Evidence Against Algorithmic Vote Flipping (no fraud)

[da32130]

London Bridge, VBC:
1984 - Reagan won with 76% of the vote.
1988 - Bush Sr. won with 70% of the vote.
1992 - Bush Sr. won with 49% of the vote (Clinton 30, Perot 20)
1996 - Dole won with 49% of the vote (Perot took 9%)
2000 - Bush won with 56%
2004 - Bush won with 59%

and...
2008 - OBAMA won with 52% of the vote.


Republican voters absolutely abandoned McCain - around 500 less votes than normal (a loss of about 1/3). Other precincts show either similar Republican abandonment, or, in some cases, massive Obamamania.

Your data backs me up.

The candidate that got the indie vote won. So using that candidate will be informative of the indie vote.

In 2008 that was Obama. Since he isn't repub, where he does well you would expect indies to do well.

 

[da32130]

Newt falls and the other three rise slightly. I can't say why conclusively or if that's a recurring phenomenon, as we haven't researched any county-size correlations. It is interesting, and should give the flippers pause when assuming the precinct-size phenomenon is fraud. Your analysis suggests the county-size graph can be explained via demographics. I agree. Romney's blip up at the end is due to Beaufort, Richland, and Charleston (higher median income), and Gingrich does better in the counties with low % white. This can be seen easily with the file Affa linked on page 2.

That said, it's clear from both our graphs that the precinct-size:romney vote % correlation is not reproduced by county-size, so any county-size graph explanations don't explain the precinct-size phenomenon.

The flippers are big on pointing out that the Romney flipping is being done in the largest turnout areas. In other words, the right side of the graph. So just looking at the 2nd half of that graph for Romney (where he rises consistently) is right in line with the flipping case.

Assuming the flipping is in the high turnout precincts, it makes sense to me to think those are more likely in the high turnout counties. So the precinct level flipping would be expected to show up at the county level as well.

And if the county level data can be explained, then it makes sense to me to think the precinct level data can also be explained.

Oddly enough, I'm arguing for flipping evidence being even broader than others, but also that since that evidence can be explained the explanation is also broader.

 

[da32130]

We can never get the demographic data unless you change voting procedures. And Paul's reputation is in Paul's hands, not ours - we're not a cult.

1) I think you are wrong (probably just cost money or a lot of man hours to gather). If you are right then we won't be able to prove vote flipping. I believe I've given enough evidence that we should be able to anticipate what the answer is. But we can agree to disagree.

2) Paul represents the movement. If the movement believes in vote flipping and vote flipping doesn't exists (in the form being discussed here) then it could hurt the movement.

I would rather the rebuttal came here than a front page New York Times story after it is widespread.

 

[da32130]

FAQ

5. Is the sloping evidence of fraud in an even greater number of areas than most claim?


Oddly enough, I'm arguing for flipping evidence being even broader than others, but also that since that evidence can be explained the explanation is also broader.

The primary area is county level SC. I claim the largest areas do show flipping based on rising Romney% and falling Newt% (typically the standard flipping criteria). However, I also believe demographics explains it.

Assuming the flipping is in the high turnout precincts, it makes sense to me to think those are more likely in the high turnout counties. So the precinct level flipping would be expected to show up at the county level as well.

And if the county level data can be explained, then it makes sense to me to think the precinct level data can also be explained.

And if SC can be explained, then it makes sense to me that other states can also be explained.

And if other states can be explained, then it makes sense to me that there is no flipping going on.

 

[TheGrinch]

What tone is that? It is a simple fact. I would like to move on. But I also want my side heard.

From my perspective (and you can agree to disagree), if the vote flipping argument is wrong, then it hurts us if it gains widespread acceptance.

I just want the other side heard.

You keep saying that it hurts us if it gains widespread acceptance, but you do realize that it's being given to qualified unbiased people to examine before anyone is even suggesting going public with it... So why is it such a big deal to you that some would spend their time compiling data for someone more credible and unbiased to examine that. You say you want to move past it, but why do others, until they find that it's a hopeless caus. What's the harm then, because this isn't going public before there's too much evidence compiled to ignore or explain.

