes are added. 

The WinEDS Central Tabulator is on the left. It's just a regular HP PC that runs that dreaded Central Tabulation software.




Here's the problem. Although almost all of Riverside votes are paper based, all votes are counted by machines, tallied by machines and summed up by machines. At no point in the process can there be an inspection of the intermediate steps. (I have asked and received all the files on the WinEDS machine and MAY be able to figure out a way to get the intermediate counts from each individual Optech 400C scanners)

Riverside has been ordered by the State of California to do a manual 1% count to confirm that the machines have done their job correctly. They will randomly pick 1% of the 800+ precincts in Riverside (minimum of 9 precincts) and count those manually. If local races are not part of those 9 precincts, other manual count precincts will be added. They will also manually count 100% of the 800 or so Direct Entry Machines.

This morning I managed to get the Registrar to agree that if all the precincts they pick happen to be small, they will add ONE manual count precinct that has at least 250 votes. Hopefully we will be able to catch the vote flipping that way.

I also got them to agree to make backup copies of the DRE machine memory cards BEFORE they are inserted in the Central Tabulator.

The Registrar and her assistant were very helpful to me and are genuinely concerned and trying to eradicate Vote Flipping. They were extremely careful with not allowing the Central Tabulator near an Internet connections and USB keys. They only communicate to it though virus proofed CD's. I am really hoping that with all these efforts that Riverside County will Flat Line! If all the other counties around it are flippers, we will have an even more solid case to open up a State-Wide investigation, led by the State Attorney General.

----------


## RonRules

Poll tapes from the 9 main DRE (Direct Entry) voting machines. I was able to flim the poll tape as it was printed, but it's pretty boring. The final result come up on the machine's screen at the end.

Here they are:


















The absentee (Vote by Mail) results for Riverside County (not including the above machines) are:
Romney: 82.69%
Paul: 7.66%
Santorum: 4.62%
Gingrich: 4.13%
Roemer: 0.58%
Krager: 0.32%

It appears that the DRE machine results are not that different (eye ball eval only) than the absentee votes. I'd like to do that calculation, but I have to continue my job as a poll observer. Can someone do the math.  Thanks.

----------


## dr.k.research

> Oh man, I can hardly wait to see the precinct level data


New York was one of the first states to impliment the Dominion Voting Systems machines. These machines are functioning in 52 counties. 

The machines are also found in Upstate Michigan. Dominion is a relatively new player in this business.

http://www.dominionvoting.com/field/new_york

Now, here's the big one. Dr. Paul did BEST in Schuyler County, also where the Super Brochures where most extensively used. Schuyler apparently was counted by Dominion machines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...New_York_state

I believe this is the data you need for further analysis.

----------


## RonRules

Montana results, nothing new, Romney's a flipper.



Here are the three most populous counties in MT:







Data source:
http://electionresults.sos.mt.gov/re...sn=100&map=CTY

Clearly the problem is pervasive and they (whoever "they" are) can't stop it. There's was no need at all for Romney to flip the vote in MT. The fix was in, before the Jan 3 Iowa primaries.

----------


## drummergirl

thank you Dr K

----------


## RonRules

> The machines are also found in Upstate Michigan. Dominion is a relatively new player in this business.


Dominion is an old Canadian company. What's important to know is that they purchased the Deibold equipment. (I believe that ES&S was prevented from buying Deibold as that would have caused a near monopoly in the voting equipment business) 

Now we have Syctl, a Spanish company who bought Clarity elections and now running elections in 26 states (a majority) and nobody cares.

----------


## drummergirl

And it's yet another piece of information for the puzzle:

No candidate getting over, say, 55% of the vote would need to flip.  Yet there's Romney, over 60% and still flipping.  It's not a sophisticated program/virus/algorithm.




> Montana results, nothing new, Romney's a flipper.
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly the problem is pervasive and they (whoever "they" are) can't stop it. There's was no need at all for Romney to flip the vote in MT. The fix was in, before the Jan 3 Iowa primaries.

----------


## RonRules

> Now, here's the big one. Dr. Paul did BEST in Schuyler County, also where the Super Brochures where most extensively used. Schuyler apparently was counted by Dominion machines:
> I believe this is the data you need for further analysis.


PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES for Schuyler County (Republican)

CANDIDATE	VOTES RECEIVED	PERCENTAGE
Ron Paul	167	29.715%
Newt Gingrich	77	13.701%
Mitt Romney	253	45.018%
Rick Santorum	65	11.566%

Indeed Ron Paul did quite well there. Unfortunately, there's no precicnt-level data from that county on their website. If you can make a request for it, I'll analyze it.

----------


## RonRules

> No candidate getting over, say, 55% of the vote would need to flip.  Yet there's Romney, over 60% and still flipping.  It's not a sophisticated program/virus/algorithm.


Certainly true. Dumb criminals!

We'll see how dumb these criminals are when I find Utah to be a flipper.

----------


## RonRules

South Dakota has a great election website and they have precinct-level results for each county.

They also have a downloadable spreadsheet with all the low-level results, but the link is bad.
http://electionresults.sd.gov/result...ty=REP&osn=105

The resource cannot be found.

Description: HTTP 404. The resource you are looking for (or one of its dependencies) could have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.  Please review the following URL and make sure that it is spelled correctly. 

Requested URL: /MasterPages/ResultsExport.aspx


Can someone call them and bitch about it for me. I've got a lot to do today, besides charts.

----------


## RonRules

Come on girls, join in!

----------


## RonRules

What else is new? Here's New Jersey:

----------


## RonRules

Anybody care about Los Angeles?



LA County has one of the suckiest data format. It's the stuff that came out of computers about 30 years ago. It's also categorized by Congressional districts, not individual precincts. If you can find precinct-level data, please tell me.

Here are the districts covered in the chart:
090CNDN  091CNDN  092CNDN  093CNDN  094CNDN  095CNDN  096CNDN  097CNDN  098CNDN  099CNDN  100CNDN  101CNDN  102CNDN  103CNDN  104CNDN  105CNDN  106CNDN  107CNDN  

Data source:
http://rrcc.co.la.ca.us/elect/downrslt.html-ssi

----------


## RonRules

Hey anybody wondered about Scott Walker's recall election?



Duane is one of the few counties that have the low level data available. Please help me find more.

Here's the list of counties. Sort by size and call up the county administrators and get them to post the precinct-level data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_in_Wisconsin

----------


## RonRules

Here's the Wisconsin Lt. Gov chart. It's understandably similar, but not identical to the Gov. chart. 

I suspect flipping BTW.



Gov. totals:
Scott_Walker	Tom_Barrett	Hari_Trivedi
77449	175934	1236


Lt. Gov totals:
Rebecca_Kleefisch	Mitchell_Mahlon
75141	174827



Data source:
http://countyofdane.com/clerk/elect2012r2.html

----------


## RonRules

Orange county California: 2044 data points on the chart, representing a total of 15948 votes. 

Note the clean upward slope for Romney:



Data source:
http://ocvote.com/fileadmin/live/pri.../districts.pdf

Romney is still batting a 1,000.

----------


## RonRules

San Francisco:



Data source:
http://www.sfelections.org/results/20120605/detail.php

In the results thread yesterday, I saw this commen:
"No Fricken way one candidate could possibly get that many votes...I'm calling election fraud on Romney...82%....come on."

The above chart largely explains it.

----------


## RonRules

California 2012, Republicans, Entire State based on Congressional Districts:


This chart represents 53 data points (congressional districts) and 1,446,140 votes

Today I will be at the Riverside Registrar of voters for the 100% recount of the DRE machines as well as the 1% mandatory recount of the entire county. The Registrar promised me that if no randomly selected precincts have more than 250 votes, they will recount an extra one that has 250 votes.

----------


## RonRules

Libertarian Party, all of California:


Why is Gary Johnson not perfectly flat-lining like the libertarians did in 2008? 

Two reasons: 
1) There's only 58 data points in this chart. When I get the full state database on a precinct basis, I expect it to flat line perfectly.

2) In the above charts with the 58 data points, it's because he got most of his votes in Orange and San Diego counties and it skewered the results a bit. You can see that little percentage differences on the straight precinct vote chart below. 



*Verdict: The libertarians flat lined again.*

Data source:
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/presi...an/county/all/

Here are the 2008 charts. 

Libertarians:


Republicans:

----------


## RonRules

Riverside County, CA is currently doing the 100% DRE Machine (touch screen, direct entry) manual count. I am an observer again today.

The touch screen voting machine puts out a "Poll Tape", on which every single vote is printed. There is a report at the end of the tape and this report is also displayed on the screen as I showed several posts back.

The election workers are comparing the Poll tape with the output of the central tabulator for each machine. DRE machines record about 5% of the votes in Riverside county. 100% of those votes are checked.

It's still not perfect, because if the machine itself is doing the flipping nobody will ever know. They also spend a small fortune for those machines, the maintenance, the management and all those election workers having to check 100% of the votes. With all that trouble the process is not at all guaranteed. Votes could easily be flipped though the machine's software.

A straight manual count public would be so much easier and virtually fraud proof.

Here are pictures of the election workers doing the 100% DRE manual check:

----------


## RonRules

This afternoon they will do the 1% county wide check of the paper ballots that were scanned though the Optech 400C scanners.

There are approximately 820 precincts in Riverside. The assistant registrar randomly picks 1% of those, rounded up, which is 9 precincts. If those chosen precincts don't cover some of the local elections, additional precincts will be added. 
This year, the voter turnout is very low. It is quite likely that out of those 9 precincts, none will have 250 votes. 

Yours truly has gotten the Registrar to agree that one more precinct with more than 250 votes will be manually counted. 

Here the assistant registrar is rolling the dice to randomly pick the first 9 precincts:





That's how the sausage is made in Riverside.

----------


## RonRules

Here's a quickie. Green party, California. Flat-lining as expected:



58 data points, hence a little roughness.

----------


## RonRules

Here's South Dakota. Same ol Romney flipping:



I thought I could find some funny stuff in Minne*haha* County and sure enough I was not disapointed:



Data source if you don't believe me:
http://electionresults.sd.gov/result...ty=REP&osn=105

----------


## drummergirl

I just wish it weren't the way it is.  

I am having some interesting conversations here though.  More details in a few days.




> Here's South Dakota. Same ol Romney flipping:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I could find some funny stuff in Minne*haha* County and sure enough I was not disapointed:
> 
> 
> 
> Data source if you don't believe me:
> http://electionresults.sd.gov/result...ty=REP&osn=105

----------


## RonRules

Couple more California counties:





I had special requests for Humbolt and Mendicino but there is no precinct-level data on the county website. Same for the following California Counties: Almeda, Santa Clara, Fresno, Kern, Ventura, San Mateo and many others.

If you want to expose this fraud fully, please insist with your county election officer for precinct-level data. 

With lots of cajoline, it looks like I may get *machine-level data* from Riverside county. We can then directly account for the full digital chain of data custody right up to the central tabulator output.

----------


## drummergirl

> With lots of cajoline, it looks like I may get *machine-level data* from Riverside county. We can then directly account for the full digital chain of data custody right up to the central tabulator output.


OMG HAPPY DANCE!  This totally makes my day (and it has already been a pretty darned amazing day!)

----------


## RonRules

California Solano county:



Data Source:
http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/CR/Elections/June+5$!2c+2012+Presidential+Primary/SOVCFedState.pdf

----------


## slamhead

I call bull$#@! in my precinct 48245 in Orange County, CA. In 2008 I canvased that precinct and doubled the national average for Ron Paul at about 8%. This time around of 301 votes Ron Paul only got 5 votes or about 1%. At what precinct size does the data show the vote flipping starts? I wish now I would have stayed outside my polling place and recorded all the Ron Paul votes.

----------


## RonRules

> I call bull$#@! in my precinct 48245 in Orange County, CA. In 2008 I canvased that precinct and doubled the national average for Ron Paul at about 8%. This time around of 301 votes Ron Paul only got 5 votes or about 1%. At what precinct size does the data show the vote flipping starts? I wish now I would have stayed outside my polling place and recorded all the Ron Paul votes.


I'm not surprised and reports form Dr. K's exit pollers match your suspicions. 

With respect to Orange county, here's what is needed: Precinct-Level data, in raw form, before it gets to the central tabulator. In California, less than 1/2 of the counties provide precinct-level data, and it's always after the Central Tabulator had done its devious deed.

Orange now has a real fancy election result website, but for analysis purposes, it's crap:
http://www.ocvote.com/datacentral/?tab=results

Can you go to the County Clerk and nicely ask for "precinct-level" data as close as possible to this format:


Try to get machine level data. You may have to pay $35 for them to make a DVD. It's well worth it.

If they don't cooperate, go to the Registrar directly and if that does not work go to the county CEO, who is above the registrar. If that does not work, make a three-minute speech at the Board of Supervisors. I have personally made one in Orange county for an unrelated issue.

Also if you can, observe the 1% recount verification if it has not taken place yet. Riverside will do it on Monday.

----------


## RonRules

Here's a response from New Mexico:

"The data will be available after the statewide canvass is completed and the results are official. We expect that to be after June 26."

I don't like that. It is very important to get unofficial results published so analysts can examine the data and detect anomalies. After June 26, the data will be certified and it will be more difficult to get it overturned.

----------


## RonRules

> At what precinct size does the data show the vote flipping starts?


We used to think the vote flipping started at around 240-250 votes, because some early charts (SC I believe) showed a "hinge point". I don't see this "hinge point" at all in most of the charts I have produced. The flipping appears to start at a very small percentile of votes, probably as little as 5%. See CA Sacramento chart as a typical example.

