Evidence Against Algorithmic Vote Flipping (no fraud)

[1836]

You don't act like a real Texan.

And I'm serious; go answer your own rhetorical questions. Unless of course you are too lazy.

Apparently you are quite lazy intellectually speaking, because you only come on these threads once in a blue moon. You spout a bunch of pseudo-logical BS that has no bearing on the topic, create pages of crap for the analysts to sort thru, and get all butt hurt because we call you on your load of manure.

You want to know why Ben Swann hasn't touched this? Go ask him; I have no idea. I've never met the man. You expect me to read a man's mind? Are you insane? Really? I'm supposed to have magic answers for you because you cry like a baby?

Go back under your bridge.

Your ad hominem attacks don't speak to your "intelligence," if I may say. Your personal attacks on a critic speak to an argument that is not convincing enough on its own, to attempt to be bolstered by personal attacks on its critics.

"The analysts" can sort through my "psuedo-logical BS" all they want, all I need are answers to my questions.

Otherwise you're just making claims and then refusing to defend them against a harsh critic, albeit, a critic who has NOT attacked you personally, which you seem to be perfectly happy to do to me.

And I think that speaks for itself, in a lot of ways.

 

[drummergirl]

More ad hominem attacks. Again, not very convincing in context of how your argument is claimed to be so factual.

I don't expect nor even care if a single professor came on here and argued for your side.

But if some professors would be willing to put their names on statements relating to your analysis and your theory, then I suppose that would add a lot of credibility to your argument. Also, the article that you wrote, would you be willing to submit it to peer-reviewed journals?

If you bothered to read what I wrote (clearly actually reading things is a problem for you), you'd know it's not an academic article. There will probably be a number of peer reviewed articles on this topic sometime in 2014. If you'd like to put the liberty movement on hold while you wait for peer reviewed articles in statistics journals, that would be your choice.

As for me and my house, I give no quarter to tyrants. enjoy your chains.

 

[1836]

If you bothered to read what I wrote (clearly actually reading things is a problem for you), you'd know it's not an academic article. There will probably be a number of peer reviewed articles on this topic sometime in 2014. If you'd like to put the liberty movement on hold while you wait for peer reviewed articles in statistics journals, that would be your choice.

As for me and my house, I give no quarter to tyrants. enjoy your chains.

...Not sure when a serious critic became a "tyrant."

The liberty movement is not on hold any more than your arguments are some big serious part of it. And that's the problem I seek to have answered.

Because you guys claim your arguments are so legitimate that they need a great deal of attention from the liberty movement to advance the ball forward on them. Meanwhile, someone like myself comes on here to ask questions (even harsh questions) and gets personally attacked.

I wouldn't ask if I didn't think that the entire question of whether this topic is significant is itself relevant. The fact that the forum moderators have allowed these threads to continue is not the answer to that question. The answer should be in whether or not the argument itself is legitimate, and whether it is proven.

It is neither as far as I can tell, and this is why I ask my questions. You can personally attack me all you want, but the core question of relevance to the liberty movement remains. For me and for others.

 

[drummergirl]

Your ad hominem attacks don't speak to your "intelligence," if I may say. Your personal attacks on a critic speak to an argument that is not convincing enough on its own, to attempt to be bolstered by personal attacks on its critics.

"The analysts" can sort through my "psuedo-logical BS" all they want, all I need are answers to my questions.

Otherwise you're just making claims and then refusing to defend them against a harsh critic, albeit, a critic who has NOT attacked you personally, which you seem to be perfectly happy to do to me.

And I think that speaks for itself, in a lot of ways.

If calling a troll a troll is ad hominem, then so be it.

That's just your way of throwing a red herring into the mix. The issue is that you are posting intentionally inflammatory and diversionary remarks. Your questions are rhetorical and designed to distract effort from analysis and critical thought.

 

[1836]

If calling a troll a troll is ad hominem, then so be it.

That's just your way of throwing a red herring into the mix. The issue is that you are posting intentionally inflammatory and diversionary remarks. Your questions are rhetorical and designed to distract effort from analysis and critical thought.

