Flipping the vote against Ron Paul in South Carolina?

[affa]

Well, there was a link that worked earlier this day. Now I don't see neither a embeded picture, nor a link.

ugh. it goes back and forth working for me. i see both the link and the jpg.

the link is:
http://image.bayimg.com/damcpaado.jpg

that is:

httpXXXXXX://image.bayimg.com/damcpaado.jpg

legend is in post 846.

can someone please see if it embeds for them? it's liberty's SC charts put onto a census map.

 

[Danan]

ugh. it goes back and forth working for me. i see both the link and the jpg.

the link is:
http://image.bayimg.com/damcpaado.jpg

that is:

httpXXXXXX://image.bayimg.com/damcpaado.jpg

legend is in post 846.

can someone please see if it embeds for them? it's liberty's SC charts put onto a census map.

The link doesn't work now (at least not for me).

White page, "403 - Forbidden". But like I already said: It worked earlier this day.

I also don't see it embeded.

 

[affa]

Do these demographic explanations even matter at all if we can prove a statistically very unlikely (or impossible) voter shift kicking in and increasing at various precinct sizes?

In order to matter the demographic would have to change at the exact same rate as the voting results shift. And that all over SC (and probably even more states). That doesn't sound very reasonable. Also, I don't really think it's possible for anyone in the grassroots to check every possible demographical explanation - that sounds like a hell of work.

SNIP... or there is something very special in Mitt's personality that causes him to gain votes by precinct size with an astronomical precision that would force every statistician into insanity and this project is pointless.
SNIP

Yes, exactly, basically. There is no way to 'prove' it that I could think of other than the statistical improbability of what has already been shown. That is, effectively, The Man and Liberty have already proven this couldn't possibly be 'demographics'. Add in that 1:1 flipping doesn't even make logical sense, and it's a non-issue in my opinion. Except it's not, because...

We need to keep addressing this issue because it's the 'go to' debunk for those who either haven't read the thread or haven't quite internalized the ramifications of what we're seeing. Heck, it could be the water, right? Different water sources might explain algorithmic smoothing creating a 1:1 vote flip that always benefits Romney...

 

[hillertexas]

ugh. it goes back and forth working for me. i see both the link and the jpg.

the link is:
http://image.bayimg.com/damcpaado.jpg

that is:

httpXXXXXX://image.bayimg.com/damcpaado.jpg

legend is in post 846.

can someone please see if it embeds for them? it's liberty's SC charts put onto a census map.

No....when I click on your link it says "403 - Forbidden"

 

[lakerssuck92]

I think this is it...

 

[affa]

The link doesn't work now (at least not for me).

White page, "403 - Forbidden". But like I already said: It worked earlier this day.

I also don't see it embeded.

here is the original link (as opposed to a direct link)
http://bayimg.com/daMcpAADO

if anyone knows how to embed, please.

 

[Mark37snj]

We have to be careful with this one. The "why Romney?" question is murky. The answer to the "Why?" question could vary from county to county and election year to election year based on demographics. Debunks have been offered that have not been statistically dis-proven. The relative Republican-ness can explain shifts between Paul and Romney in some counties. This doesn't explain Romney-Huckabee, but it doesn't need to. Different years, different demographics, etc. The burden is on the statistician to prove there's something there, the burden is not on the denier to prove there is nothing there.

The statistics focused on in this thread (algorithmic smoothing) cannot explain why, they can only demonstrate that it is Romney. I would just leave it at that.

The Why you are referring to here is the Human factor. Why is this algorithym always benefitting Romeny? Because that is the way it was programmed. Why did the programmers want to benefit Romney? We may never know and I don't belieive it is a statistics issue. Maybe they liked his hair, or liked his flip flopping, or maybe because Romney is for Big Business and Big Goverment and he made a deal, who knows. But the Why is Romney always benefitting from this vote fipping is not something we need to prove on this board or something that can be proven statistically.

Do we see the same pattern of voter shift in various counties in every state or do different strange voting behaviors occur depending on the state? If the latter is the case, do these patterns correlate with the way the ballots were counted (do hand-counted ballots show a different pattern then machine-counted)?

If the same pattern emerged in Iowa as in counties that used electronic voting (even if it just happend in very few counties in Iowa) we do have a little problem. Either our Paul-campaign vote counters in Iowa didn't do a good job and were wrong (or fooled) or there is something very special in Mitt's personality that causes him to gain votes by precinct size with an astronomical precision that would force every statistician into insanity and this project is pointless. Because even if we could come up with a good story about voter fraud in SC, they could just debunk it and say that the same pattern exists in other precincts without electronic voting machines.