----------


## RonRules

This is interesting but not conclusive *and likely to be confirmed to a 99.2% confidence level.* 

I was a poll watcher on the June 5 California Primaries. At the end of the day, I stuck around to get copies of the poll tapes. Although I filmed one poll tape as it was unrolled with each vote, the final result is what's important and I took a picture of the end of the tape, which is also displayed on the machine.

There were 9 machines and all nine pictures are shown on post #920 of this thread. Here's one of them:



I thought it would be interesting to chart the results of these 9 machines. They represent a total of 181 votes and 9 data points for each trace on the chart.

Here it is:


Note that although Romney is doing well, he's not flipping the vote on the chart. That's why it's important to get low-level data. Hopefully sometime early next week I will get ALL the machine data and will be able to compare with the Central Tabulator output.

Here's the data for the above chart, taken directly from the DRE machines outputs:



Note at how Ron Paul achieves a result of* 12.7%* on those 9 voting machines, but the county's results are only 8.54%

MITT ROMNEY	74,304	81.53%
RON PAUL	7,782	  *8.54%*
RICK SANTORUM	4,491 	4.93%
NEWT GINGRICH	3,702	  4.06%
CHARLES E. ''BUDDY'' ROEMER, III	553	0.61%
FRED KARGER	301	0.33%
Total	91,133	100.00%

Deep analysis is how we're going to get to the bottom of this. Please do the same in your county.

----------


## RonRules

I've done more work on calculating the probability of the DRE (touch screen) voting machine's results differing from the central tabulator results. I calculated that the chance of such a large difference is a mere 0.8%. In other words the chance of fraud downstream of the voting machine (likely in the central tabulator) is 99.2%. These numbers are valid, given the sample of 181 votes that I have.

For those with a background in statistics, please chime in. I've only had 2 stats courses about 30 years ago. I could have made calculation errors or used the wrong type of statistical tests.

The flat-lining cumulative chart that I produced from the DRE machine data is a further proof that fraud is occurring downstream. In other words, the DRE machines are fine, like I have said all along. 

I've used two different statistical techniques to compute the results: One tailed t-Stat check for > 95% and a Z-statistic test to calculate the exact probability. The t-Stat test is normally used for small samples (<30) but still works for larger samples.

Edit: The T-stat test was incorrect because I was using the wrong standard dev. Here's the update with just Z-stat. The results vary a lot if some outliers are removed, so because of this relatively small sample size the results are not precise.





I reviewed my statistics by watching several Kahn Academy videos. This one covers: "Large Sample Proportion Hypothesis Testing"
http://www.khanacademy.org/math/stat...thesis-testing

Here's an online calculator result for T-test:

----------


## Carson

It was kind of weird. A few weeks before this flipping thing started I named a cat *Flipper*. 

He is a wild cat that comes by and hangs out with me sometimes. He started this thing where he would flip back and forth while I was petting him. He seems to think it is fun...besides helping shed his winter coat. Little scamp.



I never really could get him to go through his routine for the camera. After all, he is a cat.

----------


## RonRules

We're getting there!



BTW, the Riverside Registrar people were dragging their feet about providing me with precinct-level data. I sent them a fairly nasty letter on Friday and they wrote back today (on a Saturday!)

Me: 
bla bla bla snip bla bla bla

I hope this result will effect change in your department's lackadaisical response to my requests. For example I have asked to get precinct-level data in text or Excel format for the last three months, still as of today to no avail. Other counties provide that right from their website.

I have met with your staff for the first time approximately three months ago and after many other communications by e-mail and phone calls, I only received timid support. Considering that this may be the largest election fraud in US history, I would expect a more enthusiastic staff.

I made several recommendations that were ignored. Here are some of them:

1) Re-Baselining the Central-Tabulator (new or formatted drive and fresh installation): Ignored
2) Adding an anti-virus program to the Central Tabulator: Ignored (It's not on WinEDS, I checked)
3) Procedure change to check the vote total for each candidate at the precinct level: Ignored
4) Testing the voting equipment in normal election mode for vote flipping specifically: Ignored
5) Consulting with a computer forensics expert: Ignored.

In your communication today is a request for me to pay another $35 to get data that will help solve this problem. Besides having to do your department's job at election integrity, you actually want me to pay $35 for the privilege of doing your job?

*Please, I will no longer tolerate that sort of treatment. You may know that I have a bad habit of making speeches at the Riverside Board of Supervisors. If I don't get adequate response to my current requests by Tuesday, 9:00AM, I will be at the Board of Supervisors with a detailed complaint in hand and a well rehearsed speech.
*

My current requests are:
1) Network statistics: (netstat -a -n -r command on WinEDS, WinETP machines)

2) Direct voting machine output of scanned and DRE ballots in readable electronic form.

3) Precinct-level data out of the Central Tabulator in text or excel formats.

Sincerely, 

xxx xxx
Riverside, CA


A day later, the response from the registrar:

Dear Mr. xxx

The Precinct-level data out of the Central Tabulator in excel format will be ready for pick up at 9:00am on Monday. We are reviewing your other two requests and will respond as soon as possible.

xxx xxx
Riverside County Registrar of Voters
Assistant Registrar of Voters
(951)486-7210 Fax (951)486-7272
RAMartine@co.riverside.ca.us

You see, it's not that hard. Just ask for it.

----------


## devil21

Carry on brother.  Wit yo bad self.

----------


## drummergirl

I realize that we have 2 main goals here 1) we want fair elections and 2) we want The Flipper behind bars.

As to 1)
after several interesting conversations this week at the Texas GOP convention, I suspect that our only hope at this point for fair elections in November is injunctive relief.  That is because each state has its own election laws and most state legislatures are not in session during election season (they are all out campaigning), which means there will be no legislative relief before November.  The local election officials are in a position where they can only use the procedures and equipment they have unless there is a court order directing them otherwise.  There is also a possibility in some states of having a secretary of state or state elections admin decertifying the central tabulators (which would mean counties can't use them).

As to 2)
we need to begin making criminal complaints if we want law enforcement involved.

Does anyone have suggestions for accomplishing these 2 objectives?

----------


## RonRules

Here's NY's 25 Congressional District, which was specially requested.

----------


## RonRules

Finally, Riverside County California:





I estimate that Mitt Romney stole 10,508 votes in this particular county election. The theft nationwide is well over a million votes.

The Riverside County registrar will meet early this afternoon to decide on how to deal with this.

----------


## Lindsey

I really wasn't buying into this thread until this past weekend.  I was at a picnic and the Ron Paul conversation came up.  At the time, there was 13 people at the table.  1 didn't vote, 2 were democrats, 2 voted for Romney,(1 works for Northrupp Grumman, the other a rocket scientist that's also part of the MIC,) and 8 voted for Ron Paul, (they all claim to have actually gone to the polls - all were from primary states.)  This was a semi-random grouping of people - I was the only loud-mouthed RP supporter in the group and only have regular contact with 1 other person at that table.  How can 80% of the Republican voters at the table have voted for Ron Paul, and he still come away from all these primaries with such dismal percentages?

----------


## bcreps85

> I really wasn't buying into this thread until this past weekend.  I was at a picnic and the Ron Paul conversation came up.  At the time, there was 13 people at the table.  1 didn't vote, 2 were democrats, 2 voted for Romney,(1 works for Northrupp Grumman, the other a rocket scientist that's also part of the MIC,) and 8 voted for Ron Paul, (they all claim to have actually gone to the polls - all were from primary states.)  This was a semi-random grouping of people - I was the only loud-mouthed RP supporter in the group and only have regular contact with 1 other person at that table.  How can 80% of the Republican voters at the table have voted for Ron Paul, and he still come away from all these primaries with such dismal percentages?


This is how I have felt for a while, personally.  I don't doubt there are Romney voters out there, as there are plenty of uninformed voters and party line toters.  That being said...I know one of them that actually voted for Romney.  There are many people amongst my family and friends who I had pegged as Romney supporters...the one I mentioned is the only one I was right about.

1.  Paternal grandparents.  These are straight Republican ticket voters who generally vote for whoever the GOP is pushing.  I had debates with them about Ron Paul and his views, which were not heated, but general discussions and I couldn't tell whether I was gaining any ground or not.  Both later informed me that they had voted for Paul.

2.  Step-father's dad.  Complete party line person.  I've never heard him waiver or disagree with the GOP on ANYTHING.  I was told during my recent birthday that he wanted me to join him outside to discuss Ron Paul.  "Great...now I get to argue for 30 minutes and it will make no difference.", I thought to myself.  Turns out, he just wanted to tell me that he had watched some of the debates and that he makes a lot of sense.  Then he went on to bash Romney, much to my surprise.  His wife votes however he does.  There were about 3 more people who are in the same boat at this table, that agreed with him!

3.  Aunt.  This is the one that still voted Romney.  She's kind of a neocon, but maintains that if Paul were to get the nomination she would back him 100%...she says it's more important to beat Obama no matter who we run, and she thinks Romney is the one who can do that.  Can't change her mind, but at the very least she isn't hostile to us or Paul.

Fact is, I could go on and on.  The majority of people I know are not hardcore Ron Paul supporters or followers, but agree that he is the best choice we have.  Every time the conversation comes up, even with RANDOM people, I always experience overwhelming support for Paul even when I expect a debate.  I'm sure there are plenty of people far above my age group who vote according to the TV, but I do find the numbers to be suspect...

I've never seen a Romney or Santorum bumper sticker.  I've never met a Santorum supporter.  I've met very few Romney supporters.  None of it adds up.

----------


## RonRules

Thank you for the above comments. I hear this stuff all the time.

I received a report from someone in TX that did entrance polling ALL day. that person claimed RP support of at least 60% for the particular precinct they were at.

That precinct happens to be in Travis county TX:

----------


## RonRules

Look at the Chinese cookie I got at lunch:



"You will be successful in you work"

----------


## drummergirl

> Look at the Chinese cookie I got at lunch:
> 
> 
> "You will be successful in you work"


Eating desert first, I see

----------


## Champ

Just thought this would go in this thread..

Fraud Confirmed in Texas by Judge..

From the DailyPaul: http://www.dailypaul.com/239494/frau...ht-drkrbn-live

----------


## affa

> Just thought this would go in this thread..
> 
> Fraud Confirmed in Texas by Judge..
> 
> From the DailyPaul: http://www.dailypaul.com/239494/frau...ht-drkrbn-live


Wow.

----------


## RonRules

She's being interviewed right now. Click on the upper right of the page:

http://ronpaulradio.com/

----------


## RonRules

Since Travis County is such a travesty, I did a couple more charts:





The slow curve at the left occurs when one candidate has 100% (or most) of the votes the few very small precincts. Then the curve takes a while to catch up to the flat line. I'd say both of the above are flat.

----------


## wstrucke

it seems like the only way this could get traction would be to pick a district that looks particularly bad and organize to go door to door and get people to sign affadavits that they voted for Ron Paul.  if you can get enough signatures to show the reported counts are WAY off, then you'll have something.

----------


## RonRules

> it seems like the only way this could get traction would be to pick a district that looks particularly bad and organize to go door to door and get people to sign affadavits that they voted for Ron Paul.  if you can get enough signatures to show the reported counts are WAY off, then you'll have something.


If you like this approach, join Dr. K and others at this website:
http://www.ronpaulvotecount.org/

You can also help them through the pac:
http://www.libertyusapac.org/

If your county uses voting machines like the Sequoia Edge (and others), see if the "Poll Tape" produces a report of each candidate. Take a picture of each end of the tape. Collect that data in a spreadsheet and send it to me (post the link here). With that data I'll make a chart.

If you can get a 1,000 or more votes, I'll have chart with good resolution and strong statistical significance.

----------


## RonRules

Woo Hoo! I can start insulting again:

----------


## RonRules

Thought I'd let you all know that Riverside County will NOT allow me to take pictures of the poll tapes. I already have pictures of 9 tapes, which flat lined.

Today I asked to see the top 50 precincts and take pictures of them. *They refused and said that they have to have the county lawyer approve first.*

This is getting INTERESTING!

I also had asked for 9 other items:  Libertarian, Green party, Riverside District Sup. 1,2,3,4,5, Congressional districts, 41, 42, US Senator.

I only got Libertarian and District 3.  I'll put the charts up soon.

----------


## bcreps85

> Thought I'd let you all know that Riverside County will NOT allow me to take pictures of the poll tapes. I already have pictures of 9 tapes, which flat lined.
> 
> Today I asked to see the top 50 precincts and take pictures of them. *They refused and said that they have to have the county lawyer approve first.*
> 
> This is getting INTERESTING!
> 
> I also had asked for 9 other items:  Libertarian, Green party, Riverside District Sup. 1,2,3,4,5, Congressional districts, 41, 42, US Senator.
> 
> I only got Libertarian and District 3.  I'll put the charts up soon.


Not that you couldn't be on to something, but I wouldn't take it as an admission of guilt either.  They are probably just getting nervous about all the questions and of course your correspondences that they are probably taking as accusations.  Public servants seem to go into "CYA" mode the second someone starts to take interest in their job.  I imagine that it is because, unlike in the private sector, they aren't used to anyone taking interest in whether or not they are actually doing their jobs properly or not.

----------


## RonRules

> Public servants seem to go into "CYA" mode the second someone starts to take interest in their job.


That's probably the case. Of the 30-40 people in that office I'm confident that nobody there is to blame.

However, I had met with them 3 months BEFORE the elections and communicated frequently with a plan to PREVENT the vote flipping problem. It got completely ignored.

----------


## RonRules

Libertarian Party, Riverside California.

This one is weird and deserves to be explained!



There are very few votes for Libertarians in Riverside, so the chart is going to be very choppy.