That's pretty amazing, considering you just claimed to be so humble and I so arrogant when you posted that I was a "tyrant" and a "troll." To say that I'm diverting from "analysis and critical thought" by asking questions you won't answer.

Here are the questions once again, and I'd like an answer. If you're so confident in your argument, this should be child's play. Yet, you ignore them.

1. Why hasn't Ben Swann run a story if there is so much truth to this? He was interested in doing one, interested in looking at data, then didn't run a story. Is he part of the conspiracy?

2. Why are independent pollsters who poll before primaries and caucuses so darn right, as reflected by the Real Clear Politics average?

3. Where is the empirical data to support a stronger presence of Ron Paul support than shown by the final results?

4. Why hasn't a large clamor erupted from news websites that are friendly to fringe and conspiratorial causes, like InfoWars?

5. If this were true it would be the story of the century for some small-time reporter looking to make it big. Where are the news stories about these claims, where is the media coverage even from the independent outlets?

6. The 9/11 conspiracy, which has been proven false repeatedly, nonetheless has plenty of professors, researchers, scientists to endorse its claims. Why hasn't the vote flipping fraud conspiracy realized a large number of endorsements from scientists, mathematicians, statisticians, and people who would be in a position to lend credibility to the claims?

 

[drummergirl]

...Not sure when a serious critic became a "tyrant."

If you had any real criticism I would happily deal with it. You are just an obstructionist. And you don't know much of Texas history apparently. You chose your name poorly.

 

[1836]

If you had any real criticism I would happily deal with it. You are just an obstructionist. And you don't know much of Texas history apparently. You chose your name poorly.

Call me what you wish, I'm waiting on my academic sources, and answers to the questions I asked.

Ignore them all you want, continue to attack and call me names. It doesn't help your argument's legitimacy. It hurts it.

The burden of proof is on your shoulders and you're rather uncomfortable with it there. But you posted all this; defend it! Don't just ignore criticism because it's inconvenient.

 

[RonRules]

4. Why hasn't a large clamor erupted from news websites that are friendly to fringe and conspiratorial causes, like InfoWars?

Picture Alex Jones yelling three times in quick succession: "CUMULATIVE PRECINCT VOTE TALLY!".

This is why.

 

[1836]

Picture Alex Jones yelling three times in quick succession: "CUMULATIVE PRECINCT VOTE TALLY!".

This is why.

I would think that if this was presented to him, that he might be interested in it. Honestly, that's something I find surprising. I can understand if the reason why he hasn't done anything on it is because you haven't presented it to him. Maybe he doesn't know about it.

In that case, I understand completely. In which case, the answer is that he just doesn't know about it. As much as anything, I suppose I was wondering if he does.

Nonetheless, there ARE other independent outlets. Why not have them cover this?

 

[drummergirl]

Fine troll:

That's pretty amazing, considering you just claimed to be so humble and I so arrogant when you posted that I was a "tyrant" and a "troll." To say that I'm diverting from "analysis and critical thought" by asking questions you won't answer.

Here are the questions once again, and I'd like an answer. If you're so confident in your argument, this should be child's play. Yet, you ignore them.

1. Why hasn't Ben Swann run a story if there is so much truth to this? He was interested in doing one, interested in looking at data, then didn't run a story. Is he part of the conspiracy?

If you've followed this at all, you'd know The Flipper is probably about 3 people. Not likely Ben Swann is one. But then, I don't know the man. You expect me to know the motivations of a man? I'm single for a reason. You want this guy's opinion; do some leg work and ask him.

2. Why are independent pollsters who poll before primaries and caucuses so darn right, as reflected by the Real Clear Politics average?

This is about election results not polls. I don't watch polls. Irrelevant.

3. Where is the empirical data to support a stronger presence of Ron Paul support than shown by the final results?

Read the technical summary and the thousand or so charts and 5 thousand posts or so. Like Ragu, it's in there.

4. Why hasn't a large clamor erupted from news websites that are friendly to fringe and conspiratorial causes, like InfoWars?

I have no idea. Ask them. Again, you expect me to have magical knowledge about the motivations of men.

5. If this were true it would be the story of the century for some small-time reporter looking to make it big. Where are the news stories about these claims, where is the media coverage even from the independent outlets?