Again: Did the very same pattern that could have been caused by voting machines in SC occur at least once in another county where the ballots were hand-counted in public?

This is why IOWA may be the MOST IMPORTANT state to prove electronic voter fraud occured. There are two possible culprits, that we know of, that are responsible for this voting flip. One is the electronic voting machines they vote on. The other is the Central Tabulation Center where all the votes from all the races goes to first before being sent back to the state to be reproted and realeased to the media. This one company can change an entire states votes count on one machine before they send it back. This is a foreign company that processes the votes offshore, not in America. In a state like Iowa which was a caucus and hand counted those votes, the results were sent to a Central Tabulation Center offshore and Tabulated by this foreign company BEFORE being sent back to Iowa to be released to the media.

EDIT: Here is a link to an article that talks about that company http://healthfreedom2012.com/HFblog...-paul-the-role-of-benchmark-israel-sctyl-soe/

 

[bbwarfield]

This is why IOWA may be the MOST IMPORTANT state to prove electronic voter fraud occured. There are two possible culprits, that we know of, that are responsible for this voting flip. One is the electronic voting machines they vote on. The other is the Central Tabulation Center where all the votes from all the races goes to first before being sent back to the state to be reproted and realeased to the media. This one company can change an entire states votes count on one machine before they send it back. This is a foreign company that processes the votes offshore, not in America. In a state like Iowa which was a caucus and hand counted those votes, the results were sent to a Central Tabulation Center offshore and Tabulated by this foreign company BEFORE being sent back to Iowa to be released to the media.

EDIT: Here is a link to an article that talks about that company http://healthfreedom2012.com/HFblog...-paul-the-role-of-benchmark-israel-sctyl-soe/

I dont want to get in this again..... but no electronic tabulation occured in Iowa... scytl is the company used by South Caronlina and a couple Florida counties

For proof just look at the companies website

 

[hillertexas]

here is the original link (as opposed to a direct link)
http://bayimg.com/daMcpAADO

if anyone knows how to embed, please.

its weird...i couldn't embed yours so i ran it through my photobucket.

 

[bbwarfield]

double post

 

[bbwarfield]

In a state like Iowa which was a caucus and hand counted those votes, the results were sent to a Central Tabulation Center offshore and Tabulated by this foreign company BEFORE being sent back to Iowa to be released to the media.

Iowas votes were centrally tabulated by the party at a "secret location" that media and campaigns had representatives at. This was covered extensively by the media cause they did it due to worries about "threats from the OWS"
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...-counting-moved-due-to-occupy-caucus-concerns

the only electronic tabulation was probably excel spreadsheets at the GOP offices in Iowa.... but scytl was not involved there

 

[Mark37snj]

Iowas votes were centrally tabulated by the party at a "secret location" that media and campaigns had representatives at. This was covered extensively by the media cause they did it due to worries about "threats from the OWS"

the only electronic tabulation was probably excel spreadsheets at the GOP offices in Iowa.... but scytl was not involved there

Yeah, the media and campaigns had representatives at some secret location where that offshore company sent their results to.

EDIT: We've seen the data on Iowa, its results were manipulated. ALL data is going to be released, hell it already has been released by being posted on this forum and on Google docs. Other investigators will determine the Who/What/When/Where/Why/How.

 

[bbwarfield]

Yeah, the media and campaigns had representatives at some secret location where that offshore company sent their results to.

EDIT: We've seen the data on Iowa, its results were manipulated. ALL data is going to be released, hell it already has been released by being posted on this forum and on Google docs. Other investigators will determine the Who/What/When/Where/Why/How.

manipulated yes.... but not by Scytel... my point is your making an assumption that no information suggests. I assume leprachauns are to blame and if you cant prove they werent.... ill continue with that!

Numbers in Iowa were manipulated... but not by Scytel.... not over seas.... find me an ARTICLE that says IOWA was counted over seas in the 2012 presidential preference straw poll.... and I will apologise and retire into obscuirty.

Dont post things that are false unless you have something to back it up

Repeat.... scytel has no presence in the iowa numbers... any manipulation was carried out by someone else

 

[Mark37snj]

manipulated yes.... but not by Scytel... my point is your making an assumption that no information suggests. I assume leprachauns are to blame and if you cant prove they werent.... ill continue with that!

Numbers in Iowa were manipulated... but not by Scytel.... not over seas....

