Flipping the vote against Ron Paul in South Carolina?

[The Man]

In almost every "significant County", the graph of total votes vs. votes each candidate looks like a second order positive parabola for Romney and a negative parabola for the victim of vote theft. The most jaw-dropping example I have seen is the graph someone posted of the entire state of Iowa, Total votes vs. Votes each candidate. Thursday night, I was able to see the 2008 data from the SC Primary for the very first time. Whereas this "parabola effect" is prevalent in nearly every "significant" county in the 2012 Primary, it was nowhere to be found in the 2008!!!!! This was the holy grail of proof to me. I had planned on posting the results after the analyst down here looked at it. Liberty 1789, do you agree with me when I say that we should fully analyze these 2008 vs 2012 results to easily prove this "parabola" effect?
Edit: This "parabola effect" can easily be created in the Electronic Voting Machine firmware/ software. The algorithm would be something like "at total vote count 200, every 2nd RP vote = MR vote." Because there are multiple machines at most precincts (at least here in SC), this "giving every other vote of Paul's to Romney" would engage in precincts that have a single EVM at vote #200 but would not engage in precincts with multiple vote machines until a higher number. I have theorized that this is what we are seeing. Please give me your thoughts everyone.

Ok. How do we seriously, professionally tell when votes where flipped or not? What is a natural staight line and one doctored with?

Just staring at graphs is not so convincing. Fair enough.

It's gonna be tricky for those without stat training. The others will see quickly why I start to speak of absolute mathematical proof of vote rigging.

Here are the Republican Primary results for Palm Beach. Loads of voters and precincts. Perfect. Look at the charts:

In 2008, something extraordinary goes on.

McCain's score goes dead flat very early. This is what one should expect. You cumulate so many votes so quickly that you can reliably project Mc Cain's final score at 100% with the score at 10%. Good.

Now look at the rest of the pack.

Romney climbs CONSTANTLY at the sole expense of the 3 others.

How constantly? That is what the table below the chart explains. Even though all the candidates' lines look identically straight to the naked eye from 50% cumulative onwards, they are totally different mathematical animals to the analytical microscope.

The variation in the cumulative % (X-axis) explains 97-98% of the variation in the score of Giulani, Huckabee, Paul and Romney (it is what the R-squared number means). Those 4 lines are identically straight. Amazingly straight. Algorithmetically smoothed. McCain's line is not at all like them. McCain was just left alone.

F factor and t-stat are sophisticated statistical indicators giving the probability of this happening by chance. The higher the value, the lower the chance of simply random correlation. F and t are HUGE, leaving no room whatsoever for chance.

Now 2012.

Well, the vote flipper was pissed. All candidates were bled for Romney this time around. Landslide time. No mercy...

Go viral with your math friends and let us now.

This looks utterly undebunkable to the best of my judgement, but that might not be saying much.

 

[bbwarfield]

this is the problem with mixing south carolina and iowa numbers

Pictures like this make people think penguins natural enemy is the polar bear.... but Polar Bears live in the NORTH polar regions and penguins live in the SOUTH polar regions.... they never meet naturally

Iowa is hand written ballot caucus state..... South Carolina is electronic voting primary state.....

Do polar bears have animals they like to eat? yes..... do penguins have things that like to eat them? yes........ they are just not each other

EDIT: You are painting a picture with statistics... when people see it... you want it to be clear and irrefutable.... if the picture shows correlation between two things of a very different nature.... the average person will not notice. But someone who knows the difference between the two types of data... aka a professional election number cruncher...... will dismiss the whole thing as quickly as a bioligist would reject this cartoon.... theyll never get past the fact you mixed a polar bear and a penguin in the wild..... even if it was for the point of humor..... someone like me who studied political science... wont forgive mixing caucus data and primary data... even if its for the point of proving fraud

but a picture that includes the two is something that belongs in the Far Side comics..... not in statistical analysis

 

[bbwarfield]

here is a more convincing photo of polar bears and penguins!

notice this is not a hand drawn picture.... but photographic proof the polar bear is a sneaky bastard!!!!!!

(clearly a photoshop job.... but just because two pictures of real things are merged together so does two statystical pictures of real fraud being merged together make the entire thing LESS believable)

not trying to derail the discussion.... but pull the train back into the station for repairs

We need to keep the data seperate.... investigate both... but never draw conclusions between the two

 

[jjockers]

This is what you need to forward to your math/statistician teacher/friend. This is the mathematically impossible to the mathematical brain.

This is where we need feedback fast.

More evidence along those lines soon.

Debunk! Debunk! Debunk!

As others have said, this is not necessarily impossible. All that one would need to show is that the demographics/voter tendencies/campaign activities by Precinct size should give rise to this phenomenon.

Possible Examples:
Romney campaigned harder and spent more in large precincts
Romney team brought people to the voting booths in larger precincts
People in larger precincts naturally favor Romney (more rich, less socially conservative, etc)

While those three examples don't prove anything, I think the burden of proof is on us. They can just claim examples like those above and provide some general figures (likes $ spent in precinct, income levels, etc).