Go ask them. Lot's of big stories get no or little press coverage. Another rhetorical red herring.

6. The 9/11 conspiracy, which has been proven false repeatedly, nonetheless has plenty of professors, researchers, scientists to endorse its claims. Why hasn't the vote flipping fraud conspiracy realized a large number of endorsements from scientists, mathematicians, statisticians, and people who would be in a position to lend credibility to the claims?

You want me to tell you about the 9/11 conspiracy? I don't know a thing about it; not following it; not interested in it. You want to know why we don't have a massive cult-like following? You seriously can't figure out why a phenomenon in it's infancy that has had no press, no publicity, and has only a handful of people using their spare time working on the problem doesn't have a laundry list of endorsements and supporters? You need me to answer that for you? Would you like a binky or a blanky to go with the story? Because I can go into intense detail for you if you are so infantile as to need that depth of explanation.

 

[drummergirl]

I apologize if you've taken any of this personally, apparently so. I have not made any statements about you guys personally, other than to challenge your argument. I don't claim to be the smartest person in the world or the room, I'm asking questions from a critical perspective.

Now that is an outright lie. Here is a list of your personal attacks from YOUR posts this evening in this thread.

The conspiracy continues.

Nobody has yet explained why polling companies seem to get it so right with the final results.

Are they all in on the big conspiracy?

They get it pretty damn right, most of the time.

Oh, another question.

Ben Swann was interested in this, then he didn't run a story about it. If it has so much credibility, why wouldn't such a friendly reporter with his eye to the truth do a story on it?

Or is he part of the conspiracy also?

Oh, another question.

Even the 9/11 Truth conspiracy, which has been repeatedly proven to be incorrect in most all of its conclusions, has a huge list of professors who are backing up its claims.

Where are the professors, statisticians, and mathematicians to endorse the vote flipping claims?

Thanks!

Getting personal are we? I have done a great deal for the liberty movement. I would expect more of a professional response from someone apparently so confident in his conclusions than to resort to personal attacks.

But then, perhaps your conclusions are the fabrications of wishful thinking.

Just these same posters reiterating the same, tired old theories, based on some guise of empiricism and methods that have been shown to be cursory at best.

And if they're so great of methods, why not get some endorsements from prominent people in the fields of statistics or mathematics?

Yes, but usually when you have a theory that's worth considering because there might be some intellectual rigor or legitimacy to it,

You're kidding me.

You're telling someone who doubts your claims that it is MY job to essentially PROVE A NEGATIVE? Prove that there's NOT a chance you're right?

If nothing else proves that you do not understand what empirical data is about, that's it right there.

Ok. What are the names of these professors? What university?

said right after the name of the university was given

I can claim that X number of professors from some hidden university back up whatever the heck I say, and what kind of factual claim is that? I could be making it up.

In terms of wasting disk space, please tell me which takes up more space on the forum owner's server: my few questions totaling about two pages of a thread, or your hundreds and hundreds of pages of this "data" with pictures included?

I can say "we are all actually reptilian beings from another dimension," and then say to you "now prove that I'm not right." Can you see how horribly ridiculous that kind of thing is? And that's why asking someone to prove a negative is never done by intellectually rigorous claims.

Whatever side you are on on this topic, well done. Well done.

asking someone to prove a negative is really shitty for your argument,
I have done all of this honestly and without playing politics as to my true feelings.

Your ad hominem attacks don't speak to your "intelligence," if I may say. Your personal attacks on a critic speak to an argument that is not convincing enough on its own, to attempt to be bolstered by personal attacks on its critics.

And I think that speaks for itself, in a lot of ways.

It is neither as far as I can tell, and this is why I ask my questions. You can personally attack me all you want, but the core question of relevance to the liberty movement remains. For me and for others.

The burden of proof is on your shoulders and you're rather uncomfortable with it there.

So you can whine on about being called a troll. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. And you can moan about being attacked, just remember you fired first, troll.

 

[KingNothing]

That's pretty amazing, considering you just claimed to be so humble and I so arrogant when you posted that I was a "tyrant" and a "troll." To say that I'm diverting from "analysis and critical thought" by asking questions you won't answer.

