Flipping the vote against Ron Paul in South Carolina?

[Mark37snj]

we can't pick a journalist, they can only pick this story.

we're on a public discussion board right now, on a forum known to the media, with the most dynamic and popular thread in ages. (short of flash in the pan debate night threads).

Well Ron Paul Forums have never picked them in a positive way, but in a negative way for communicating our displeasure regarding their latest hit piece...oh yeaaaaaaah

 

[chri5opher]

//

 

[Danan]

we can't pick a journalist, they can only pick this story.

we're on a public discussion board right now, on a forum known to the media, with the most dynamic and popular thread in ages. (short of flash in the pan debate night threads).

Well the guy is not a "fan" or member of the campaign. He has just proven himself to be a very good investigative journalist. I didn't suggest to "hire" a journalist for this cause or anything like that. But there a few diffrent ways to continue with this stuff as of know. One would be to summ-up everything we have, hire a few stasticians and spread everything we have to good journalists (like thy guy i mentioned) and other political figures that could be interested (like the other guy I mentioned).

Onother possible strategy would be to try to complete the whole story in-house. But that would need serious help from the campaign or a PAC (btw before you contact a PAC about this stuff: consider that the campaign and the PACs are not allowed to work on the same subject, so consider this too).

But I do agree that we have to be very careful at this point. If you think that deleting the names would help anything at this point I would edit my post.

Edit: But I guess this whole stuff is to complex for me right know, especially since I haven't read every single post in this thread. I'm confident you can handle this without me. =)

 

[Mark37snj]

It may not be necessary to contact anyone cause like affa said, They are watching us... Either way, we still have other tasks to take care of but I don't think we will ignore preparing to contact the media because were assuming they will take care of it. We can prepare and if necessary contact them when ready if they don't make the first move.

 

[bbwarfield]

The campaign cannot work with a pac... this is true.

If the campaign releases it... it looks like they are just throwing fecal matter around like monkeys

If a pac releases it... the campaign can reference the information.... but they are not stained with the idea of a sore loser bringing the temple down on there own heads

 

[Danan]

The campaign cannot work with a pac... this is true.

If the campaign releases it... it looks like they are just throwing fecal matter around like monkeys

If a pac releases it... the campaign can reference the information.... but they are not stained with the idea of a sore loser bringing the temple down on there own heads

Yeah that's true. Haven't thought of this.

 

[cjm]

I am trying to help by steering us away from data that is suspect to data that is more credible. This is a group effort.... im not discouraging anyone from looking at every possibility.... but when I see a possibility that runs us down the wrong path I am trying to point it out.

Methodology..... Methodology.... Methodology

I pointed out in posts #404 and #418 that the projections may be incorrect due to the samples used and that the margin of error on the projection may be a lot higher when using the proper formula. Then again, those projections and MOEs may be no different than what they are now. I don't know.

Statistical methods depend on random sampling and the precincts used for the projections are decidedly non-random. I know that the theory of fraud in high turnout precincts means that they have to be excluded from the sample, but I haven't yet seen a convincing justification that says selecting all the low turnout precincts is a good method for projecting vote totals.

 

[The Man]

Hey CJM I asked an exit poller to tell me how accurate an exit poll would be if only polling the smallest precincts and he responded:
"the z value or standard deviation would be larger which would mean that instead of a 5 percent margin of error, you would have a 7 or maybe 8 percent MoE. In any exit poll a good number is around 400. When a national poll is taken most agencies use around 1000 as the base number. Even though 1000 is a fraction of the population, the data is considered representative of the group statistically. But do not be fooled by numbers. A 5% margin of error, in no way means that the final number will be five percent higher or lower. What the MoE really states is that if another poll was taken that 95% of the time the results would be within 3 standard deviations of the original. The large polling agencies will never explain this to the public, just as we probably will never explain it to the public, because it is confusing and takes years of study to truly understand how to create a survey and questions with validity and reliability. In South Carolina, I have heard reports that our numbers - the ones we feel were manipulated- are actually pretty close to another firms findings."
I'm just the messenger.

 

[wetroof]

I know that the theory of fraud in high turnout precincts means that they have to be excluded from the sample, but I haven't yet seen a convincing justification that says selecting all the low turnout precincts is a good method for projecting vote totals.

It's not. we know a correlation exists between precinct size and vote distribution in SC, in other states. ordering the cumulative vote by precinct size helps to show the correlation. If there was not a correlation the graph should be basically flat, and not have a consistent upward or downward trend. If you want to project out vote totals from limited data, we have learned you will not do very well if the data is from small precincts.

 

[Lord Xar]

Based on the findings, has the vote flipping caused Ron Paul any "placed finishes"? Curious if without it, would he have won or 2nd placed any states?

Second, with a few contests coming up, then super tuesday - perhaps it might be a good idea to get this info out there to forstall any shennanigans that might be planned... ie.. drawing attention to it now, will perhaps prevent it... Or maybe they will just create a more robust algorithm.

thoughts.