It'd be straightforward to add fields such as average income to the interactive file below, but we'd need the data. I'd also like to add more state information (currently just 59k votes from the IOWA caucus).

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/63868969/RPF/iowaanalysis_dist.xlsm

 

[The Man]

Hey Jjockers I believe that the Iowa graph must be off by a scale factor of two. Check me on this, but I believe there were 120k voters in Iowa.

 

[bbwarfield]

As others have said, this is not necessarily impossible. All that one would need to show is that the demographics/voter tendencies/campaign activities by Precinct size should give rise to this phenomenon.

Possible Examples:
Romney campaigned harder and spent more in large precincts
Romney team brought people to the voting booths in larger precincts
People in larger precincts naturally favor Romney (more rich, less socially conservative, etc)

While those three examples don't prove anything, I think the burden of proof is on us. They can just claim examples like those above and provide some general figures (likes $ spent in precinct, income levels, etc).

It'd be straightforward to add fields such as average income to the interactive file below, but we'd need the data. I'd also like to add more state information (currently just 59k votes from the IOWA caucus).

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/63868969/RPF/iowaanalysis_dist.xlsm

Exactly..... Iowa has a disproportionate amount of demographic (as in targeted voter GOTV, robo calling, direct mailings) changes (romney spoke to the largest precinct in the state for example)

South Carolina had this but no where to that degree. Was there quite a bit? yes.... but nothing similar

 

[cjm]

Ok. How do we seriously, professionally tell when votes where flipped or not? What is a natural staight line and one doctored with?

Just staring at graphs is not so convincing. Fair enough.

It's gonna be tricky for those without stat training.

I don't have any significant stat training, and yes, it was tricky, but I think your perseverance paid off. Thanks for this explanation, I think I get it now.

In the original Anderson County document, there seems to have been two arguments for fraud: (a) the uniformity of the "swap" -- what The Man was calling the parabola effect, and (b) the fact that Romney's total ended up where Paul's should have been and vice versa. Not being versed in the high level statistical methods, it was easier for me to grasp the idea of projected totals and results not ending up where they should have been. The subsequent discussions about R-squares seemed to me, again as non-stat guy, to be an attempt to reinforce the projections without addressing the reliability of non-random sample selection. It now seems to me that the two arguments are independent of each other. For those that have been saying this all along, my apologies. It's been a busy week and this has been a fast moving and highly technical thread.

If I may summarize in my own words, maybe you can confirm that I get it.

We don't care about projected totals (ends), we care about the nature of the plotted line itself (means). The plot lines can be on different frequencies, but they should appear as white noise. What the R-squares and t-stats are saying is that the signal itself is non-random.

I'm sure this is technically inaccurate, but is this pretty much what's going on?

 

[jjockers]

Hey Jjockers I believe that the Iowa graph must be off by a scale factor of two. Check me on this, but I believe there were 120k voters in Iowa.

Correct, though the graphed data is % votes so shouldn't be off by a scale factor. The data I have only has 59k votes (http://bradblog.com/Docs/IowaCaucus2012PrecinctResults_010512_0738pmPT.csv). Do you have access to more data?

 

[bbwarfield]

try counting iowa ballots in a machine? this is an image taken DURING a caucus during the count

south carolina ballot


yo cant tabulate Iowas by electronic tabulation. Other wise Ron Paul would not have gotten the first ballot cause u would need to OCR scan the dang thing.

If we want to prove ELECTRONIC VOTING MANIPULATION we need to target our search and not broaden it

And to show you what a machine tabulatable hand ballot looks like

This is an Oklahoma ballot.... BUT for those of you have seen this picture before it is labeled as one form the iowa caucuses.... these were not used.... but the picture looks nice so some media outlets used this image rather than one from iowa

Each county had its choice of how it wanted to present the ballot..... but no images of machine ballots exist

New Hampshire had a mix of electronic and standard
here is a electronic tabulation ballot

 

[Liberty1789]

I have 59,088 votes in Iowa.

59 vote precinct demographics cannot differ significantly from 75 vote precincts demographics.

 

[jjockers]

yo cant tabulate Iowas by electronic tabulation. Other wise Ron Paul would not have gotten the first ballot cause u would need to OCR scan the dang thing.

If we want to prove ELECTRONIC VOTING MANIPULATION we need to target our search and not broaden it

Except we're not proving electronic voting manipulation yet. There is a phenomenon that we're trying to understand. Fraud is just 1 potential explanation. We should be careful not to limit the analysis on that which some hope to be the explanation.

The 'flipping' seems to occur in caucus and primary states, so electronic voting manipulation is not likely to fully explain the issue.

 

[bbwarfield]

Except we're not proving electronic voting manipulation yet. There is a phenomenon that we're trying to understand. Fraud is just 1 potential explanation. We should be careful not to limit the analysis on that which some hope to be the explanation.

The 'flipping' seems to occur in caucus and primary states, so electronic voting manipulation is not likely to fully explain the issue.

And I fully agree with that.

I just want it made perfectly clear that we cant prove fraud in ALL states.... where im sure there was fraud..... but if we prove voter fraud in one state we can make a great case..... if we over reach and they disprove us in one state.... they disprove it all.