Here are the total votes for the entire county for each candidate:

Barbara Joy Waymire	72
Lee Wrights	14
Roger Gary	16
James Ogle	        13
Scott Keller	35
Bill Still	35
Gary Johnson	227
RJ Harris	18
Carl Person	10

The slow downward curve for Gary Johnson can be explained because in small precincts, he was likely the only libertarian with any votes. So he got lots of small precincts with 100% of the votes, and this favorable ratio proportionally decreased as the precinct size increased. In the larger precincts, he got the ratio that he "deserved", close to the final ratio.

In addition, if any precinct has less than 10 votes, they are not published and the following statement is issued: "Insufficient Turnout to Protect Voter Privacy". There are a total of 839 precincts and they are separated in "Vote by Mail" "Election day", each of those is subject to the 10 vote minimum limit for each party. Since there are so few Libertarian votes anyway, usually less than 10 per precinct, I believe that I'm missing most Libertarian votes that way.

So that's my excuse for the lousy chart. Considering the limitations and looking at only the last 50%, I say it flat lines.

----------


## RonRules

This is the Riverside County Supervisor, District #3.

I know most of you won't care about this particular race, but I do. I can't stand Jeff Stone.

So you tell me since I'm a little biased, Is Jeff Stone a flipper? (We tend to disregard the first 10-20%).

----------


## drummergirl

Hard to say for sure.  You'd need to put in confidence intervals for that one, but it does look suspicious.




> This is the Riverside County Supervisor, District #3.
> 
> I know most of you won't care about this particular race, but I do. I can't stand Jeff Stone.
> 
> So you tell me since I'm a little biased, Is Jeff Stone a flipper? (We tend to disregard the first 10-20%).

----------


## drummergirl

Looks like the sample size is too small for the statistics of large numbers to work effectively.




> Libertarian Party, Riverside California.
> 
> This one is weird and deserves to be explained!
> 
> 
> 
> There are very few votes for Libertarians in Riverside, so the chart is going to be very choppy.
> 
> Here are the total votes for the entire county for each candidate:
> ...

----------


## KingNothing

For precincts that you suspect of being "flipped," have you done tests to show if the differences are statistically significant from the county, congressional district, etc mean?

You'd also have to consider how likely it would be to find a naturally occuring difference, given the thousands of precincts investigated.

----------


## drummergirl

> For precincts that you suspect of being "flipped," have you done tests to show if the differences are statistically significant from the county, congressional district, etc mean?


A lot of those type of tests were done early on in this project when the charting technique was being developed.  The condensed version is in about pages 22-29 of the summary here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...cuxJTo1iE/edit




> You'd also have to consider how likely it would be to find a naturally occuring difference, given the thousands of precincts investigated.


Those odds have been calculated in some states (in great detail in South Carolina, for instance).  Generally speaking they come out so far outside the 99% confidence interval that they are quite laughable (or cryable depending on your perspective).  There have been several where the odds that it "just happened" were equivalent to winning the Texas state lottery on one quick pick ticket purchased per week for 4 or 5 weeks in a row (sure to draw the attention of the lottery commission on the second week   )

The charting technique we've developed is a quick way to look at results and see if there's any hanky panky.  Analytically, it's similar to charting widely varying data on a logarithmic scale to look for patterns; they are still there on a regular scale, just difficult to visualize.  At this point so many of us have seen so many charts, that we can generally call a flipper from them.  Sometimes it's too close to call and you'll need to go back to the more traditional tests to know whether the results are within the 99% confidence interval or not. (like above, one case the slope is slight, another case too few data points)

----------


## KingNothing

I just did a quick search of that document and found no reference to any sort of statistical test to compare means.  That needs to be done if it hasn't, and should have been the first thing done.

----------


## RonRules

*Does anybody here believe that Romney would legitimately earn more than 7 times more votes than Ron Paul, where his home in Lake Jackson is located?* If yes, go read something else.

For those interested in doing something about it, please read on and help investigate.

I finally got the data for Brazoria County, TX, the home of Lake Jackon:


Considering that Ron has gotten as high as 80% of the vote in his prior congressional elections, would you believe that Romney beat him in on his own turf by more than 700%:

Here's the cumulative chart and it definitely looks suspicious:



When a chart curves up like that, something is going on and it's important to look further. When the line slopes up straight and steadily, I believe that's the work of a nefarious central tabulator and a coded software algorithm. Such perfect lines don't occur naturally.

When the line curves up, like in the above, it's manual vote flipping, but only in a few precincts. Those few high precincts have to be caught up by the normal legitimate data and it produces a curve. (Remember, these charts are cumulative.)

Here's how you can visualize this better. I made a chart of the data by comparing only Romney and Ron Paul and adding a third line (blue) to show the ratio between Romney and Ron Paul. Note the incredible peaks in Romney's "performance". You won't see that in flat-lining data.

Note that in precinct #27 shows Romney beating Ron by a whooping 719%:



I suggest investigating the following precincts: #12, #27, #46, #47, #51, #61. Ask everything you can: Poll Tapes, Ballot Chain of Custody, Names of election workers at that location, Counting Process (Local Count or Central Count), #of signatures at the precinct compared to number of votes (it may match anyway because of flipping), Reports of broken seals, "corrected" vote tallies, etc.

Do you guys care about Ron? Do you care about this Revolution and Liberty? Please help investigate this. (I'm a bit busy in my own Riverside county)

If you have the ear of the campaign, show them these charts and see if they're willing to help you investigate.

The source of my data is right off the Brazoria website:
http://brazoriacountyclerk.net/recor...0120529(1).pdf

----------


## RonRules

*Ron Paul got exactly 81.77% of the vote in Brazoria County in 2010:*
http://brazoriacountyclerk.net/recor...repcanvass.pdf

Just thought I'd check.

----------


## RonRules

There's a pattern I'm seeing that will help determine flippers vs non-flippers.

Have a look at the Libertarian Party, California Contra Costa County:



The number of votes is low, and very similar to Riverside:
Barbara_Joy_Waymire	67
Bill_Still	27
Carl_Person	20
Gary_Johnson	222
James_Ogle	13
Lee_Wrights	15
RJ_Harris	28
Roger_Gary	18
Scott_Keller	39


Here's the Libertarian Party, California Riverside County:



Barbara_Joy_Waymire	72
Bill_Still	35
Carl_Person	10
Gary_Johnson	227
James_Ogle	13
Lee_Wrights	14
RJ_Harris	18
Roger_Gary	16
Scott_Keller	35

Note the very similar curve shapes for Gary Johnson.

If an election is honest and a certain candidate has a strong advantage over all others, that advantage will be reflected uniformly (more or less) across all sized precincts. Therefore small precincts will occasionally have one or two votes of the strongest candidate and zero for others. That will cause small precincts to "blow up" to 100% or 66% or 50% depending if the votes are 1/0, 2/1, 1/1 of similar fractions with a high numerator.

These high initial values, will take time to get back to the norm and will exhibit a curve because we are cumulating the results.

I'll go further. The Riverside DRE machines showed Romney doing a "fair" (non-flipped) election!


Romney is clearly the strongest candidate in Riverside and the corresponding chart with data coming straight from the voting terminal, is showing the same pattern as Gary Johnson!

I'd never thought I'd see that. Romney is showing a "fair" election. (Before the central tabulator does its dirty deed)

----------


## RonRules

*New rules!*

Vote flipping rules from RonRules!

1) If a chart shows a trace with straight upward slope, an algorithm is applied centrally to affect the vote proportionally on all precincts.

2) If a chart has a lot of data but shows a bumpy trace, it's probably ballot stuffing (Russian, Egyptian elections)

3) If a chart shows a trace with an initial slow gradual downward curve, which then flat-lines, it's an asymmetrical contest that's probably a fair election.

4) If a chart shows an initial slow gradual upward curve, which may or may not flat line, it's probably a case of manual vote flipping on select precincts (see Brazoria county TX, Ron Paul's district)

----------


## RonRules

American Independent Party, Riverside CA



And the Green Party:



Isn't science great? Develop a theory and see if it predicts the real world.

It works bitches!

----------


## RonRules

Fixed it for Ron!



I removed the top 6 outliers where Romney had excessive results and cleaned up some points on the low end and now Romney looks like the clean good looking boy you assume.

----------


## drummergirl

Since there are lots of comparisons, including t-tests, F stats, R^2 values, slopes, slope standard deviations, and probabilities, perhaps you should clarify which "means" you are referring to and give an example of what you'd like to see.  Please feel free to analyze the data; there is a ton of it out there.




> I just did a quick search of that document and found no reference to any sort of statistical test to compare means.  That needs to be done if it hasn't, and should have been the first thing done.

----------


## drummergirl

> *New rules!*
> 
> Vote flipping rules from RonRules!
> 
> 1) If a chart shows a trace with straight upward slope, an algorithm is applied centrally to affect the vote proportionally on all precincts.
> 
> 2) If a chart has a lot of data but shows a bumpy trace, it's probably ballot stuffing (Russian, Egyptian elections)
> 
> 3) If a chart shows a trace with an initial slow gradual downward curve, which then flat-lines, it's an asymmetrical contest that's probably a fair election.
> ...


Makes sense.

----------


## RonRules

I've done about 30 charts from Riverside CA. I'll just show you the game highlights:

Riverside Mayor: (We're starting off pretty well!)


County Supervisor:


State Assembly:


Senators:


A Judge! Why not, this is Riverside after all.


There are good guys too! Remember Duncan Hunter, 2008 Presidential Candiate?


Enjoy the rest of them here:
http://s269.photobucket.com/albums/j..._CA/?start=all

----------


## drummergirl

Holy cow!  No wonder they don't like you asking questions.  It looks like somebody there in Riverside is getting their bread buttered on both sides!




> I've done about 30 charts from Riverside CA. I'll just show you the game highlights:
> 
> Riverside Mayor: (We're starting off pretty well!)
> 
> 
> County Supervisor:
> 
> 
> State Assembly:
> ...

----------


## AnneBeck58

I only know what I saw as a judge in Travis County, Texas.
I can aver that votes were flipped from Ron Paul to Mitt Romney.
Based on numbers I saw;  early-votes vs election-day results, I do not think votes were flipped for or against any other candidate.

----------


## RonRules

> I only know what I saw as a judge in Travis County, Texas.
> I can aver that votes were flipped from Ron Paul to Mitt Romney.
> Based on numbers I saw;  early-votes vs election-day results, I do not think votes were flipped for or against any other candidate.


Welcome to the forum Anne and welcome to our vote flipping thread. There are 4-5 other threads, just as long (one twice as long) that had gotten too long.

You don't need to read everything, suffice it to know how the charts work and that Romney's vote flipping is pervasive in all the states that have been voted thus far.

You can access all my charts from photobucket:

photobucket.com/flipping_CA
photobucket.com/flipping_TX
photobucket.com/flipping_VA
photobucket.com/flipping_WI
Just change the last 2 letters to look at a different state.

Question for you, can you get pictures of the "Poll Tapes?" That's the tapes that the voting machines record as the voters enter the votes. At the end of the day, the machine prints the totals on the tape. If you can get a hold of those numbers, we will confirm against the Central Tabulator resuts. You must get ALL the results for the precincts so we can make the match. If you had 4 voting machines, we need to data from all 4 machines.

----------


## RonRules

A little interlude:
http://io9.com/5919278/and-now-a-dol...s-naughty-bits

----------


## RonRules

*H.R. 5814: Poll Tape Transparency Act of 2012*

This comes just in time! I'm having difficulty getting a copy of the largest 50 poll tapes from Riverside County. I did get 9 initially and found that Romney's data flat-lined. The output of the central tabulator does not, of course.

The Riverside Registrar is blocking my request and stating that the County Counsel (lawyer) has to approve of my request first. that was a week ago and I still have not been able to get the remaining poll tapes.

I understand that in other states, they are under lock and key and require a court order to get them out.

Of course, this is totally unacceptable.

Comming to the rescue by total conincidence, this bill has been introduced in congress about one month ago by Rep. Rush Holt Dstrict 12 New Jersey. I read that the bill, which should be a slam dunk has low probability of passing. Please contact your congressperson to help this along.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr5814/text

HR 5814 IH



112th CONGRESS



2d Session



H. R. 5814

To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to establish standards for the publication of the poll tapes used in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 17, 2012

Mr. HOLT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

A BILL

To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to establish standards for the publication of the poll tapes used in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes.

 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the * ‘Poll Tape Transparency Act of 2012’.*


SEC. 2. REQUIRING STATES TO MEET STANDARDS FOR PUBLICATION OF POLL TAPES.

(a) In General- Section 301(a) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:


‘(7) REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLICATION OF POLL TAPES-

‘(A) REQUIREMENTS- Each State shall meet the following requirements:

‘(i) Upon the closing of the polls at each polling place, the appropriate election official, under the observation of the certified tabulation observers admitted to the polling place under subparagraph (E) (if any), shall announce the vote orally, post a copy of the poll tape reflecting the totals from each voting machine upon which votes were cast in the election at the polling place, and prepare and post a statement of the total number of individuals who appeared at the polling place to cast ballots, determined by reference to the number of signatures in a sign-in book or other similar independent count. Such officials shall ensure that each of the certified tabulation observers admitted to the polling place has full access to observe the process by which the poll tapes and statement are produced and a reasonable period of time to review the poll tapes and statement before the polling place is closed, and (if feasible) shall provide such observers with identical duplicate copies of the poll tapes and statement.

‘(ii) As soon as practicable, but in no event later than noon of the day following the date of the election, the appropriate election official shall display (at a prominent location accessible to the public during regular business hours and in or within reasonable proximity to the polling place) a copy of each poll tape and statement prepared under clause (i), and the information shall be displayed on the official public websites of the applicable local election official and chief State election official, together with the name of the designated voting official who entered the information and the date and time the information was entered.