 

[The Man]

Check your vote total on Greenville County. It should be around 73k votes. I still give you an "A+" because you mentioned my name.

Let's start with a small hommage to The Man and his moment of genius. He has shown that in Anderson, SC and Greenville, SC, there is an apparent 1-to-1 vote flip between Romney and Paul. It is spectacular because the result is that Romney and Paul actual swap their final score!

Here are the 2 counties using my representation. It is totally mathematically equivalent to The Man's original work. The very same data from another angle.

On those chart, a 1-to-1 vote flip which ends up as a final score swap is very easy to detect. You want to see a cross between 2 candidates, and final candidates' scores at 100% equal to what they are on the left part of the chart. In Anderson, Romney scores at 100% is Paul's at 10%, and vice versa.

Notice as well that what The Man's plotted rightly as the fit-to-trend scores of Gingrich and Santorum become simply dead flat line on those charts. And boy, are they dead flat! "Natural", to be expected/predicted flatlines...

Now do those 1-to-1+final score swap crosses happen a lot? No. A quick perusal reveals another one in Greenwood and that's about it. Out of 47 counties. So flipping votes is the goal, complete score swap looks like a collateral, unintended coincidence.

 

[wetroof]

some more data, if anyone wants to see
and, thanks for the thoughts affa. It's just interesting to see 08 data. could potentially build a better argument for voter-fraud. if that is what is occurring.

hillsborough

NHhills08-12 by wetroof1, on Flickr

rockingham

NHrock08-12 by wetroof1, on Flickr

 

[Mark37snj]

Based on the findings, has the vote flipping caused Ron Paul any "placed finishes"? Curious if without it, would he have won or 2nd placed any states?

From what they have analysed so far this is what it looks like it cost us:

Iowa - tough call, but it would have been between Paul and Santorum for 1st with Romeny a very distant 3rd, cost Paul atleast one placing
NH - I'm gona abstain
Maine - cost us 1st
Nevada - cost us 2nd
SC - no change, but I'm not gona bet the farm on that


EDIT: I still don't like what I'm seeing at low vote totals, some perculiar patterns there

 

[bbwarfield]

whether it cost us a position or not is irrelevant.... what has doug weed been saying?

"these primaries and caucuses have been moved up for the benefit of romney.... the south is all proportional so romney can get a chunk of the delegate count"

We lose delegates whether or not we lost position.... 2nd by 100 votes is no delegate count change.... but 2nd by 5 or 6 thousand? we all think we have this super secret delegate strategy with caucuses..... romneys got a super secret delegate plan with primaries.... up the percentage of his votes and lower the others.... hell get more delegates or stifle the leads of the others

 

[Mark37snj]

whether it cost us a position or not is irrelevant.... what has doug weed been saying?

"these primaries and caucuses have been moved up for the benefit of romney.... the south is all proportional so romney can get a chunk of the delegate count"

We lose delegates whether or not we lost position.... 2nd by 100 votes is no delegate count change.... but 2nd by 5 or 6 thousand? we all think we have this super secret delegate strategy with caucuses..... romneys got a super secret delegate plan with primaries.... up the percentage of his votes and lower the others.... hell get more delegates or stifle the leads of the others

Thats as far as the Campaigns official strategy goes. Politics is Perception. What was the cost in the Perception catagory for Paul? Momentum, Votes, Donations... We might even have locked this thing up by now. No one can know all the possibilities of what could have happened if there was no rigging but we do know that if the election was not rigged then Paul would be in better shape Perception wise, momentum wise, votes wise, and donations wise. At the very least it would have been a more favorable playing field. But we are just acessing what was stolen from Paul, what we could have gained. Just because Paul's strategy is a delegate strategy does not mean we shouldn't care about this theft and its impact on the campaign. I firmly believe the delegate strategy is a winning strategy but I also believe that you get eveything else you can because its makes the official strategy more likely to succeed.

I see your point of the primary rescheduling will counter our delegate strategy, but if we can make it to the second round of delegate voting then our strategy will be in a much stronger position then Romney's. We just need to make sure he does not get enough delegates to win it in the first round which is why we need all the positive perception we can get.

 

[cjm]

Hey CJM I asked an exit poller to tell me how accurate an exit poll would be if only polling the smallest precincts and he responded:
"the z value or standard deviation would be larger which would mean that instead of a 5 percent margin of error, you would have a 7 or maybe 8 percent MoE. In any exit poll a good number is around 400. When a national poll is taken most agencies use around 1000 as the base number. Even though 1000 is a fraction of the population, the data is considered representative of the group statistically. But do not be fooled by numbers. A 5% margin of error, in no way means that the final number will be five percent higher or lower. What the MoE really states is that if another poll was taken that 95% of the time the results would be within 3 standard deviations of the original. The large polling agencies will never explain this to the public, just as we probably will never explain it to the public, because it is confusing and takes years of study to truly understand how to create a survey and questions with validity and reliability. In South Carolina, I have heard reports that our numbers - the ones we feel were manipulated- are actually pretty close to another firms findings."
I'm just the messenger.