Here are the questions once again, and I'd like an answer. If you're so confident in your argument, this should be child's play. Yet, you ignore them.

1. Why hasn't Ben Swann run a story if there is so much truth to this? He was interested in doing one, interested in looking at data, then didn't run a story. Is he part of the conspiracy?

2. Why are independent pollsters who poll before primaries and caucuses so darn right, as reflected by the Real Clear Politics average?

3. Where is the empirical data to support a stronger presence of Ron Paul support than shown by the final results?

4. Why hasn't a large clamor erupted from news websites that are friendly to fringe and conspiratorial causes, like InfoWars?

5. If this were true it would be the story of the century for some small-time reporter looking to make it big. Where are the news stories about these claims, where is the media coverage even from the independent outlets?

6. The 9/11 conspiracy, which has been proven false repeatedly, nonetheless has plenty of professors, researchers, scientists to endorse its claims. Why hasn't the vote flipping fraud conspiracy realized a large number of endorsements from scientists, mathematicians, statisticians, and people who would be in a position to lend credibility to the claims?

Total ownage. Good on you, my friend!

 

[1836]

I have some questions.

First:

Why have no academics come out and, behind their own name, endorsed this theory?
Last night when I asked that question, all I was told is that "five professors" from "UC Riverside" had agreed with you. But you would not name them, in which case you're just making a claim.

Secondly:

Why did independent pollsters such as Rasmussen, Public Policy Polling, and Quinnipiac get so close to the final results of these elections when they obviously couldn't be "in" on the conspiracy? The RealClearPolitics average of polls proves the point: collectively, independent pollsters are almost dead on in primary states. If anything, Ron Paul OUTPERFORMED his polling numbers.

Thirdly:

Is there any empirical data to show that there is a greater number of Ron Paul supporters than the final results of the primaries showed? In other words, if Ron Paul has that much more support like you claim, where is it?

Finally:

Why have you so denounced and personally attacked your critics? My questions on here last night may have been harsh, but were met with unbelievably personal and angry attacks from "drummergirl," who proceeded to call me every insult in the book.

Why is it not possible to have a dialogue with a critic? I have posed reasonable questions, and would like answers.

Thank you.

 

[LinuxJedi]

I remember once attempting to look at the data objectively, and I was also insulted / attacked by those who believe. Either everything I have learned about statistics / probability is wrong (I doubt it), or this stuff is all bogus. Anyways, that was a couple months ago... in the period of time that I cared, there were others who attempted to bring some objectivity to all of these who were personally attacked. I have the utmost respect for those who have attempted to add common sense to these discussions.

This is the worst sort of mob-mentality, and in my opinion has no place on RPF.

Regarding the actual flipper... as I have shown before, and I do maintain, this is a fact about numbers. I provided a computer simulation (taking a day off work to do so) to demonstrate that random data can generate similar features of these graphs, and I was attacked. There is really nothing to see, and I realize there is some supposed "absolute mathematical law" that is being violated. To that, please provide the theorem and reference to some text which you have that discusses / proves this theorem. If you can, provide a proof of said theorem. Please demonstrate that, if said theorem exists, the data examined matches the assumptions so that it can legitimately be used here. But you know, it comes back to "no... you are just dumb... I have a degree from wikipedia"... or "YOU PROVE that our assumptions are false"... and so on.

Again, utmost respect for those attempting to bring some sanity to these threads.

 

[brandon]

1836, arguing with these people is a complete waste of time, which I learned the hard way. Best to just ignore them and report them when they leak out of this thread.

 

[drummergirl]

I have some questions.

First:

Why have no academics come out and, behind their own name, endorsed this theory?

Academia is slow. You can expect to see peer reviewed articles on the subject in 2014 or 2015. Do you seriously expect someone with a full schedule of research and teaching to just stop everything and pick up this project? That is an unrealistic expectation.

Secondly:

Why did independent pollsters such as Rasmussen, Public Policy Polling, and Quinnipiac get so close to the final results of these elections when they obviously couldn't be "in" on the conspiracy? The RealClearPolitics average of polls proves the point: collectively, independent pollsters are almost dead on in primary states. If anything, Ron Paul OUTPERFORMED his polling numbers.