‘(iii) Each website on which information is posted under clause (ii) shall include information on the procedures by which discrepancies shall be reported to election officials. If any discrepancy exists between the posted information and the relevant poll tape or statement, the appropriate election official shall display information on the discrepancy on the website on which the information is posted under clause (ii) not later than 24 hours after the official is made aware of the discrepancy, and shall maintain the information on the discrepancy and its resolution (if applicable) on such website during the entire period for which results of the election are typically maintained on such website.

‘(iv) The appropriate election official shall preserve archived copies of the poll tapes and statements prepared under clause (i) and reports of discrepancies filed by certified tabulation observers for the period of time during which records and papers are required to be retained and preserved pursuant to title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (42 U.S.C. 1974 et seq.) or for the same duration for which archived copies of other records of the election are required to be preserved under applicable State law, whichever is longer.

‘(B) TREATMENT OF BALLOTS CAST AT EARLY VOTING SITES-

‘(i) APPLICATION- The requirements of this subparagraph shall apply with respect to poll tapes and statements of the number of voters who voted in person at designated sites prior to the date of the election.

‘(ii) DAILY COUNT OF VOTERS- At the close of business on each day on which ballots described in clause (i) may be cast prior to the date of the election, the appropriate election official at each such site shall--

‘(I) under the observation of certified tabulation observers admitted to the site under subparagraph (E) (if any), prepare and post a statement of the total number of individuals who appeared at the site to cast ballots, determined by reference to the number of signatures in a sign-in book or other similar independent count, and the total number of ballots cast (excluding information on the votes received by individual candidates), and shall ensure that each of the certified tabulation observers admitted to the site has full access to observe the process by which the statement is produced and a reasonable period of time to review the statement before the site is closed; and

‘(II) display at the site during regular business hours for the duration of the early voting period a paper copy of the statement prepared under subclause (I).

‘(iii) APPLICATION OF GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR POLL TAPES AND STATEMENTS- Upon the closing of the polls on the date of the election, the appropriate election official at each designated site described in this subparagraph shall meet the requirements of subparagraph (A) (including requirements relating to the role of certified tabulation observers) in the same manner as an election official at a polling place.

‘(C) TREATMENT OF ABSENTEE BALLOTS-

‘(i) DAILY COUNT OF BALLOTS MAILED AND RECEIVED- At the close of each business day on which a State mails or accepts absentee ballots cast in an election for Federal office prior to the date of the election, the appropriate election official shall--

‘(I) under the observation of certified tabulation observers admitted under subparagraph (E) to the site at which the ballots are mailed and received (if any), prepare and post a statement of the total number of absentee ballots mailed and received by the official during that day and a separate count of the number of absentee ballots received but rejected (separated into categories of the reasons for rejection), and ensure that each of the certified tabulation observers admitted to the site has full access to observe the process by which the statement is produced and a reasonable period of time to review the statement before the site is closed; and

‘(II) display at the site during regular business hours for the duration of the period during which absentee ballots are processed a paper copy of the statement prepared under subclause (I).

‘(ii) APPLICATION OF GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR POLL TAPES AND STATEMENTS- At the close of business on the last day on which absentee ballots are counted prior to the certification of the election, the appropriate election official at the site at which absentee ballots are received and counted shall meet the requirements of subparagraph (A) (including requirements relating to the role of certified tabulation observers) in the same manner as an election official at a polling place.

‘(D) DAILY COUNT OF PROVISIONAL BALLOTS- At the close of business on the day on which the appropriate election official determines whether or not provisional ballots cast in an election for Federal office will be counted as votes in the election (as described in section 302(a)(4)), the official shall--

‘(i) under the observation of certified tabulation observers admitted under subparagraph (E) to the site at which the determination is made (if any), prepare and post a statement of the number of such ballots for which a determination was made, the number of ballots counted, and the number of ballots rejected (separated into categories of the reason for the rejection), and ensure that each of the certified tabulation observers admitted to the site has full access to observe the process by which the statement is produced and a reasonable period of time to review the statement before the site is closed; and

‘(ii) display at the site during regular business hours for the duration of the period during which provisional ballots are processed a paper copy of the statement prepared under clause (i).

‘(E) ADMISSION OF CERTIFIED TABULATION OBSERVERS-

‘(i) CERTIFIED TABULATION OBSERVER DEFINED- In this paragraph, a ‘certified tabulation observer’ is an individual who is certified by an appropriate election official as authorized to carry out the responsibilities of a certified tabulation observer under this paragraph.

‘(ii) SELECTION- In determining which individuals to certify as tabulation observers and admit to a polling place or other location to serve as certified tabulation observers with respect to an election for Federal office, the election official shall give preference to individuals who are affiliated with a candidate in the election, except that--

‘(I) the number of individuals admitted who are affiliated with the same candidate for Federal office may not exceed one; and

‘(II) the maximum number of individuals who may be admitted shall equal the number of candidates in the election plus 3, or such greater number as may be authorized under State law.

‘(iii) NO EFFECT ON ADMISSION OF OTHER OBSERVERS- Nothing in this subparagraph may be construed to limit or otherwise affect the authority of other individuals to enter and observe polling place operations under any other law, including international observers authorized under any treaty or observers of the Federal Government authorized under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

‘(F) NO EFFECT ON OTHER TABULATION REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this Act may be construed to supersede any requirement that an election official at a polling place report vote totals to a central tabulation facility and address discrepancies the official finds in the aggregation of those totals with other vote totals.’.

(b) Effective Date- Section 301(d) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15481(d)) is amended by striking ‘January 1, 2006’ and inserting ‘January 1, 2006 (or, in the case of the requirements of subsection (a)(7), shall meet such requirements with respect to the first election for Federal office held after the date of the enactment of the Poll Tape Transparency Act of 2012 and each subsequent election for Federal office)’.

----------


## RonRules

California law REQUIRES the posting of the Poll Tapes at the polling location:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...le=19380-19386


*19384.  The precinct board shall, before it adjourns, post
conspicuously on the outside of the polling place a copy of the
result of the votes cast at the polling place.* The copy of the result
shall be signed by the members of the precinct board. To protect a
person's right to cast a secret ballot under Section 7 of Article II
of the California Constitution, in cases where fewer than 10 voters
cast ballots on any single machine on which the results are tallied
at the precinct, the precinct board shall post only the total number
of people who voted at that precinct on the machine that keeps vote
tallies.
   If the machine is provided with a recording device, the statement
of result of votes cast produced by operating its mechanism may be
considered the "result of the votes cast" at the polling place.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

RonRules...  Thanks for all of your tireless work on this.

----------


## drummergirl

There is a light at the end of the tunnel.  Hopefully it is not an oncoming freight train.

----------


## cocrehamster

> RonRules...  Thanks for all of your tireless work on this.


Yeah, thanks RonRules!

----------


## V3n

I'm not sure what to make of this, but I stumbled across it, and this seems to be the place for it.. don't know..

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/mess...659/82111.html

*(USA) Here is the Accenture software ...*




> This is an installation kit which contains the software; it also has the installation instructions, and a text file explaining how to set it up on a standalone machine if you aren't on a network.
> 
> This voter registration and voter history system has been widely criticized -- in Colorado, where it reportedly assigned voters who are Republicans as Democrats, and vice versa, and in Tennessee where it has been proven to lose voter histories.
> 
> Now you can examine it yourself.
> 
> The MS Access files contain quite a bit of source code. This set is circa 2004.
> 
> The file is quite large, so allow a LONG time for it to download.
> ...


Sounds like it is done in MS Access - so you'll need someone with a lot of Access experience to dig into it.

----------


## RonRules

Update from Riverside.

I spoke to the county lawyer and she had not heard about a data request that needed to be approved. Now that I pointed that out, the Registrar is more cooperative.

But they now write to me with PDF files that are images rather than text. Presumably that's because it will be difficult to cut and paste the text in a forum such as this one. Little tricks like that don't stop me and I insist on transparency from government. I'll just paste the picture of their letter, with my response below:



Ms. Spencer,

Thank you for your detailed response.

1) To save your office time and trouble, the full DRE machine poll tape data may already be available as result of the 100% DRE machine manual recount.

I do trust that the 100% manual recount work was done accurately and I was able to monitor some of that re-count. You must have a report from that activity, which lists each candidate's result for each machine. If you have that in digital form, that's all I need to chart the full DRE machine output.

This will save you the 5-day time to have a staff member search though all the VVPAT rolls to find the top 50 results. I will also have the benefit of having all the DRE machine results for improved statistical confidence.

For voter privacy concerns you may blank out the DRE voting machine number and instead provide ALL the data including those machines with votes counts less than 10 votes.  There are a lot of machines that will have lees than 10 votes and I don't want to skip those. Some contests like County District 3 require that data. 

As you know, I am just interested in statistics of voting machines from all the machines before they enter the Central Tabulator, not who voted for whom.

I would like to analyze this item first and see if these results flat line, like those of the 9 DRE machines I've already analyzed. From the full DRE results, I will proceed as needed.

I have to analyze in detail several of the 51 election contests in which I suspect to have flipped the vote. It may be easier for you to give me all the DRE machine 100% report for all candidates instead of sorting and selecting the data.

For now, I don't need the rest of the data described below. If my results indicate a problem, I will re-request the rest of the data.

For later analysis:
2) The precinct report you supplied in your letter is clearly an output of the WinEDS Central Tabulator. I don't trust such a report, because I'm trying to prove that the Central Tabulator flips the votes. When I refer to the "Raw output of the Optech 400C scanners", that would be a raw, unprocessed text file that the Central Tabulator uses as an input.

Those files are likely on the WinETP or WinEDS machines. I suspect that they are similar to the following files:
 Directory of C:\Documents and Settings\WinEDS\Local Settings\Temp
05/23/2012  10:02 AM         2,444,418 tally1.txt
05/24/2012  04:08 PM         2,534,952 tally10.txt
05/24/2012  04:14 PM         2,534,952 tally11.txt
05/24/2012  04:21 PM         2,534,952 tally12.txt
05/24/2012  04:31 PM         2,534,952 tally13.txt
05/24/2012  04:40 PM         2,534,952 tally14.txt
....

These appear to be temporary files that the Central Tabulator reads in order to produce the precinct report that you showed as an example. Please check with your IT people. They may know what files are inputs to the Central Tabulator. That's what I need.

3) The 1% vote manual tally was successful, but I checked all precincts that were examined and except for Temecula, they are all well below the count where the vote flipping starts. 

I attach a spreadsheet analysis of Congressional District 41. The spreadsheet chart matches my earlier results from the Java VoteAnalyze program. You will clearly see that smaller precincts are ignored and the vote flipping only starts at 7,100 votes counted. Small precincts are specifically avoided to reduce the chance of detection.

4) I no longer need to have the PDF Statement of Votes converted to Excel. You surely have noticed that I quickly converted the preliminary SOV that you supplied last Thursday. By combining a PDF extractor and a two-step Excel process, I was able to get the extract the SOV data in Excel in just a few minutes, from which I made the 29 charts.

5) Just an FYI, there is a bill in Congress that will soon require the publication of Poll Tapes nationwide. See attached. 
H.R. 5814: Poll Tape Transparency Act of 2012
You may know that in California, the law requires the postion of Poll Tapes at the polling location:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...le=19380-19386

19384. The precinct board shall, before it adjourns, post conspicuously on the outside of the polling place a copy of the result of the votes cast at the polling place. 


Thank you for your efforts, I will await your response.

----------


## RonRules

BTW, the 1% recount is not 1% of all the votes in Riverside. Out of the 839 precincts (times 2 for Vote By Mail), they pick 9 precincts to recount. They will pick a few more to ensure that all precincts are covered by the 1% recount.

This year the turnout was very low and most precincts had very few votes. Here's the ones they picked with the corresponding vote count:

Voting Precinct 11105 (Mail Ballot Precinct)	13
Voting Precinct 11518 (Mail Ballot Precinct)	38
Voting Precinct 14514 (Mail Ballot Precinct)	12
Voting Precinct 20007 (Mail Ballot Precinct)	48
Voting Precinct 22011	76
Voting Precinct 30967 (Mail Ballot Precinct)	58
Voting Precinct 33049	186
Voting Precinct 37633	62
Voting Precinct 38901 (Mail Ballot Precinct)	23
Voting Precinct 46039	0
Voting Precinct 47017	80
Voting Precinct 47055	160
Voting Precinct 49871 (Mail Ballot Precinct)	30
Voting Precinct 50415	68
Voting Precinct 54014	51

These choices of precincts will most likely not trigger vote flipping. While I was there, they had picked an extra precinct to ensure that at least one was over 250 votes (283 if I remember well), but I don't see it in the list.

Here's an example of serious vote flipping in Riverside. Note at how the flipping does not start until a substantial number of votes are counted. This could be to hide from the 1% recount.

The staff of the candidate that suffered from this flipping asked me to write up a more detailed explanation of the chart and how the sausage is made. Here's the Excel version of the chart:

----------


## RonRules

BTW, there are plenty of elections contests that flatline in Riverside. Mostly Democrats but one Republican, Duncan Hunter, ex 2008 Presidential Candidate. Is Duncan Hunter not part of the "establishment"? Why is he not enjoying the benefit of vote flipping like many other Republicans?

Duncan Hunter:


Some Democrats:

----------


## RonRules

There were 189087 total votes cast in Riverside. Their 1% mandatory recount only amounted to recounting 0.00479 of the votes, less than half of 1%.

Clearly inadequate in my view.

Do your State require a partial manual recount of the votes? What percentage? How is the percentage allocated?

----------


## bcreps85

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/mess...659/82111.html

From BlackBoxVoting.  Looks like people are already finding problems with the voting software at this link that was used in 2004 and 2008 elections, such as double and triple counting votes from certain precincts, etc etc.