Hmmm. It almost sounds like the exit pollster you know is saying that exit polls don't predict anything, the margin of error just indicates the level of repeatability in the results of the sample. If that were the case, exit polling would be worthless. I suspect this person just quickly dashed off a response and didn't proofread. Exit polls should be able to predict outcomes, otherwise they are pretty useless. An exit poll with a confidence level of 95% and margin of error of 5% says that the final result should be within 5% of the polled result 95% of the time. This allows for the unexpected outcome like a 20% difference in the expected result 5% of the time. I've seen a few statements about some of these charts being "impossible" but "improbable" is a better word to use. We should be able to calculate the probability of what we're seeing in the many charts that you guys have put together. What are the odds of this happening? is it 1 in 5? or 1 in a billion? The calculated odds make a big difference in the persuasiveness of the argument.

Also note that the exit poller states, "instead of a 5 percent margin of error, you would have a 7 or maybe 8 percent MoE." This really should be written as, "if you have a 5 percent MOE....." If you start with a 10% MOE, then you're looking at a 14% or maybe 16% MOE by cherry picking your precincts? Many of these "flips" or "criss-crosses" can fall within a 16% MOE and prove to be statistically "expected." The real MOE will vary from county to county since the MOE for cluster sampling depends on the variability within the cluster and variability between clusters.

From Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University

Cluster sampling: The formula for the margin of error in an estimate derived via cluster sampling is quite complex. In essence, the formula uses the within-cluster variability amongst individuals, and the between-cluster variability, to estimate how much additional variability exists in the clusters from which data was not collected. Still, the approach of using historical data or data from a pilot study to determine the number of clusters from which to collect data, and how much data to collect from within each selected cluster, parallels the approach used in stratified sampling.

Here's another piece on cluster sampling that suggests our flips/criss-crosses may be within the margin of error.

Take these chart for example:

If the sample size required to get a 3% MOE is at the 50% mark in total votes, then these charts simply highlight that the county exhibits great between-cluster variability and the final results are within the MOE for the sample size since they start to flatline at that 50% mark.

Now then, please don't get me wrong. When I see charts that are not flatlining after hitting the 90% or 95% mark, instinctively I know something is wrong. But as bbwarfield has been saying, we need to dot our i's and cross our t's with regard to the methodology and calculate our odds. Each of these apparently freak occurrences can happen. We can't say they're impossible. But we have to do the math and state that the likelihood of these results are 1 in (whatever). That's when we have a story.

Forgive me for saying "this needs to be done" without contributing to that myself. I live in a Super Tuesday State and it's been a busy week here.

 

[Mark37snj]

Now then, please don't get me wrong. When I see charts that are not flatlining after hitting the 90% or 95% mark, instinctively I know something is wrong. But as bbwarfield has been saying, we need to dot our i's and cross our t's with regard to the methodology and calculate our odds. Each of these apparently freak occurrences can happen. We can't say they're impossible. But we have to do the math and state that the likelihood of these results are 1 in (whatever). That's when we have a story.

Forgive me for saying "this needs to be done" without contributing to that myself. I live in a Super Tuesday State and it's been a busy week here.

Nick picking Methodology is fine and all but we are past the point of needing to prove fraud, it has been proven. There has already been statistical smoking guns produced in this thread where Methodology is not an issue. Those freaks of occurrences that your saying can happen may have happened, and we may very well find them here and there, but they will not change the proven evidence we have already because those instances of freak occurrences have been proven to be impossible. They are beyond the realm of statistical possibility. And the kind of statistical methodology that some here are asking for, is quite frankly, beyond the capability of this Forum, atleast for it being finished before the 2016 election because I'm sure as soon as one methodology analysis is over another will pop up and say this must be done because it HAS to be done right. We already have instances where the math was done and it was proved that those election results were impossible. Now if your concerned that using the word impossible is not warrented then maybe our stats team will indulge you by putting a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 which is the same as saying they are impossible, especially when when you calculate the odds of multiple 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 occuring in the same election.

 

[cjm]

Now if your concerned that using the word impossible is not warrented then maybe our stats team will indulge you by putting a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 which is the same as saying they are impossible, especially when when you calculate the odds of multiple 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 occuring in the same election.

Yes please. Show me the work. Thanks.

 

[Mark37snj]

Start here http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...g-the-vote-against-Ron-Paul-in-South-Carolina A Little late nite humor.

 

[cjm]

Start here http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...g-the-vote-against-Ron-Paul-in-South-Carolina A Little late nite humor.

Humor acknowledged, but with all due respect, the science of statistics doesn't prove conclusions by simply asserting those conclusions repeatedly. Also, it's not "nit picking methodology" to point out that accepted methodology was not followed. I'm not saying that the conclusions are wrong here, but since alternate, non-standard methodologies were used, they need to be justified. Once justified, the probability of the observed results needs to be calculated so that we can scientifically evaluate the results of these primaries and caucuses.