Flipping the vote against Ron Paul in South Carolina?

fact is SOuth Carolinas and several other states elections are 100% controlled by a foreign owned scytel

in my humble opinion, let journalists get into the 'who' is doing it. we should focus on 'how' (that is, the algorithms and charts), and to a lesser extent, 'why' (who is affected).
 
in my humble opinion, let journalists get into the 'who' is doing it. we should focus on 'how' (that is, the algorithms and charts), and to a lesser extent, 'why' (who is affected).

Liberty1789 just posted his 3rd step in absolute mathmatical proof. Is there a 4th? If there isn't and The Man concurs that then I would agree our next step is your website and that more accessible format you posted last page. Once we get them then it's VIRAL time along with more attempts to get a professional stats company to do a complete and independent analysis.
 
My 2 cts if you want to help:

1. Create a way to read the substantive posts uncluttered. Yes, the threat is too cumbersome now. I have no time to do this. Still crunching.
2. Find debunkers. I could miss something. There are way stronger mathematicians than me out there. Ideally one of them must pick the baton.
 
Could those of you who have compiled the precinct data for various states please upload that data somewhere and provide a link here?

We need more eyes on the data, and reducing data gathering redundancy would save a lot of time.

Thanks!


The tool below would allow for many eyes to easily view and analyze, but thus far, I only have Iowa data.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/63868969/RPF/iowaanalysis_dist.xlsm
 
Last edited:
The tool below would allow for many eyes to easily view and analyze, but thus far, I only have Iowa data.

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

the macros give me errors.... I can see the hard work you put into it and can tell it would be great tool.... ive tried it on excel 2007 and the current version of excel for mac... neither worked : ( I can understand the excel for mac but it worried me when i tried it a work and it gave me the same error...any work around i need to know?
 
the macros give me errors.... I can see the hard work you put into it and can tell it would be great tool.... ive tried it on excel 2007 and the current version of excel for mac... neither worked : ( I can understand the excel for mac but it worried me when i tried it a work and it gave me the same error...any work around i need to know?

Sent you a PM

*Edit* - The tool requires macros and will cause an error if macros are not enabled. Enabling macros resolves the issue.
 
Last edited:
liberty, when you have time (cough, i know you're busy) can you make graphs for the remaining small precincts in SC in the same style you did the others? there aren't many to go, you did the lion's share already. but that will let me complete the map of SC.

is anyone here a web designer with time on their hands?
 
Affa, Honestly, there are so few precincts in some of these counties the data is meaningless IMO. I established early on that the crooks only hit the largest counties for obvious reasons.
 
Last edited:
Affa, Honestly, there are so few precincts in some of these counties the data is meaningless IMO. I established early on that the crooks only hit the largest counties for obvious reasons.

i know the data is meaningless from a statistical standpoint, but when presenting a map of SC counties and having some 'blank', it makes the map look suspect. As in, why aren't these mentioned? It requires prior knowledge to know they simply aren't statistically important.
 
Could be. Could be the most ridiculous as well. We need heavy machinery debunking.

at this point, i can't imagine any debunk that could affect the findings so far. Heck, we have only really heard one debunk so far (demographics) and it simply doesn't fly. What could possibly cause vote flipping with Gingrich in one county, and vote flipping with Ron Paul in the next door county? It just isn't possible, especially in multiple instances. Heck, just flipping with Paul in the manner we're seeing isn't possible with such frequency (rather, it would be a lightning strike)...

It really is time to get more people looking at this. Still waiting on a web dev to speak up.
 
It really is time to get more people looking at this.

Start by compiling all of the data (raw data by precinct, state) into one file. Then upload that file and post a link here for "more people" to review.
 
Liberty1789 just posted his 3rd step in absolute mathmatical proof. Is there a 4th? If there isn't and The Man concurs that then I would agree our next step is your website and that more accessible format you posted last page. Once we get them then it's VIRAL time along with more attempts to get a professional stats company to do a complete and independent analysis.

When there the data here is finalized please PM me so I can make sure I see it. I have some people I can reach out too for an independent check, none of them are professional firms and I still think that's a good idea to do regardless but some additional reviews are desired I would do my best to provide.

Cheers
 
Could be. Could be the most ridiculous as well. We need heavy machinery debunking.

I think on a previous post you said that the smoothness was better/tighter when sorted by precinct turnout than republican-ness as expressed by the 2008 general election. Have you tried sorting precincts by raw vote for an individual candidate to see if those plots looked random or smooth?
 
Back
Top