A couple of interesting MI anomalies:

[SteveMartin]

During a 33-second span of time while Mitt Romney was distracting CNN viewers with his speech last night, the precincts reporting jumped from 17% to 19%. Those percentages usually rise VERY slowly. Mitt's vote total jumped 15.96% during that 33 seconds, and Rudy Giuliani's jumped 19.83%. The rest of the field jumped between 8.15 and 12.05% during that same 33 second period.

Also, at 90% of the precincts reporting, RP had 51,663 votes, and should have projected to finish with over 57,000 votes. Instead, with 100% of precincts reporting (and most people gone to bed and not noticing) he finished with only 54,270 for an increase of just 5.05%.

 

[SteveMartin]

Oh...at 97%, RP had 54,270, and the last 3% should have given him almost 1800 votes.

What did he actually get??...164 votes....

That's an increase of .3%, when, statistically it should have been an increase of 3.1%...

That is a statistical anomaly that demands investigation.

 

[leglock]

 

[alexa doherty]

Right back at ya

 

[stewie3128]

This was so much easier back in the day when people won by huge numbers of votes and it wasn't a surprise. Then we had to go look under the hood of democracy and see what a mess elections in this country are.

 

[leglock]

Right back at ya

Coming from a person who...

Is "coordinating attacks against neocons on youtube."

From someone who thinks Stormfront is a "cover up" site.

And from someone who wants to "raise hell" instead of practice civil disobedience, like our leader says....


RIIIIIIIGGGHHHTTTTT.....

I hear Walmart has a discount on tinfoil this week.

 

[SteveMartin]

So, am I the only one who is bothered by the fact that the late-reporting precincts gave us less than 1/10th the number of votes for Ron Paul as all the other precincts??

 

[haaaylee]

what were the last precincts to report in?

 

[SteveMartin]

I don't know, haaaylee, but I am sure that could be uncovered.

I'd like to see a statistician among us say what the chances are at random for this to occur:

Normally, we got around 570 votes per percentage point of precincts reporting. During the last three percent, we got only 55 per percentage point!

 

[margomaps]

One precinct does not necessarily equal another precinct in population. If all precincts had identical populations, then you would be justified in wondering how precincts A and B resulted in 1,000 votes for Paul, while precincts C and D resulted in only 100.

But some precincts have tiny populations, and others have very large populations. "Percentage of precincts reporting" has to do with a portion of precincts as a function of the total -- it has nothing to do with the number of people or number of votes.

It's a very simple concept, and once you grasp it you'll remove your tinfoil hat in ignominious defeat.

 

[SteveMartin]

margomaps,

I grasped it long before your condescending BS post.

That does not explain this deviation from the norm.

Now go stuff yourself in tinfoil and turn on the stove.