I agree 100% that the divisive fighting and criticism is far more harmful than letting more experts examine to see if it sticks or not.

Moreover, (and I apologize if this is getting too close to an attack), but what disturbs me is your constant insistence of "no fraud", when really what you should have meant all along is "inconclusive without..."... To say "conclusion: no fraud" when we're dealing with unaccountable voting machines and already have a wealth of evidence of delegate fraud and caucus shenanigans, well, don't you think that it's a huge overstatement to conclude "no fraud", just because you don't see it... For all we know, yes, they could be on the wrong track, but they've never said that they've "proven" anything, just appear to have anomalies, whereas you seem to be on a crusade to act like you know for certain about something that there isn't a paper trail for.

Fine if you want to offer counterarguments, but it's hard to take it seriously when it seems you have more of an agenda than those you claim are "pro-flipper" (many of whom doubted it before examining it, so I don't think their biases are driving this nearly as much).

 

[da32130]

You keep saying that it hurts us if it gains widespread acceptance, but you do realize that it's being given to qualified unbiased people to examine before anyone is even suggesting going public with it... So why is it such a big deal to you that some would spend their time compiling data for someone more credible and unbiased to examine that. You say you want to move past it, but why do others, until they find that it's a hopeless caus. What's the harm then, because this isn't going public before there's too much evidence compiled to ignore or explain.

I agree 100% that the divisive fighting and criticism is far more harmful than letting more experts examine to see if it sticks or not.

Moreover, (and I apologize if this is getting too close to an attack), but what disturbs me is your constant insistence of "no fraud", when really what you should have meant all along is "inconclusive without..."... To say "conclusion: no fraud" when we're dealing with unaccountable voting machines and already have a wealth of evidence of delegate fraud and caucus shenanigans, well, don't you think that it's a huge overstatement to conclude "no fraud", just because you don't see it... For all we know, yes, they could be on the wrong track, but they've never said that they've "proven" anything, just appear to have anomalies, whereas you seem to be on a crusade to act like you know for certain about something that there isn't a paper trail for.

Fine if you want to offer counterarguments, but it's hard to take it seriously when it seems you have more of an agenda than those you claim are "pro-flipper" (many of whom doubted it before examining it, so I don't think their biases are driving this nearly as much).

1) I have no problem getting it to "qualified unbiased people to examine" (just realize once they give an opinion then they will no longer be considered unbiased, so then the search will be for more unbiased people until one is found that is in agreement with the searcher)
2) It already has gone public. It has been on daily paul front page, ben swann facebook, and has many articles on the web
3) If the pro flipping executive summary concerning the evidence contained my analysis I wouldn't post here.
4) "no fraud" applies to just the core non flipping argument. It doesn't mean all fraud is ruled out, just within the scope and scale being discussed here.
5) using "no fraud" may push some buttons, I agree. However, it is for a quick guide of my opinion and what I think future research will uncover. It is also to show the contrast with most of the other analysis out there.
6) I started with no agenda. I even defended the flippers to do 1) above. But now that I think there is no flipping, and want others to know about it, my agenda is questioned.

 

[affa]

Your data backs me up.

The candidate that got the indie vote won. So using that candidate will be informative of the indie vote.

In 2008 that was Obama. Since he isn't repub, where he does well you would expect indies to do well.

That's pure conjecture.

If you actually take the time to look at the data, you'll see McCain had 100,358 votes in VBC, vs Bush's 103,752. Over the entire county, he lost very few votes.
Obama, however, increased over 28k votes from Kerry. Likewise, there were almost 24k more registered voters in 2008. This mean's it's far more likely that Obama's surprisingly good performance was based on Obamamania - brand new voters brought into the fold, and not a 'shift' of Independent voters. But that too is conjecture - but at least it's conjecture based on looking at historical data.

In fact, if you take the 3k McCain lost, and add in the massive influx of new voters, you effectively end up with Obama's rise. That 3k may very well be your 'Independent' voters, which are not what decided this election.