Red herring. We are analyzing actual election results. Polls might give a clue, but they are mostly irrelevant.

Thirdly:

Is there any empirical data to show that there is a greater number of Ron Paul supporters than the final results of the primaries showed? In other words, if Ron Paul has that much more support like you claim, where is it?

Yes, there is a boat load of data. If you want to know how Ron Paul actually did before the vote theft, you can get a pretty good idea by looking at his percentage of vote total before flipping hits and multiply it by the number of votes cast in the election and you'll be pretty close to his actual performance. Just look through the threads, read the summary and links if you want more data there is a ton of it.

Finally:

Why have you so denounced and personally attacked your critics? My questions on here last night may have been harsh, but were met with unbelievably personal and angry attacks from "drummergirl," who proceeded to call me every insult in the book.

You fired first, so what did you expect? Am I supposed to act like some defenseless little girl because you call me names? If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

This is you. If you don't like the term, don't do it. I call them as I see them.

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

 

[1stAmendguy]

I don't have a mathematics background, but I like to read this thread.

To 1836 and brandon did you read this part of the Mod note in the OP?

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

The moderators have suggested that you please direct your criticisms of this project somewhere else, not here.

 

[drummergirl]

Laugh if you want. Law enforcement is slow and academia is slower.

First, no professor will publish until they have received a grant. They'll do about half of the work, put in a grant application, wait to receive the grant money, then put the article out for peer review and wait to be published. That process takes 2-3 years.

Similarly, a professor might be kind enough and interested enough to look over some data and talk with you about what you are seeing, but they would not put their name on it until the article is published in the peer reviewed journal.

The absolute most one would do as far as an endorsement would be to say to a reporter something like, "Yes, I've seen the presentation and it looks very interesting. I haven't yet had the opportunity to study the problem fully." As they have some graduate student staying up nights writing the grant application as fast as possible.

 

[affa]

plenty of people have went on the record about various past potential conspiracies, from JFK through 9/11. Rather than lend credence to the theory, the anti-conspiracy folk who refuse to even entertain the idea that people might get together to do something terrible to make money simply band together to tarnish the whistleblower's reputation.

expecting someone with a recognizable name to simply jump on board at this point is just plain silly. first off, it doesn't work like that, and as stated by drummergirl, would certainly take a long time (longer than we have, most likely). besides, no amount of evidence, or professional opinions, will convince some of you, because some of you exist solely to deny the possibility, misdirect, and confuse.

 

[1836]

Red herring. We are analyzing actual election results. Polls might give a clue, but they are mostly irrelevant.

That is a remarkably ignorant statement.

You can actually prove the statistical validity of polling results averaged over time and further, studies have been done that confirm this. If you wanted to confirm it yourselves, then you could plot all the data points from respected independent pollsters (say, RCP's chosen data set) on a graph and run regression lines with predictions of where the candidate's total should end up. Then you could take a number of similar other data sets from other races with similar overall characteristics and do the same, and then average it out once you had a decent sample size to see clearly the mean deviation (hint: it's not much).

What I'm saying is that you can prove that polls are not irrelevant and are in fact statistically valid over the long term and with a given sample size of races and data sets, you can actually even prove it for yourself! Even in the case of Ron Paul outperforming his expectations in particularly New Hampshire and South Carolina, you can see that the reasons were due to variables outside the pollsters' control and completely expected if the demographics had been known ahead of time. In fact, if you had the raw pollster data, you could theoretically adjust the poll methodology after the fact using the actual election demographics to come up with a more accurate picture of the final election results. Pollsters have to estimate demographic makeup, and likelihood of voting, which are the single greatest variables leading to polling error.

Therefore, polls are not irrelevant.

This crashes right into your conclusions which fly in the face of polling results, because they can be averaged state by state, candidate by candidate, whether you are talking about Ron Paul or someone else.

If your conclusions are sound, you would expect there to be some kind of consistent correlation with the independent pre-election day pollsters in the long run. Then again, you might also find that you're consistently wrong – perhaps that's why you have avoided dealing with this topic by just shooing it aside (rather convenient to prove your hypothesis, by shutting out data you don't like).