----------


## drummergirl

Ahhh but you already know how they get around that.  It's not 1% of votes cast; it's 1% of the precincts/races and they prefer the lower vote totals.  And The Flipper knows this as well, which is why smaller precincts are not flipped (wouldn't want to get caught).




> There were 189087 total votes cast in Riverside. Their 1% mandatory recount only amounted to recounting 0.00479 of the votes, less than half of 1%.
> 
> Clearly inadequate in my view.
> 
> Do your State require a partial manual recount of the votes? What percentage? How is the percentage allocated?

----------


## RonRules

Riverside County gave me another 18 usable poll tapes from the DRE Voting Machines (the 13 others were zero verification). I personally took a picture of 9 other tapes on election day.

The DRE (Touch Screen) voting machines produce results BEFORE they are processed by the Central Tabulator. That's why I think this data is important.

Here is the original results from the 9 tapes: (Only 9 data points, therefore very coarse)



Here is the chart made with the data from 27 poll tapes:



The full DRE machine results (for 27 poll tapes ~300 votes) produce a *11.32%* for Ron Paul.
The county results from the Central Tabulator is: *8.54%*


The full county results are here:

----------


## arsenius

RonRules, great work on this once again. What percentage of the total votes for the county is represented in your new chart?

----------


## RonRules

> RonRules, great work on this once again. What percentage of the total votes for the county is represented in your new chart?


There were a total of 189,087 votes cast in Riverside (22.19% turnout). Of those votes cast 83,351 were Republican votes towards the President. My above charts represent only 0.36% of the vote.

I just got some more tapes, another 18 and I'll add those to the chart.

Most people don't vote with DRE machines, but with paper ballots, which are then scanned in. I'm trying to get the raw scanner output files, but I don't know if they still have those.

----------


## arsenius

> Most people don't vote with DRE machines, but with paper ballots, which are then scanned in. I'm trying to get the raw scanner output files, *but I don't know if they still have those.*


That would be convenient for them... Any idea when you'll find out?

----------


## RonRules

> That would be convenient for them... Any idea when you'll find out?


I have requested that many times, but I think the scanner output, which then goes into the Central Tabulator is a temp file that may get deleted.

Here's my communication about the subject:
The precinct report you supplied in your letter is clearly an output of the WinEDS Central Tabulator. I don't trust such a report, because I'm trying to prove that the Central Tabulator flips the votes. When I refer to the "Raw output of the Optech 400C scanners", that would be a raw, unprocessed text file that the Central Tabulator uses as an input.

Those files are likely on the WinETP or WinEDS machines. I suspect that they are similar to the following files:
 Directory of C:\Documents and Settings\*WinEDS\Local Settings\Temp*
05/23/2012  10:02 AM         2,444,418 tally1.txt
05/24/2012  04:08 PM         2,534,952 tally10.txt
05/24/2012  04:14 PM         2,534,952 tally11.txt
05/24/2012  04:21 PM         2,534,952 tally12.txt
05/24/2012  04:31 PM         2,534,952 tally13.txt
05/24/2012  04:40 PM         2,534,952 tally14.txt
....

These appear to be temporary files that the Central Tabulator reads in order to produce the precinct report that you showed as an example. Please check with your IT people. They may know what files are inputs to the Central Tabulator. That's what I need.


After they responded with a few more poll tapes, I wrote this:

Ms Spencer,

I've added the data from the poll tape results you submitted yesterday to those that I already had (June 5th, from the voting room).

I charted those results and Romney still flat-lines as expected. See attached.
Compare that with the results coming out of the central tabulator, also attached.

From the 300 votes that I now have to analyze, Romney gets 76.34% as opposed to 81.53 (full county results). Ron Paul gets 11.36% as opposed to 8.54% (full county results)

Although, this sample is still relatively small, it continues to indicate that there is a problem with the results coming out of the Central Tabulator.

To prove this conclusively, I will need the raw data that enters the Central Tabulator that I requested before plus the rest of the poll tapes we agreed on. Please speak to your IT people to find out what vote tally files are input to the WinETP/WinEDS before that software manipulates it. That's what I need.

This data is all part of the Digital Data Chain of Custody, as I like to describe it. Your office needs to have a full understanding of how that data is communicated through the electronic system, just like with physical ballots.

The physical Chain of Custody of the ballots and tapes seems to be well in control at your office, but I am concerned about the understanding and custody of digital data.

Also, I urge you to NOT certify the county results until this important anomaly is explained.

Sincerely,
xxx xxx


I then got this reply:

We will re-evaluate your request for raw data and provide a response.


Rebecca Spencer
Riverside County Registrar of Voters
Assistant Registrar of Voters
(951)486-7210 Fax (951)486-7272


It's really unfortunate at how electronic voting is such a black box and people in charge don't seem to know exactly what happens from the point votes are entered to when the vote results come out.

----------


## drummergirl

They are just upset because you are making them do extra work.  Congratulations, you have bureaucrats.




> I have requested that many times, but I think the scanner output, which then goes into the Central Tabulator is a temp file that may get deleted.
> 
> 
> I then got this reply:
> 
> We will re-evaluate your request for raw data and provide a response.
> 
> 
> Rebecca Spencer
> ...

----------


## RonRules

Update from Riverside county.

I received a total of 45 poll tapes from the Registrar. (There should be 529, but I don't want to type all that anyway). I asked for tapes from the largest precincts, but all the ones I received had pretty low vote counts.

The tapes I got before the last submittal looked like this: 


Everything was flat-lining fine as I showed on charts like this:


In the last batch of 18 "Poll Tapes", I got these Machine Reports instead of poll tape copies. The reports look like this, but should have the same data as on the poll tapes:



I added these "tapes" and charted the results. The chart now stated flipping!


I reviewed the numbers and found that one of those "tapes" looked anomalous. By removing that data point, the chart straightened up a lot:


Here's the data from all the tapes:


Look for machine: S/N # 42309. Ron Paul gets 0 votes and Romney gets 87. Of course, this could happen by chance. In fact I calculated that the chance of this happening is 1.85%. What the chart below shows is that Ron has an average result of 10.72% with a standard deviation of 5.74%. The likelihood of Ron getting 0 votes is less than 0.0185 or 1.85%


It's funny, but with all the charts and statistics I've done, these rare occurrences always happen at the detriment of Ron. I never see statistics that come out in his favor.

I don't know if those "Machine Reports" are twisted by the Central Tabulator. I'll certainly ask to see the original tape.

----------


## RonRules

Here's something that would probably freak out Bev Harris:

Some of the Poll Tapes I got (by mistake) were Zero Count proof tapes. A few of those tapes show a *Zero Count made the day before!*


Also, NONE of the tapes (Zero Count or Election Close count) I got were signed. I believe that all the poll tapes have to be signed by the precinct chairman and supervisor:


This does not indicate that any actual fraud was committed, but it does indicate a lackadaisical attitude from the election staff or lack of training of election workers. Because, none of the tapes are signed, anybody can now turn on a machine, set the date to June 5, 2012, enter votes and print out another tape and nobody will know. How can they certify the election with no signatures on the poll tapes?!

----------


## drummergirl

NO SIGNATURES!!!  

That is a serious violation around here.  Every poll tape has to be signed by the election judge at that precinct.  And zeroes from the day before?  No wonder they don't like you.  They've been cutting corners left and right.




> Here's something that would probably freak out Bev Harris:
> 
> Some of the Poll Tapes I got (by mistake) were Zero Count proof tapes. A few of those tapes show a *Zero Count made the day before!*
> 
> 
> Also, NONE of the tapes (Zero Count or Election Close count) I got were signed. I believe that all the poll tapes have to be signed by the precinct chairman and supervisor:
> 
> 
> This does not indicate that any actual fraud was committed, but it does indicate a lackadaisical attitude from the election staff or lack of training of election workers. Because, none of the tapes are signed, anybody can now turn on a machine, set the date to June 5, 2012, enter votes and print out another tape and nobody will know. How can they certify the election with no signatures on the poll tapes?!

----------


## RonRules

I made a chart of Temecula, CA, the town in Riverside Count from where that anomalous poll tape came from:

It's just regular flipping, nothing exceptional as I was hoping for. Yet a statistician would freak out looking at this chart:

----------


## dr.k.research

> Welcome to the forum Anne and welcome to our vote flipping thread.  Question for you, can you get pictures of the "Poll Tapes?"


Have already paid for/purchased all the voter rolls and ordered ALL the poll tapes for Travis County. So, no need for duplication.

----------


## RonRules

Riverside county has certified their results.

http://www.voteinfo.net/

With all the evidence and pleading I did to NOT certify the results, they went ahead and did it anyway.

We'll see about that.

----------


## The Man

RonRules clear you mailbox.

----------


## arsenius

> Riverside county has certified their results.
> 
> http://www.voteinfo.net/
> 
> With all the evidence and pleading I did to NOT certify the results, they went ahead and did it anyway.
> 
> We'll see about that.


What can be done about it now? Does the state still need to certify? Can that be stopped?

----------


## RonRules

> What can be done about it now? Does the state still need to certify? Can that be stopped?


I'm still in contact with the Registrar and today they just send me a few more poll tapes. I expected them to stop sending data with the results certified, but no, they are continuing to send stuff. That's good.

The problem is I just have statistics, good statistics, but not 100% proof.

What I really want is the raw data from the large Optech 400C scanners. Those things just read the ballots and feed the Central Tabulator. If I can get ALL that data, then I can account for every vote IN the Central Tabulator and see if it matches every vote OUT of the beast.

It's a big job and I don't know if they'll give me the data. Their response again today was: "We are still reviewing your request for “raw data”. I've had the same response about 3-4 times now.

The only reason they would want to hide things is to keep voter privacy in small precincts, which is California law. I told them they can simply randomize the precinct number and I'll just analyze the raw data.

If any of you can get that from your local county, please tell me. I'll analyze it. Remember, when Central Tabulators are not used, the results flat-line. I'm trying to chart the data with that thing out of the way.

----------


## drummergirl

You should be able to find the direct smoking gun between the poll tapes and the central tabulator reports.  The central tabulator can give you a detailed report by precinct of exactly how many votes were cast for each candidate from each voting machine and from the optical scanner.  Something like this

Precinct XXXX

                 Cand. A      Cand. B      Cand. C

DRE#22         5               10                6
DRE#17         12             18                9
DRE#25         7               10                10
SCANNER      25             42                30

If the numbers on the poll tapes and the direct scanner output do not exactly match this report from the central tabulator, then BINGO!  You have a crime scene.

EDIT: sorry that looks awful, forum program is taking out my extra spaces.




> I'm still in contact with the Registrar and today they just send me a few more poll tapes. I expected them to stop sending data with the results certified, but no, they are continuing to send stuff. That's good.
> 
> The problem is I just have statistics, good statistics, but not 100% proof.
> 
> What I really want is the raw data from the large Optech 400C scanners. Those things just read the ballots and feed the Central Tabulator. If I can get ALL that data, then I can account for every vote IN the Central Tabulator and see if it matches every vote OUT of the beast.
> 
> It's a big job and I don't know if they'll give me the data. Their response again today was: "We are still reviewing your request for “raw data”. I've had the same response about 3-4 times now.
> 
> The only reason they would want to hide things is to keep voter privacy in small precincts, which is California law. I told them they can simply randomize the precinct number and I'll just analyze the raw data.
> ...


And once you have evidence of a crime, call the local authorities (really your elections officer should know who they call in the event of fraud, but I wouldn't count on it with your crew in Riverside.  They seem to have taken lessons in running a government office from the Keystone Cops.)  Here in Texas, your first call would be to the county sheriff's office.

----------


## RonRules

I missed a couple of states. Here for your amazement:





Demographics anyone?

----------


## affa

> I missed a couple of states. Here for your amazement:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demographics anyone?


Illinois is shocking.

----------


## RonRules

I sense vote shenanigans here:
*Charlie Rangel’s victory questioned with uncounted votes looming*
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/c...163023599.html

On Tuesday night, state Sen. Adriano Espaillat conceded to Rep. Charlie Rangel in New York's 13th District with the longtime incumbent enjoying a wide lead. But Rangel's front-runner status doesn't look so convincing anymore. Not only has his lead narrowed, but many votes are still outstanding, offering Rangel's opponents a reason to question his Democratic primary victory.
When the Associated Press called the race for Rangel—and Espaillat conceded—the 82-year-old congressman was ahead by double-digits. *With 70 percent of precincts reporting, Rangel had 50 percent of the vote to Espaillat's 33 percent in the Harlem-area district on Tuesday night.
But later this week, with 94 percent of precincts reporting, Rangel was ahead by only 44 percent to Espaillat's 41 percent—or 16,916 votes to 15,884, a margin of just 1,032 votes, according to the Associated Press.* Those totals were the latest available as of Friday.
Espaillat's campaign confirmed to Yahoo News Friday morning that it has not yet publicly commented on the vote narrowing.* But Espaillat's backers have been vocal about their concern for the winnowing margin.
"I'm here because most of those votes are from my district, and they are Adriano Espaillat's votes," City Councilman Ydanis Rodriguez told a crowd at a rally in front of Rangel's office Thursday afternoon, referring to affidavit votes remaining to be counted, according to the New York Daily News. "We respect the Board of Elections and we are not jumping to any conclusions. We are just here because we care about the democratic process. We have the best candidate in Adriano Espaillat, and he will be our candidate at the end of this process."
Still, Rangel's camp remains confident in their win. "We are going through the process like we do after every election in order to ensure each vote is counted," Rangel spokeswoman Ronnie Sykes said in a statement issued this week. "We are confident that at the conclusion of this process we will be victorious."
Officials will release complete totals including affidavits, absentees and military ballots July 5, according to the city Board of Elections. News reports suggest some 3,000 votes remain.
The board currently reminds visitors on its website that preliminary vote results are just that, and that no results are certified until a complete recanvass has occurred and the additional paper ballots are tallied.
*Update 4:55 p.m. ET: Espaillat's campaign expressed dissatisfaction with the vote count process in a release Friday afternoon and offered support for a new decision by the state Supreme Court to hold a hearing to examine the count.