Looking at individual precincts, the differences are not uniform. In some precincts, McCain simply dropped like a rock (compared to 2004 and before). In others, Obama did surprisingly well. It's unclear why, exactly, but the point is, Obama's 2008 performance is way out of line with all historical records of VBC, and again, should not be used as a barometer of political leaning for a precinct because all other indicators -- from historical elections, to newer elections for Senate and House, show many precincts that went to Obama have a strong, distinct, Republican leaning both past and present. 2008 saw a rash of new voters (Obamamania), and to attribute his win to a shift in 'Independents' is a rash assumption that does not bear the weight of scrutiny. That you continue to cling to the non-existant value of libertarian turnout in 2008 is even more misguided and misleading, however.

Again, I'm all for demographic analysis. But you're using suspect data as your barometer, and jumping to false conclusions as a result.

 

[da32130]

That's pure conjecture.

If you actually take the time to look at the data, you'll see McCain had 100,358 votes in VBC, vs Bush's 103,752. Over the entire county, he lost very few votes.
Obama, however, increased over 28k votes from Kerry. Likewise, there were almost 24k more registered voters in 2008. This mean's it's far more likely that Obama's surprisingly good performance was based on Obamamania - brand new voters brought into the fold, and not a 'shift' of Independent voters. But that too is conjecture - but at least it's conjecture based on looking at historical data.

In fact, if you take the 3k McCain lost, and add in the massive influx of new voters, you effectively end up with Obama's rise. That 3k may very well be your 'Independent' voters, which are not what decided this election.

Looking at individual precincts, the differences are not uniform. In some precincts, McCain simply dropped like a rock (compared to 2004 and before). In others, Obama did surprisingly well. It's unclear why, exactly, but the point is, Obama's 2008 performance is way out of line with all historical records of VBC, and again, should not be used as a barometer of political leaning for a precinct because all other indicators -- from historical elections, to newer elections for Senate and House, show many precincts that went to Obama have a strong, distinct, Republican leaning both past and present. 2008 saw a rash of new voters (Obamamania), and to attribute his win to a shift in 'Independents' is a rash assumption that does not bear the weight of scrutiny. That you continue to cling to the non-existant value of libertarian turnout in 2008 is even more misguided and misleading, however.

Again, I'm all for demographic analysis. But you're using suspect data as your barometer, and jumping to false conclusions as a result.

Affa,

Here is the issue. Obama% and Libertarian% work. They are statistically valuable when evaluating turnout, Paul%, Romney%, and even Huntsman%.

Why they are valuable is a another question.

I think it is because Obama% is picking up the non republican voter demographic. One that shows a strong correlation to Paul in VA and Huntsman in NH.

I think libertarian% is picking up more libertarian areas. Ones that show a strong correlation to Paul in VA and NH.

Saying obama% doesn't mean the above doesn't mean it isn't valuable.

Saying libertarian% changes from 2004 to 2008 doesn't mean 2008 isn't valuable (my bet is they are both valuable, but noisy).

The question is: why does Obama% and Libertarian% work so well at explaining turnout, Paul%, Romney%, and Huntsman%?

You haven't provided an alternate explanation for this.

Nor shown how they aren't tied to demographics.

You need to do both to invalidate them. And if you can't invalidate them then we have already explained 85-90% of precincts in VA and NH without even using income, age, etc that I believe explain the remaining 15-10% and SC.

 

[affa]

Affa,

Here is the issue. Obama% and Libertarian% work. They are statistically valuable when evaluating turnout, Paul%, Romney%, and even Huntsman%.

As long as you continue to refer to Libertarian votes, which account for less than half a percent of the vote, and are _extremely_ volatile between elections, as 'statistically valuable' there's absolutely no point in discussing anything with you. You fundamentally don't understand the criticism being leveled at your work, and therefore it's a pointless discussion. You might as well randomly generate a number between 0 and 12 for all precincts in VBC and tell me how 'statistically valuable' it is, because that's what the history of libertarian votes per precinct looks like.

As for why they're valuable? We don't agree that they even are.

"I think libertarian% is picking up more libertarian areas. Ones that show a strong correlation to Paul in VA and NH."