So far the information proves that Scytel has its hands in many elections, its what they are being paid for. Scytel admits it, not one is denying it. The SAME anomolies that are occuring where we KNOW Scytel is involved just so HAPPEN to be occuring in Iowa as well. THE SAME ANOMOLIES, that means the same patterns, SD, T squared thingies. So the information we have so far MOST DEFINATELY SUGGESTS that Scytel is probably involved.

EDIT: MATHMATICAL FINGERPRINTS

 

[bbwarfield]

So the information we have so far MOST DEFINATELY SUGGESTS that Scytel is probably involved.

Except the facts dont support this assumption

 

[affa]

thanks hillertexas!!

Here is my original legend/post for this map:

ok, so i'm no graphic designer.

i took liberty's posts (starting around 737) in which he broke down SC by flipper on/off. Somewhere around there, he also pointed out that the flipper is not based upon total votes per county, but rather, total votes as percentage of... something. can't remember. just tried to find it and can't. liberty? anyway, knowing very little about SC geography, i wanted something a bit more visual.

gold star = Liberty detected NO vote flipping
BLUE star = Liberty detected theft from Gingrich to Romney
RED star = Liberty detected theft from Paul to Romney
NO star = Liberty didn't report on that county.

i put in approximate vote count for some of them - mostly where i found it interesting -- for example, the cluster of 8ks near each other that show vastly different results.

IMPORTANT: note that there are a couple 1:1 flips for Gingrich to Romney touching 1:1 flips for Paul to Romney. That's damning in my opinion. The string of 8k (Gingrich to no-flip to Paul) is also interesting.

 

[affa]

manipulated yes.... but not by Scytel...

SNIP

Repeat.... scytel has no presence in the iowa numbers... any manipulation was carried out by someone else

gotta agree with bbwarfield here; while it appears there is manipulation in both, we can not assume, and certainly should not post as fact, that exactly the same people were involved. is it a possibility? sure. but there are alternative options as well that don't involve a single company. and once you try to incriminate that company, people need only show they weren't involved in Iowa and it undermines the whole argument.

keep them separate. apples and oranges. both may be fraudulent, but they need to be dealt with differently and not forcefully treated as the same.

 

[affa]

regarding my SC map above... some more notes:

Notice that size of county (vote total OR population) doesn't indicate Paul dislike. Horry and Charleston, for example, both have dense populations and about 40k votes... but one siphons from Gingrich, the other Paul. Likewise, regions that have about 8k voters (and are in close proximity) can show no signs of fraud (normal distribution), flip against Paul, or flip against Gingrich.

Heck, Georgetown borders on both Horry and Charleston, but Paul flatlines with theft from Gingrich. None of this is possible. Even if Romney was super popular in certain regions of SC, you wouldn't have these clearly delineated lines of siphoning.

Lancaster is ridiculous as well. Almost completely surrounded by no fraud, yet it siphons from Gingrich and touches a county that siphons from Paul. All 1:1. No overlap. No way.

This map screams fraud to me. i wish i had data to fill in the missing counties.

 

[Danan]

Is there a pattern of when the flip is against Paul and when it is against Gingrich (such as distance to Romney, etc)?

Also, is it true that the flip in certain counties always goes against Dr. Paul at every single precinct above a threshold, always against Gingrich at other counties (again at every precinct) and against both of them in other counties? In those counties where both opponents suffer: Are there certain precincts where only Paul suffers and certain ones where only Gingrich suffers or are there single precincts where both of them suffer?

These questions could be important to determine at which level potential fraud occured.

 

[Liberty1789]

Ok, went thru my dozens of worksheets with a friend, brainstorming, trying to find holes/mistakes. Bugwise, only found one in the Iowa Caucus table, first column, but unfortunately for debunkers, that does not change anything to the impossible-to-explain-rationally trends: as more and more votes are counted, Santorum and Gingrich converge logically toward a flat line with no volatility. Romney continue his incomprehensible climb all the way.

Here is the corrected version. Apologies.

That the cumulative score of Romney goes up constantly is so difficult to rationalize, as it means that Romney's score in each decile of vote counted needs to go up big to keep pushing up the new cumulative total to a new high. Yes, yes. Here is a chart illustrating it. In the last decile, Romney scores no less than 44%! And yes, the same thing is happening in all counties where cumulative charts display Romney's surge.

So no real bugs seen in spreadsheets, yes cumulative means cumulative, the NH and IA cumulative table remains impossible to explain...

Where do we go? Honestly this can only be demographics, whatever you say. Well, no. Visual proof in the next post.