Al Capone didnt go to jail for his real crimes.... but tax fraud.
We only need to prove fraud once.... Iowa I think will show to be demographics/vs Romneys pocket book

Here is a video showing how you manipulate the tabulators used in NH



Electronic Voting Tabulation Manipulation is what I see as the answer

 

[bbwarfield]

Except we're not proving electronic voting manipulation yet. There is a phenomenon that we're trying to understand. Fraud is just 1 potential explanation. We should be careful not to limit the analysis on that which some hope to be the explanation.

The 'flipping' seems to occur in caucus and primary states, so electronic voting manipulation is not likely to fully explain the issue.

my apologies..... i think i misunderstood you at first.... by all means lets get the overall data first.... if all we are doing is collecting thats great
But when we get down to analyzing I truly think New Hampshire..... south carolina... and Florida.... will be the three places you can prove fraud the easiest and not be shot down on demographic issues

 

[The Man]

From Google:

Results for Iowa Republican Caucus (U.S. Presidential Primary)
Jan 03, 2012 (>99% of precincts reporting)
Rick Santorum 29,839 24.6%
Mitt Romney 29,805 24.5%
Ron Paul 26,036 21.4%
Newt Gingrich 16,163 13.3%
Rick Perry 12,557 10.3%
Michele Bachmann 6,046 5%
Jon Huntsman 739 0.6%
Other 316 0.3%

I have 59,088 votes in Iowa.

59 vote precinct demographics cannot differ significantly from 75 vote precincts demographics.

 

[jjockers]

Electronic Voting Tabulation Manipulation is what I see as the answer

It's possible, but 1 part of the demographic defense would be: If EVTM caused this "vote flipping", then why do we see the same pattern in caucus states?


If you come across a good resource for precinct data beyond Iowa, let me know! Unfortunately I've not found a solid, organized source for the info, so I've only Iowa to examine.

 

[bbwarfield]

It's possible, but 1 part of the demographic defense would be: If EVTM caused this "vote flipping", then why do we see the same pattern in caucus states?


If you come across a good resource for precinct data beyond Iowa, let me know! Unfortunately I've not found a solid, organized source for the info, so I've only Iowa to examine.

EDIT: That is a legitimate argument.... our data could be debunked for looking to narrowly so by all means look at all the data.

caucus states are highly volatile.... the main reason entrance polls and polling companies say they do not like to deal with caucus states and for the most part skip them. If they do do them its always followed with a "but then again... its a caucus state" type statement.

You can check iowa to a degree for fraud.... watch the vote took numbers from attendees who watched the vote.... smaller precincts are the most commonly missed (but they are where we did better) but larger ones were usually independently verified and sent to watch the vote.....
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...ppQ1B4MlZiS2I3d29hNW1helZaNHc&hl=en_US#gid=99 click the county tab at the bottom

Alot are missing... but enough are there to help in the iowa fraud case (keep note that observer bias is a major problem here cause some larger precincts were not recorded cause people didnt like the result and never sent it in)

 

[The Man]

In the end, there will be zero question that Mitt Romney's vote receiving percentage in larger precincts of "significant" counties perfectly correlates with only one factor, and that factor is the total number of votes at each the precinct. There simply is no practical demographic combination that can arguably correlate closely enough with the number of raw precinct votes to explain this.
Definition of "significant county" by Liberty1789's standard: Within the vote flipping threshold.

 

[bbwarfield]

I dont understand how in Iowa you would need a threshold.... you just report whatever dang numbers you feel safe reporting. You can say 2000 romney and 167 paul.... as long as your not using a number higher than the reasonalby expected number of people at your caucus site.... no one will care

of course you would get caught by your fellow caucusers that were there... especially since you are allowed partisan observers during the counting... id expect the fraud really in smaller counties

South Carolina is the smoking gun for me...... iowa is just a gun shop....

 

[bbwarfield]

also.... im seeing no graphs with rick perry or bachman..... perry did very well in small precincts in iowa.... same with bachman.... Perry actually beat Romney in a good number of precincts under 200

 

[The Man]

the simple answer to that.... any criminal who doesn't want to be caught has an alabi

caucus states are highly volatile.... the main reason entrance polls and polling companies say they do not like to deal with caucus states and for the most part skip them. If they do do them its always followed with a "but then again... its a caucus state" type statement.

You can check iowa to a degree for fraud.... watch the vote took numbers from attendees who watched the vote.... smaller precincts are the most commonly missed (but they are where we did better) but larger ones were usually independently verified and sent to watch the vote.....
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...ppQ1B4MlZiS2I3d29hNW1helZaNHc&hl=en_US#gid=99 click the county tab at the bottom

Alot are missing... but enough are there to help in the iowa fraud case (keep note that observer bias is a major problem here cause some larger precincts were not recorded cause people didnt like the result and never sent it in)

Look, the GOP chair resigns after the Caucus because he has a conscience. What's the probability that the final tally has 2 candidates within 20/ 6/ ? votes of each other? Pllllllllllllllllleeeeeeeeease!!!!!!! The Vote graph on this thread of Iowa gives us a clue about how the votes were "counted" in Iowa, not the other way around!!!