And again, you're absolutely, completely, incorrect on this. And even if you were correct, the fact that per precinct Libertarian votes fluctuate wildly every 4 years means you can't assume anything about 2012 based on 2008. But since they aren't significant in the first place, that's a moot point.

Not to mention, we've seen the anomaly present in 2008 data, so using that to prove anything is also suspect.

I repeat the same thing I say every time we talk: I wish you'd use current, 2011-2012 per precinct demographic data to do your study. But if you insist on clinging to things like Libertarian%, and dismissing any and all criticism of your work with conjecture (oh, that's the independent vote) without actual research, we're done discussing this. In fact, I am done. Have fun with your pet theory.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

Sailing, i was being serious. The threads shouldn't spam each other.

If affa continues to post things i've already answered. Isn't that spam? Isn't that derailing the thread?

He is just using fancier words to mock and distort.



I've literally answered most of his points in my OP and FAQs. Not to mention in my prior threads.

Anyone know how I can get a name change?

 

[da32130]

As long as you continue to refer to Libertarian votes, which account for less than half a percent of the vote, and are _extremely_ volatile between elections, as 'statistically valuable' there's absolutely no point in discussing anything with you. You fundamentally don't understand the criticism being leveled at your work, and therefore it's a pointless discussion. You might as well randomly generate a number between 0 and 12 for all precincts in VBC and tell me how 'statistically valuable' it is, because that's what the history of libertarian votes per precinct looks like.

As for why they're valuable? We don't agree that they even are.

"I think libertarian% is picking up more libertarian areas. Ones that show a strong correlation to Paul in VA and NH."

And again, you're absolutely, completely, incorrect on this. And even if you were correct, the fact that per precinct Libertarian votes fluctuate wildly every 4 years means you can't assume anything about 2012 based on 2008. But since they aren't significant in the first place, that's a moot point.

Not to mention, we've seen the anomaly present in 2008 data, so using that to prove anything is also suspect.

I repeat the same thing I say every time we talk: I wish you'd use current, 2011-2012 per precinct demographic data to do your study. But if you insist on clinging to things like Libertarian%, and dismissing any and all criticism of your work with conjecture (oh, that's the independent vote) without actual research, we're done discussing this. In fact, I am done. Have fun with your pet theory.

Affa,

We don't have "2011-2012 per precinct demographic data". That is why other factors are being used.

A regression of Libertarian% in 2008 on turnout, Paul%, etc in 2012 works. If you want to look at the results and just dismiss it when you don't like it fine. Others may disagree.

On libertarian 2004 vs 2008:
1) all you have shown is that there are differences.
2) that is to be expected, it isn't proof of anything
3) you need to show the data is completely random, not some randomness around a strong libertarian correlation.

On your main lib and obama analysis you showed the results for McCain and Bush as evidence against a correlation. There were 13 areas. This is how I explained it:

"Cromwell: Bush's worst, McCain's worst; Glenwood: Bush's best, McCain's 3rd best. the rest should be a fuzzy range between those two points"

In other words, there is a relationship between 2004 and 2008. Even if it isn't a perfect correlation (with this type of data that is expecting way too much).

I believe the libertarian results are similar. You haven't shown differently.

 

[parocks]

FAQ

3. Do you think the pro flipping downwardly sloped graphs are an anomaly and evidence of fraud?

My point is this "the graphs aren't anomalies".

The anomaly would only be if they were done with a demographic analysis and there was a disparity.

I believe my graphs show the disparity can be explained by demographics (available - adjustments makes graph flat, and unavailable - adjustment should make graph flat).

When the other side presents an unadjusted sloped graph it hasn't even brought evidence to the table one way or another.

If I can pick out the precincts that Romney is going to do very well in, does that mean that I'm predicting that fraud will take place in those precincts?

Or does it just mean that I know where the Romney voters are, because I have some understanding of politics?

The "flippers" have removed any understanding that, oh, Romney doesn't typically do well in the rural areas - that's either Santorum or Paul country. Knowing all of these things, why rural voters vote one way, and upscale suburbanites vote Romney is useful information. And a substantial part of the Ron Paul Grassroots has a theory that completely ignores, denigrates, diminishes, that very important information.