Espaillat went from 33% to 41% as the vote tally went from 50% to 94%. I find that very hard to believe. The problem is NY data is hard to come by. If you can help fine precinct-level data for that race, please reply. I want to chart that.

----------


## drummergirl

> Espaillat went from 33% to 41% as the vote tally went from 50% to 94%. I find that very hard to believe. The problem is NY data is hard to come by. If you can help fine precinct-level data for that race, please reply. I want to chart that.


It's worse than that.  Espaillat made those gains from 70% of precincts counted to 94%.  That's an increase of 8% of the overall total in only 24% of the vote.  Definitely unusual 

Although that could be stuffing and not flipping.

----------


## RonRules

Update:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...t-primary-win/
New York City Board of Elections show Rangel ahead of his main challenger, state Sen. Adriano Espaillat, by only two percentage points - 44% to 42% - with *just 802 votes separating them* and more than 3,000 votes unaccounted for.

I really want to get my hands on the low-level data here. There's serious shenanigans going on here.

----------


## arsenius

> Update:
> http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...t-primary-win/
> New York City Board of Elections show Rangel ahead of his main challenger, state Sen. Adriano Espaillat, by only two percentage points - 44% to 42% - with *just 802 votes separating them* and more than 3,000 votes unaccounted for.
> 
> I really want to get my hands on the low-level data here. There's serious shenanigans going on here.


Have you tried contacting the candidates involved?  This might be a great chance to catch things as they are happening.  The article seemed to imply that they were suspicious of the results so far already.

----------


## RonRules

*Ireland sells its e-voting machines for scrap*

http://www.independent.ie/national-n...h-3153437.html

THE Government has sold the infamous €54m e-voting machines for scrap -- *for €9.30 each.*

A huge fleet of trucks will begin removing the 7,500 machines from 14 locations on Monday.

They will be taken to a Co Offaly recycling company, KMK Metals Recycling Ltd in Tullamore, where they will be stripped down and shredded.

Ironically, the owner of the firm, Kurt Kyck, cast his vote on one of the machines in the 2002 elections. He has now paid €70,000 for the lot.

Scrapping the machines brings to an end the embarrassing e-voting debacle which has cost the taxpayer more than €54m since it emerged the expensive equipment was faulty.

They could not be guaranteed to be safe from tampering. And they could not produce a printout so that votes/results could be double-checked.

But last night the man who first proposed using them washed his hands of the affair.

Former Fianna Fail minister Noel Dempsey suggested e-voting in 1999 but the machines were purchased by Martin Cullen three years later.

Mr Dempsey refused to comment, directing questions to his successor in the Department of the Environment.

"I'm a private citizen," he told the Irish Independent at his home in Trim, Co Meath.

"Ask Martin Cullen, he bought them," he added. And then he walked into his house.

Mr Cullen could not be reached for comment.

The machines had also been strongly supported by former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, who said Ireland would become a "laughing stock" unless we stopped using pencil and paper to record our votes. Mr Ahern also refused to comment when contacted by this newspaper.

Bought in 2002, the machines were supposed to be used in local, general and European elections, and in referendums. But an independent commission found two years later that the lack of a paper trail and security issues meant they could not be used. They have languished in storage ever since, costing up to €700,000 a year, before a decision was taken in 2007 to move 60pc to a secure storage site at Gormanston in Co Meath to save money. Annual storage costs have run to €140,000 a year since, but all payments will cease at the end of this year.

The total cost of the machines was €51m. Storage added another €3.2m to the bill.

In April 2009, a decision was taken to scrap the system because it would cost too much to upgrade them.

Last January, companies were invited to bid to purchase the machines with KMK Metals Recycling Ltd in Tullamore awarded the contract just 10 days ago. The company will pay the State €70,267 for the 7,500 machines and associated equipment -- 0.13pc of the amount they have cost the State.

Yesterday Environment Minister Phil Hogan said he was happy to bring the "ill-conceived" plan to an end.

"I am glad to bring this sorry episode to a conclusion on behalf of the taxpayer," he said. "From the outset, this project was ill-conceived and poorly planned by my predecessors and as a result it has cost the taxpayer some €55m.

Scandalous

"While this is a scandalous waste of public money, I am happy to say that we will not incur any further costs in the disposal of the machines. KMK Metals Recycling Ltd will pay €70,267 for all of the equipment.

"Removal from from the present storage locations and transportation to the recovery facility will commence in the coming week and will be completed by September. The storage costs of the machines were €140,000 per year for the past three years, and from next year we will not incur those costs any longer."

A massive operation to transport them to the company's plant in Offaly begins on Monday, and it has 70 days to remove all the equipment from 14 locations across the State.

Four will be kept by the Department of the Environment and stored in the Custom House.

The equipment is stored in Louth, Sligo, Mayo, Clare, Donegal, Monaghan, Roscommon, Leitrim, Wexford, Laois, Offaly, Longford and Kerry, with the bulk of the machines (60pc) at Gormanston in Co Meath. The first wave of machines will be taken from a storage depot in Wexford to Offaly, where they will be dismantled.

A condition of the contract is that two electronic chips in each machine, which hold information on how the equipment works, are destroyed.

- Paul Melia and Luke Byrne

----------


## RonRules

Finally, Hawaii:



This is not ending well!

----------


## kathy88

> Finally, Hawaii:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not ending well!


Holy $#@! he got everyone's votes.

----------


## RonRules

> Holy $#@! he got everyone's votes.


I've got some people in HI really concerned about this. Told them they should go to the authorities.

----------


## RonRules

The range of results in HI are simply amazing. In some cases RP wins over Romney by more than 2:1. In other places, Romney wins over RP by 23:1.

Location Ron Mitt
Hawaii Pahoa Community Center	117	52
Honolulu Laie Elem Sch Cafeteria	44	1027

Here's the chart of the 7 locations where Ron Paul poll watchers were present:

----------


## asurfaholic

`if that's not proof, then I don't know what is.

----------


## RonRules

> Location Ron Mitt
> Honolulu Laie Elem Sch Cafeteria	44	1027


This particular location has an explanation. There's a Mormon temple in that precinct:
http://mypolitikal.com/2012/03/17/th...aii-landslide/

----------


## RonRules

60 Minutes today has an update on the Stuxnet virus.

*Stuxnet copycats: Let the hacking begin*
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_1...inColumnArea.1

Last March on 60 Minutes, Steve Kroft unraveled the mysterious Stuxnet computer virus, which he calls "the most sophisticated cyber weapon ever invented."


About two years ago, the all-important centrifuges at Iran's nuclear fuel enrichment facility at Natanz began failing at a suspicious rate. Computer security experts now agree that the sophisticated computer worm dubbed Stuxnet was behind it.

Although the identities of Stuxnet's designers have been the subject of endless speculation and anonymous leaks to reporters, the code itself is no secret. Hackers -- and our own producer Graham Messick -- found it simply by looking on the Internet.

Could international hackers exploit the Stuxnet code and design similar viruses that target critical infrastructure in the United States?

"At its core, Stuxnet was an elegant and novel weapon, one that could be reverse-engineered and repurposed," says Messick. 60 Minutes Overtime explores the possibility of Stuxnet-style catastrophe on American soil.


Not a word about voting machines, but a lady at a conference showed how they hacked a prison Programmable Logic Controller to simultaneously open up all cell doors at a prison facility.

That's pretty bad, but I personally think hacking the vote has more nefarious and farther reaching consequences.

----------


## devil21

Your last post is interesting.  I wonder what you would see if you cross-referenced wherever a Mormon church or temple is to your results so far in random selections, particularly at the precinct level.  Hate to say it again but there's 5 million Mormons in this country and they do vote in mass.  That could explain some things?  Just a thought...I appreciate your work but the Mormon factor is a big one and I havent seen it addressed in any of these flipping threads.

----------


## RonRules

> Your last post is interesting.  I wonder what you would see if you cross-referenced wherever a Mormon church or temple is to your results so far in random selections, particularly at the precinct level.  Hate to say it again but there's 5 million Mormons in this country and they do vote in mass.  That could explain some things?  Just a thought...I appreciate your work but the Mormon factor is a big one and I havent seen it addressed in any of these flipping threads.


I tried to look at that when I analyzed VA in detail. I didn't get the exact data I needed but "other denominations" were not correlated to precinct size. (I was looking for Mormon % per precinct size)

Remember that these slopes are almost always very straight, with over 500-10000 precincts per state. I find it extremely hard to believe that Mormon temples are arranged in such a way to generate a linear increase in cumulative votes.

This is the Mormon map of the US. Have at it if you think you can make straight lines with that data.

BTW, while you look at this map, remember that Utah flat-lined!



On the other hand, I am hopeful for the future when I see
 things like what happened yesterday:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...86000N20120701
*Mormons quit church in mass resignation ceremony*

(Reuters) - A group of about 150 Mormons quit their church in a mass resignation ceremony in Salt Lake City on Saturday in a rare display of defiance ending decades of disagreement for some over issues ranging from polygamy to gay marriage.

Participants from Utah, Arizona, Idaho and elsewhere gathered in a public park to sign a "Declaration of Independence from Mormonism."

"This feels awesome," said Alison Lucas, from West Jordan, Utah, who took part in the rally amid soaring temperatures. "I don't know if I would have had the courage except in a group."

The Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is known for its culture of obedience, and the mass ceremony was a seldom-seen act of collective revolt.

...

----------


## hammy

Hey guys, I'm super intimidated by this thread, it's been going on so long, can anyone explain this to me in a super-baby-5-year-old way?

----------


## RonRules

> Hey guys, I'm super intimidated by this thread, it's been going on so long, can anyone explain this to me in a super-baby-5-year-old way?


This thread is actually the shorter, more condensed, easier to read thread. Except with dolphins. Don't be confused by the dolphins.

Anyway, the simplest explanation is that there is a "Romney Effect" in the 2012 Presidential Primaries. (This effect was later found to also be in 2008 and sparsely in prior years)

The Romney Effect is that Mitt Romney gains a higher percentage of vote as a linear function of cumulative precinct size. In other words, the larger the precincts, Mitt get a larger share of the vote. That's works out real good for him in the end percentage as a detriment to other candidates.

This effect happens to chart out a nearly perfect straight line as you accumulate (sum up) the precinct count. We chart the running total of the votes.

Here's my favorite example form Iowa:

If you chart each candidate % results as a function of precinct size, your get this undecipherable mess: 


But if you simply keep a running total of the votes in each precinct and you chart that, it's like you have found the key to unlock the secret of the algorithm:



Both charts show the exact same data. It's pretty amazing and dead serious. It's happening in all states except Alaska, Utah and Puerto Rico. It does not happen in European elections. Egypt and Russia have other weirdness, probably caused by ballot stuffing.

99% of the Democrat charts I plotted are flat lined. Charts of demographics flat line, which is a strong argument that demographics are not at cause.

Also an important clue: Counties that don't use a central tabulator flat line:

----------


## RonRules

I had missed this short documentary on the subject of Internet voting:

*Internet Voting: Will Democracy or Hackers Win?*

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/polit...ing_02-16.html

Look at 6:25, Paul Stenbjorn (ex DC Election official who was forced to cancel the DC online voting scheme) is now working for Syctl. (talk about a revolving door!)

He states in hubris, "we are not embarrassed", after being subjected to one of the most embarrassing hack ever. "Obviously the software could have been written better"

Please oppose internet voting anytime this pops up.

----------


## drummergirl

> Hey guys, I'm super intimidated by this thread, it's been going on so long, can anyone explain this to me in a super-baby-5-year-old way?


Check these:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...bk4bDl0jE/edit

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...nfdkBzdBw/edit

----------


## bbwarfield

did someone get all this to the lawyers for ron paul group?

----------


## arsenius

> did someone get all this to the lawyers for ron paul group?


That's been taken care of, yes.

----------


## drummergirl

Just a quick note to let everyone know we are still working on this, though you may not see many posts.  

At this point, anyone who has detailed information and/or contacts in Alabama we need those.  PM me if you don't wish to post publicly.

----------


## WhistlinDave

I made banana blueberry pancakes for dinner tonight.  The blueberries made little bumps in the pancakes before I flipped them.  I had to do a little re-distribution of the berries by hand (prior to flipping) in order to get a more even distribution.  They were delicious.

----------


## RonRules

> I made banana blueberry pancakes for dinner tonight.  The blueberries made little bumps in the pancakes before I flipped them.  I had to do a little re-distribution of the berries by hand (prior to flipping) in order to get a more even distribution.  They were delicious.


After your brilliant explanation of vote flipping through blueberry pancakes, I got some at the supermarket. 

BTW, since you are in Orange county, PM me an e-mail address and I'll send you a preview of what coming for your area.

----------


## WhistlinDave

Sounds good!!  Looking forward to seeing...

----------


## RonRules

In Bev Harris' Black Box Voting forum post about California Los Angeles County City of Cudahy officials admit throwing away absentee ballots with undesired votes, there is an good post about Pennsylvania's absentee ballot system: 
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/mess...tml?1342616912

Pennsylvania system: 

1) legal excuse (enumerated in statute) required for getting one, with a perjury penalty for falsification 
2) NO central office opening of absentees permitted (except for court-ordered overseas ballot deadline extensions) 
3) send the ballots to the precincts to be opened only after ALL the precinct voting is finished 
4) COMPLETELY BAN hand-delivered absentee ballots except for each voter delivering his own ballot (not even spouse's ballot delivery allowed) 
5) all absentee ballots are paper ballots and they must be counted IN PUBLIC at the precinct on Election Night (the official tally at the central office later needs to explain every disagreement with the precinct) 
6) the list of people voting absentee must be publicly viewable (with registration, to prevent Election Day home invasion burglaries) 
7) require the precinct to send in ALL the paper trail; ballots and affidavit envelopes alike, unmatched to each other. 

Absentees have ALWAYS been the classic easiest way to steal elections, and the unavoidable price of "voter convenience" is a lack of security of any election. 


I'd like to know from Pennsylvanians here how well these rules has been followed in the 2012 elections?

Also, I'd like to know if there is data that lists the #of absentee ballots mailed OUT compared to those that were mailed back IN, for each precinct.

It would be easy to chart those relationships and quickly see in which precinct a fraud like in the City of Cudahy occurred. 

Pay particular attention to Santorum's incredible results in PA. I would not be surprised that he did well in some precincts's absentee ballots.

----------


## RonRules

Another good post on Black Box Voting's forum about absentee ballots:

"The Pennsylvania absentee rules seem very similar to Massachusetts. One exception is that MA does allow absentee ballots to be hand carried in by a designated courier for voters who become hospitalized on or just before election day. I have yet to see it happen though. 

I totally agree that absentee voting, while necessary, should be absolutely minimal. And it should be handled as much as possible like regular voting: ballots cast in public at the voters' precincts, checked off on the voter lists, etc. The worst possible way is for absentee ballots to be handled and counted completely separately, and the counts simply announced and added in at the end. 

In a good voting system absentee voting is the biggest security hole. Any state that is not worried about absentee voting I would say has set the bar for election security too low."


In sharp contrast in California, it is perfectly legal for a third person to hand carry 20-30 absentee ballots and submit them all at once at the precinct. NO ID's need to be checked, in fact it's illegal to ask for ID's!!  I took the certification training and that was made very clear to us.

----------


## RonRules

Removed to prevent infiltrators!

----------


## drummergirl

This should be good.




> *INVITATION: Election Fraud Action Group Meeting Wednesday (TODAY!) 5PM EST*
> 
> That's 2 PM Pacific time.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Please join my meeting, Jul 18, 2012 at 5:00 PM EDT.
> https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/216432741
> 
> ...

----------


## drummergirl

IF anyone has time to help out, we especially need people in Texas and Rhode Island that can be "boots on the ground" for this project.  PM me or RonRules for more details.

----------


## libertyjam

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...maticians-Find

----------


## RonRules

> http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...maticians-Find


Thank you for posting. I note a common error when people try to explain the cumulative charts:
" Romney's vote totals go up *as time passes* almost exactly mirroring Dr. Paul's going down, with all other candidates holding steady."

The horizontal axis of the chart is not TIME. It is Cumulative Vote Tally, the number of votes in each precincts, cumulatively summed up from left to right.

There are some good things to come, stay tuned!

Meanwhile, please beg your county election clerk to provide RAW election data, BEFORE it gets into the central tabulator. I need this for analysis.

Thanks

----------


## WhistlinDave

> Thank you for posting. I note a common error when people try to explain the cumulative charts:
> " Romney's vote totals go up *as time passes* almost exactly mirroring Dr. Paul's going down, with all other candidates holding steady."
> 
> The horizontal axis of the chart is not TIME. It is Cumulative Vote Tally, the number of votes in each precincts, cumulatively summed up from left to right.
> 
> There are some good things to come, stay tuned!
> 
> Meanwhile, please beg your county election clerk to provide RAW election data, BEFORE it gets into the central tabulator. I need this for analysis.
> 
> Thanks


Just to clarify (and please correct me if this is wrong):  When building the graph, you are adding precincts from left to right in order of smallest precinct to largest precinct, right?  Smallest precincts on the left, and the further you go to the right, the bigger and bigger the precincts are that you're adding into the overall tally.

This is important in understanding the graphs because they apparently aren't flipping votes in small precincts.  This is why the curve is normal on the left, and then when you reach a certain point in the graph (when you get to a certain size of precinct) then the curve changes, indicating the vote flipping.

The reason for this is apparently because when a re-count is ordered, they only re-count 1% of the precincts in each county, and they pick the smallest precincts in order to keep the recount as easy as possible.  The vote flippers know this so they avoid the small precincts.  And because they aren't flipping votes in all precincts, this is how it's even possible to see a statistically improbable deviation in the graph when you stack the precincts from smallest to largest, going left to right.

----------


## drummergirl

> The reason for this is apparently because when a re-count is ordered, they only re-count 1% of the precincts in each county, and they pick the smallest precincts in order to keep the recount as easy as possible.  The vote flippers know this so they avoid the small precincts.  And because they aren't flipping votes in all precincts, this is how it's even possible to see a statistically improbable deviation in the graph when you stack the precincts from smallest to largest, going left to right.


Exactly

----------


## affa

> Just to clarify (and please correct me if this is wrong):  When building the graph, you are adding precincts from left to right in order of smallest precinct to largest precinct, right?  Smallest precincts on the left, and the further you go to the right, the bigger and bigger the precincts are that you're adding into the overall tally.
> 
> This is important in understanding the graphs because they apparently aren't flipping votes in small precincts.  This is why the curve is normal on the left, and then when you reach a certain point in the graph (when you get to a certain size of precinct) then the curve changes, indicating the vote flipping.
> 
> The reason for this is apparently because when a re-count is ordered, they only re-count 1% of the precincts in each county, and they pick the smallest precincts in order to keep the recount as easy as possible.  The vote flippers know this so they avoid the small precincts.  And because they aren't flipping votes in all precincts, this is how it's even possible to see a statistically improbable deviation in the graph when you stack the precincts from smallest to largest, going left to right.


yep, you pretty much nailed it.
also worth noting is that 'small' is defined by the area being flipped.    That is, in one area small might be <25 voters, while in another state small might be <1000 voters.     So while the 250 to 1000 range might exhibit flipping in one state, it may be part of the 'small precinct' flatline in another.   

Same goes for within a single city limits... small precincts don't flip, big ones do.   Within the same city.

----------


## RonRules

------------------------------------------------------------
Black Box Voting : News Headlines: (Multnational) 7/12 - 
*ELECTRONIC VOTE-COUNTING INCREASINGLY BY GLOBAL PRIVATE VENDORS*
------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Bev Harris  on Friday, July 20, 2012 - 3:02 pm:

A press release today about the planned expansion of Unisyn into more
USA locations renews attention on foreign ownership of corporations
selling voting systems into the United States.

Unisyn is owned by a Malaysian gambling outfit. Another major
elections industry player, Canada's Dominion, purchased the massive
Diebold Election Systems division (which it shares with ES&S);
Dominion also owns Smartmatic, which handles electronic vote-counting
in the Philippines and Belgium. Military voting is now handled in
several states by Barcelona, Spain-owned Scytl. In January 2012, Scytl
acquired the largest election results reporting firm, SOE Software.

Accenture, now based in Dublin Ireland (formerly headquartered in
tax-haven Bermuda), claims copyright over the massive electronic voter
registration/voter history databases used in several states, including
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Colorado, Wisconsin and Arkansas. Accenture
purchased its voter registration unit from Election.com, a Saudi-owned
company based in the Cayman Islands.

Because a computer will only do what it's programmers and
administrators tell it to do, whoever issues the commands gains
ultimate control over how it receives, counts, and reports votes,
voter registrations, and voter histories.

UNISYN: According to Barry Herron (formerly of Diebold Election
Systems), now Director of Sales for Unisyn, "Unisyn and our business
partners are actively supporting installations in the States of
Missouri, Iowa, Indiana, Mississippi, and Virginia. We intend to
expand into other states in late 2012 and early 2013."

Unisyn also recently made inroads into Puerto Rico. Another Unisyn
election product called "Inkavote" is used in 4 million-voter Los
Angeles County (Calif) and in Jackson County Missouri.

THE MALAYSIAN GAMBLING CONNECTION:

Black Box Voting exposed the Malaysian outfit behind Unisyn in 2005.
Excerpts from our 2005 report by Bev Harris and Kathleen Wynne:

Unisyn is an entity set up by parent company International Lottery and
Totalizator Systems (ILTS). A politically-connected Malaysian gambling
outfit owns ILTS.

According to SEC filings, Berjaya Lottery Management -- a gaming
subsidiary of Berjaya Group Berhad, located in Malaysia -- owns 71% of
the voting stock in ILTS, the company that makes InkaVote.

InkaVote's parent, Berjaya Group is controlled by Vincent Tan Chee
Yioun, a crony of Mahathir Mohamad, who was Malaysian prime minister
until 2003. Mahathir's government was denounced for human-rights
abuses and corporate corruption.

When Mahathir Mohamad retired two years ago, he was succeeded by the
man who rushed to his side at the retirement, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi,
of the same party. The shareholders of Berjaya Group, the parent of
InkaVote, reportedly include Mokhzani Mahathir, son of Malaysian
strongman Mahathir Mohamad.

From the Berjaya Group Berhad Annual Report to Stock Shareholders,
1994: "The Berjaya Group is a large, diversified conglomerate,
including seven public and about 200 private companies."

Directors of Berjaya include Danny Tan Chee Sing, one of a small group
of Chinese capitalists closely associated with Malay politicians, and
Jaffar Bin Abdul, the former Inspector General of Police.

Tony Yeong, Managing Director of Berjaya Group (Cayman), resigned over
allegations of an attempt to bribe the Solomon Islands' Commerce,
Employment and Trade Minister. Yeong insisted it was an accepted
practice for a company such as Berjaya to show its appreciation to
those in government who assisted the company.

The rise of key Chinese businessmen in Malaysian corporations was
linked to influential politicians. It turns out that what happens to
the corporations depends on whether their patrons remain in power.

More on Malaysian owners: 
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/4624.html
Filing (March 15 2005, for 4th qtr 2004) - shows 71% ownership by
Berjaya Lottery Systems of Malaysia:
http://www.bbvdocs.org/inkavote/ILTS-SEC-doc.PDF 
(pdf file, 1,041 KB) 
Filing that mentions plans for selling voting machines: 
http://www.bbvdocs.org/inkavote/SEC-InkaVote.PDF 
(pdf file, 254 KB)

 ELECTION.COM, THE CAYMAN ISLANDS, AND ACCENTURE

In Chapter 8 of my book, Black Box Voting, written in 2003, I revealed
the strange history of what is now Accenture voter registration
systems. Election.com, now part of Accenture, was owned by unnamed
Saudi investors through a group headquartered in the Cayman Islands.

This entity was awarded a portion of the contract for military voting
in the U.S. by the Pentagon. Very soon after Accenture aquired
Election.com, as Accenture also aquired the Pentagon contract for
SERVE. (Internet voting).

More about Saudi-owned, Cayman Islands-based Election.com, now run by
Accenture:
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf

SPAIN-OWNED INTERNET VOTING COMPANY -- SCYTL -- AND RESULTS REPORTING
FIRM -- SOE SOFTWARE

In January 2012, Black Box Voting reported that Barcelona-owned
Internet voting firm Scytl had purchased another company, which
handles a different part of USA elections: SOE Software.

Scytl, so far, just counts military and overseas votes in a few
states. SOE Software is not part of the Internet voting project; SOE
reports votes coming out of ES&S, Dominion, Hart Intercivic and
Sequoia touchscreens and optical scans.

Often, SOE actually hosts and runs what looks like the county election
Web site. SOE pulls its information electronically from county central
tabulators, either wired in directly or in some locations, through a
USB stick transfer.

After information goes from voting machines into the county central
tabulator, it travels to Tampa, Florida into the SOE system, and is
posted on sites like ClarityElections.com (the host domain owned by
SOE) or at Web sites which appear with county names, but actually come
from Tampa's SOE.

IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF USA ELECTION SOFTWARE?

Not if you don't mind some unknown guys working offshore controlling
whatever they choose to in the software processing votes and voters.

PERMISSION TO REPRINT GRANTED, WITH LINK TO BLACK BOX VOTING

To keep Black Box Voting going, please consider a monthly sponsorship
donation or a one-time gift: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/donate.html

----------


## RonRules

> The reason for this is apparently because when a re-count is ordered, they only re-count 1% of the precincts in each county, and they pick the smallest precincts in order to keep the recount as easy as possible.  The vote flippers know this so they avoid the small precincts.  And because they aren't flipping votes in all precincts, this is how it's even possible to see a statistically improbable deviation in the graph when you stack the precincts from smallest to largest, going left to right.


Here's Riverside county Assistant Registrar in the process of selecting the precincts that will be picked. They use 10 sided dice and pick the precincts that way:


Riverside has 853 precincts, including precincts that are vote-by-mail only. Here's an histogram that will give you an indication of how vulnerable the dice throw is to the vote flipping fraud. Basically it is extremely unlikely that large precincts will be selected.

----------


## RonRules

What's also extremely troubling is that nobody showed up to vote (Republican) in 332 precincts! Note that Riverside is a very Republican county.

We get the government we deserve!

----------


## drummergirl

Does anyone know why the original blog was taken down?




> http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...maticians-Find

----------


## RonRules

> Does anyone know why the original blog was taken down?


I don't know why, but I didn't really like the article anyway. For example, they explain the X-Axis as being time-based.  Also there is no talk about all the work we did to prove that the slopes are not caused by demographics.

The Judge in Orange county has a better document in his hands right now!

----------


## RonRules

Several people have emailed me asking for what data is needed for a thorough analysis.