Flippers are trying hard to replace good knowledge with bad. That's classic with Ron Paul Grassroots.

 

[da32130]

From 2004 to 2008, precincts like:
Seatack went from 16 to 5 votes.
Ocean Lakes went from 4 to 13
Old Donation went from 6 to 16
Ocean Park went from 11 to 4
(and I can give plenty more examples)

The above is some of affa's libertarian data that affa thinks shows no correlation.

The problems with this are:
1) there are 305 (NH) and 96 (VBC) areas, the above is just 4. Hard to make anything out of that.
2) you have to take all of the 11+ areas and see what happens
3) you have to take all of the 6- areas and see what happens

For you to be right the 11+ areas should be randomly placed.

For me to be right the 11+ areas should cluster above average.

And ideally we would use %, not raw votes.

 

[da32130]

Affa,

We don't have "2011-2012 per precinct demographic data". That is why other factors are being used.

A regression of Libertarian% in 2008 on turnout, Paul%, etc in 2012 works. If you want to look at the results and just dismiss it when you don't like it fine. Others may disagree.

On libertarian 2004 vs 2008:
1) all you have shown is that there are differences.
2) that is to be expected, it isn't proof of anything
3) you need to show the data is completely random, not some randomness around a strong libertarian correlation.

On your main lib and obama analysis you showed the results for McCain and Bush as evidence against a correlation. There were 13 areas. This is how I explained it:

"Cromwell: Bush's worst, McCain's worst; Glenwood: Bush's best, McCain's 3rd best. the rest should be a fuzzy range between those two points"

In other words, there is a relationship between 2004 and 2008. Even if it isn't a perfect correlation (with this type of data that is expecting way too much).

I believe the libertarian results are similar. You haven't shown differently.

//

 

[da32130]

FAQ

5. Is the sloping evidence of fraud in an even greater number of areas than most claim?


Oddly enough, I'm arguing for flipping evidence being even broader than others, but also that since that evidence can be explained the explanation is also broader.

The primary area is county level SC. I claim the largest areas do show flipping based on rising Romney% and falling Newt% (typically the standard flipping criteria). However, I also believe demographics explains it.

Assuming the flipping is in the high turnout precincts, it makes sense to me to think those are more likely in the high turnout counties. So the precinct level flipping would be expected to show up at the county level as well.

And if the county level data can be explained, then it makes sense to me to think the precinct level data can also be explained.

And if SC can be explained, then it makes sense to me that other states can also be explained.

And if other states can be explained, then it makes sense to me that there is no flipping going on.

//

 

[Elixir]

Sorry da3120 but if you believe that the elections in this country are run fairly and honestly then I have to burst your bubble.

Fraud has already been shown during this election in several areas, there are people who have found out that their votes weren't even counted, we have caucus officialsin at least one state admitting to rigging the election, we have glaring anomalies in this years and 2008's election results, and if that's not enough, we have the year 2000 Bush/Gore debacle to show that our electoral process is rigged. Paperless electronic voting, gosh, what else can I say here?

Your repeated conclusion of no fraud is quite amusing, and makes me question your motives.

 

[Elixir]

Yep, Paul wins hands down over Romney in all the rural areas... but as soon as we get to a precinct with over a certain number of people, Romney just crushes Paul, in every state, in every county. Romney is just that good eh? Sorry but this is an anomaly in itself, there is no way that this explanation accounts for Paul's stellar performance in all small precincts, and his utter failure in all cities and large precincts.

For all of Romney's surging victories in every state, do you personally know a single person or two who voted for him? I sure as hell don't. They all voted for Paul, as did most thinking people around the country. Yet we are all left wondering why Paul didn't win a single state, the two explanations are either Paul's supporters don't actually vote, or that Paul doesn't win in cities. Both lies.

 

[RonRules]

//

Hey da32130, you're slacking off. You're only self-bumping your own posts every 5 hours!

 

[KingNothing]

da32130 deserves a ton of credit for doing the intellectual heavy lifting around here.

 

[Elixir]