Here's what's needed from your County election clerk:

Absentee (mail-in voting):
1) How many ballots were sent out (preferably for each precinct)?
2) How many ballots came back and were counted again for each precinct? (That to find cases of "Vote Plucking")
3) What equipment is used to scan the Absentee ballots? (Sometimes the equipment is different and so are the results)
4) What is the software serial number for each machine?
5) When was the software updated?
6) Who did the work on the machines (updating the software, installing ballot configuration files)?
7) What are the precinct-level results for Absentee voting?
8) Do they have Zero-Count poll tapes of some proof of Zero Count?
9) Do they have signed poll tapes? I need them (copies if nothing else)

Early voting:
1) What equipment is used for early voting?
2) What is the software serial number for each machine?
3) When was the software updated?
4) Who did the work on the machines?
7) What are the precinct-level results for Early Voting?
8) Do they have Zero-Count poll tapes of some proof of Zero Count for Early Voting?
9) Do they have signed poll tapes for Early Voting results? I need them (copies)

Election day voting:
1) What equipment is used for the election day voting (including paper ballots if used)
2) What is the software serial number for each machine?
3) When was the software updated?
4) Who did the work on the machines?
7) What are the precinct-level results for each candidate in Election Day Voting?
8) Do they have Zero-Count poll tapes of some proof of Zero Count for Election Day Voting?
9) Do they have signed poll tapes for  Election Day Voting?

Provisional ballots: 
1) How many for each precinct?
2) How many were rejected for each precinct?

Other things needed:

a) Central Tabulator
1) What brand?
2) What software version?
3) Is the software version the exact same as what the State approved?
4) When was it updated?
5) Who did the work on the central tabulator? 
6) The raw data BEFORE it enters the central tabulator?
7) A directory listing of all the files (with all file attributes) on the central tabulator
8) Is the Central Tabulator connected to a network of any kind? (perform netstat command)
9) How do people enter data in the Central Tabulaor? USB, DVD, PCMCIA cards?
10) Are there procedures to prevent virus infection of the Central Tabulator?
11) Is there an Anti-Virus program installed on the Central Tabulator?
12) Is there any other software on the Central Tabulator that can perform any kind of vote processing? (Shelby Co TN is one example)

b) What are the results of the 1% recount if performed?


c) How was the election data transmitted?:
1) By phone call from the precinct?
2) By e-mail?
3) By hand carried memory cards or USB cards?
4) By hand carried paper ballots?
5) By over airwaves like WiFi?

d) Have any candidates filed for re-count requests?


Please provide all data in electronic format, not scanned images or paper. I can't re-type millions of numbers. PM me if you can help.

The county is legally obliged to provide ALL that data. You may however have to pay a small fee like $35, which I had to pay in Riverside. In other counties, there was a fee to make photocopies of the data, but that's not too useful anyway because nobody wants to type in tons of numbers.

If there's fraud and you get me ALL that, I guarantee you I will find the fraud.

Thank you in advance,

RR

----------


## RonRules

New report on election integrity for 2012:

*Counting Votes 2012: A State by State Look at Election Preparedness*
http://countingvotes.org/

Executive summary:
http://countingvotes.org/sites/defau...xecsummary.pdf

Excerpt:

On Election Day, Nov. 6, the stakes will be high. A number of critical races will be very close, and some might be decided by very few votes. At the same time, it is highly likely that voting systems will fail in multiple places across the country.i In fact, in every national election in the past decade, computerized voting systems have failed – machines haven’t started, machines have failed in the middle of voting,ii memory cards couldn’t be read be read,iii votes were mistalliediv or lost.v
Our elections are so complex, with so many different jurisdictions and varying technologies, that problems are inevitable. And, as the technology used for elections has become more complicated, the opportunity for error has substantially increased.
This report reviews how prepared each state is to ensure that every eligible voter can vote, and that every vote is counted as cast. Because we cannot predict where machines will fail during the upcoming national election, every state should be as prepared as possible for system failures.
The Verified Voting Foundation, the Rutgers Law School Constitutional Litigation Clinic and Common Cause surveyed states’ voting equipment and ranked the states according to their preparedness. The rankings are based on how states compare to a set of best practices already being used in some places.
The report ranks states from worst to best (inadequate, needs improvement, generally good, good and excellent) in these five areas of evaluation:
1) Does the state require paper ballots or records of every state? When computer failures or human errors cause machines to miscount, election officials can use the original ballots to determine correct totals. Additionally, paper ballots or records can be used to audit machine counts to determine if outcomes are correct.
2) Does the state have adequate contingency plans at each polling place in the event of machine failure? Machine repair should occur quickly and emergency paper ballots should be made available.
3) Does the state protect military and overseas voters by ensuring that marked ballots are not cast online? Voting system experts at the National Institute of Standards and Technology and cyber security experts at the Department of Homeland Security warn that even state-of-the-art online voting technology lacks adequate security and privacy protections. Ballots cast over the Internet can be subject to alteration and voters may lose the right to a secret ballot.
4) Has the state instituted a post-election audit that can determine whether the electronically reported outcomes are correct? 

Listed below are examples of past machine failures and how they impacted various elections:
 Following a June 2009 election, officials in Pennington County, South Dakota, discovered a software malfunction that added thousands of non-existent votes to the county totals.vi
 In a municipal election in Palm Beach County, Florida, in March 2012, a problem with election management software allotted votes to the wrong candidate and the wrong contest. The official results were only changed after a court-sanctioned public hand count of the votes.vii
 In the 2008 Republican presidential primary in Horry County, South Carolina, touch screen voting machines in 80 percent of the precincts temporarily failed, and when precincts ran out of paper ballots, voters could not cast ballots in their home precinct.
 In a test-run for an online election in the September 2010 Washington, D.C., primary, a hacker team was able to change all of the votes to “elect” their own candidates. The online voting system was days away from being launched in a real election for use by overseas and military voters. After the incident, the Internet voting system was canceled.viii
Similar vote-counting errors may go undetected during the 2012 elections unless the mistake is so large and obvious – like the software malfunction in South Dakota – that it can’t be ignored, or the state has adopted procedures – like the post-election audit done in Florida – as recommended in this report.

----------


## RonRules

2012 State Charts

*Overall Voting System Preparedness: The Best Prepared and the Least Prepared*

http://countingvotes.org/statechart

----------


## RonRules



----------


## RonRules

I'd like your opinion about this analysis methodology:

I read this Russian election fraud paper. It is recent and published this year.

http://samarcandanalytics.com/electi...tions%20v2.pdf

They have a pretty incriminating chart here, which relates voter turnout with candidate (party) success.

"This plot shows a large number of polling stations which have near perfect turnout. Of ninety-five thousand polling stations, almost seven thousand reported a turnout above 97%. The support for United Russia has a very strong dependence on turnout, while a simple model would predict that these two should be largely independent. Similarly, the support for the Communist Party declines proportionally with increasing turnout ."

This method is now referred to as the "Shpilkin" method, named after one of the three authors on the paper.  

So, I decided to see how our Golden Boy Mitt Romney does with these types of charts, specifically in Orange County, CA; That's where the trial is! 

I charted individual points for each candidate's results in each precinct as a function of turnout %.


Discovery 1)
The spreadsheet shows a strong slope linear least-squares fit benefiting Romney. I did not get what I expected. My rationale was that if a candidate gets his voters excited about voting (like Ron Paul), you would expect that the greater the turnout %, the higher his own percentage as a function of turnout %. (Remember I'm just referring to *his portion of the turnout %*) Again the X-Axis is *turnout %* and not precinct size. A specific precinct size could be anywhere on the chart. You could have a precinct with 5 votes, but a high turnout 100 %, 5 / 5 for example and it will be at the rightmost point on the chart.

Based on the general enthusiasm for Ron Paul I expected to see a positive slope for Paul (but the same overall low results that he got in Orange County, CA).

Instead I got a very strong positive slope for Romney. I am wondering what would drive that. It appears like ballot stuffing in the higher turnout precincts.

Discovery 2)
Normally a certain number of vote are "cast", but a lesser number of votes are actually "counted" because some ballots are rejected. That's normal and fine.
Have a look at this chart, which uses the actual votes counted (as opposed to votes cast):


Note that the *slope is higher (0.9462)* in the second chart, benefiting Romney and affecting Ron Paul. *Romney has a higher slope when you chart the "counted" ballots. In other words, the more ballots are thrown out, the better Romney does. This could indicate that ballots for other candidates were possibly rendered invalid and thrown out*. That activity is more effective in larger precincts.

Also, Orange county rejected an astounding 11,972 votes out of 234,396 cast. I don't know if that's normal, but it seems like a lot.

Can you repeat this type of analysis in your state/county to confirm my findings here?

Comments?

----------


## drummergirl

It sounds like the same folks are fixing both elections.





> I'd like your opinion about this analysis methodology:
> 
> I read this Russian election fraud paper. It is recent and published this year.
> 
> http://samarcandanalytics.com/electi...tions%20v2.pdf
> 
> They have a pretty incriminating chart here, which relates voter turnout with candidate (party) success.
> 
> "This plot shows a large number of polling stations which have near perfect turnout. Of ninety-five thousand polling stations, almost seven thousand reported a turnout above 97%. The support for United Russia has a very strong dependence on turnout, while a simple model would predict that these two should be largely independent. Similarly, the support for the Communist Party declines proportionally with increasing turnout ."
> ...

----------


## wgadget

Any correlation between VOTING BOOTH algorithms and STOCK TRADER algorithms that the ROMNEY CROWD might understand???

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-g...b_1733354.html

----------


## Liberty Rebellion

RonRules, you have exceeded your message capacity. I was asking if a primary vote is sufficient for your analysis. We just had our primary yesterday and I was going to contact my county clerk to obtain the information you specified earlier in the thread.

----------


## RonRules

> RonRules, you have exceeded your message capacity. I was asking if a primary vote is sufficient for your analysis. We just had our primary yesterday and I was going to contact my county clerk to obtain the information you specified earlier in the thread.


Before you see your county clerk, let's see if you've got a flipper first. If you are referring to Bentivolio race, that was definitely a flipper, even if we won. 

In order to analyze, I need precinct-level data with each candidate in columns. I'll give you a chart and detailed statistics.

Here's Bentivolio's chart (most of the results in):


Here are the statistics:



```
Correlations:		
State	kerry_bentivolio	nancy_cassis_(writein)
2012_MI_11thCongressionalDistrict.csv Correlation	-0.680934125	0.680934084
		
Standard Deviations:		
State	kerry_bentivolio	nancy_cassis_(writein)
2012_MI_11thCongressionalDistrict.csv Std Deviation	0.028625278	0.028625279
		
Percentage gained/lost:		
State	kerry_bentivolio	nancy_cassis_(writein)
2012_MI_11thCongressionalDistrict.csv Percentage Gained	-6.717169285	6.717172265
AllStates		
		
Votes won by each candidate		
State	kerry_bentivolio	nancy_cassis_(writein)
2012_MI_11thCongressionalDistrict.csv Votes Earned	20663	9646
		
Votes gained/lost:		
State	kerry_bentivolio	nancy_cassis_(writein)
2012_MI_11thCongressionalDistrict.csv Votes Gained	-2036	2036
```

----------


## Liberty Rebellion

I'm in Missouri. Where can obtain precinct level data? I assume I have to contact the election authority in my county

http://election.sccmo.org/election/i...=article&id=27

----------


## RonRules

> I'm in Missouri. Where can obtain precinct level data? I assume I have to contact the election authority in my county
> 
> http://election.sccmo.org/election/i...=article&id=27


The link just shows the final results. As you know I can't chart that.

Sometimes, the Secretary of State has the precinct-level results, but each county definitely does have it. Make sure they don't give you PDF images that would need to get retyped. A PDF file that is text is OK, provided it's set up as columsn. 

Because I'm so busy with a technical paper, I can't collect the data right now.

First start with the Secretary of State. They may have the precinct-level data. If not, you have to check each county's website and download it. If it's not there call them and they will email it to you.

Put everything in one spreadsheet like this:


```
Precinct	Kerry_Bentivolio	Nancy_Cassis_(WriteIn)
Commerce 1	96	44
Commerce 2	113	48
Commerce 3	115	61
Commerce 4	115	54
Commerce 5	159	88
Commerce 6	94	40
Commerce 7	172	109
Commerce 8	157	80
Commerce 9	168	66
Commerce 10	121	54
Commerce 11	96	55
Commerce 12	56	36
Commerce 13	100	71
Commerce 14	83	24
Commerce 15	101	63
Highland 1	292	158
Highland 2	255	93
Highland 3	140	90
Highland 4	269	138
Highland 5	214	128
Highland 6	261	145
Highland 7	123	48
Highland 8	178	67
```

The columns did not come out right in the post. Make sure the votes are underneath the candidate name.

----------


## RonRules

Just for grins I thought I'd check Ran Paul's election in 2010:

Here's the Primary:


Here's the General:


The general's last twitch on the curve is because Rand had somewhat different results in the two larges counties (Fayette and Jefferson). It could be flipping, but it's inconclusive.

----------


## Carson

I realize this is an old topic but it is one that gnaws at me. 

The following is a post I made for another thread but with the addition of the following chart of the Republican Party Flipping. I'm thinking the central tabulator in this case may have a name. I am curious as to what they have to say for themselves.







If you take the *Matt McDonald* video as a vote count representation...


at about 3:20 or so the vote was...


8 for Ron Paul

7 for Santorum

5 Romney

2 Undecided

After the head cheeses had their way with the tally it somehow equaled;

2 for Ron Paul

9 for Romney

5 for Santorum


So you tell me how many people really voted for Ron Paul? 

How many would have if the party wasn't kicking its own contestants XX XXX XXXX right out of the starting gate?

----------

