Flipping the vote against Ron Paul in South Carolina?

[affa]

We need demographic and socioeconomic data for each precinct so that we can run cross tabs and look for relationships.

I provided links a few pages back. But again, that's just for the debunkers. Liberty's proof essentially establishes that demographics are not a factor.

 

[rb3b3]

Oh this is just great!!!!! This thread had me up until 3 am this morning, and now I keep refreshing the page every 2 minutes since I got up at 8 am!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I cant wait to see what happens!!!!!!!

 

[chri5opher]

//

 

[rb3b3]

Liberty if u don't mind me asking, what is your statistical background?? Where did u learn stats from? Do u do it for a living?? To me you look like a master of stats, but I guess I'm wondering, what do u look like to a true master of stats?

 

[cjm]

these are not based on time reporting but by precinct size. Alot of the demographic switches are not significant enough (less that 2% of the vote was minority even though some precincts were 92% black)

Again, you may be right, but this has never been established. Asserting that demographics has no impact on the sort order of precincts and the eventual path that the plot follows is not the same as demonstrating/proving it.

If you want to follow the urn example, you have to select individual votes at random from the entire county. Any form of clustering and sorting is non-random and different methodologies need to be applied.

This can be found on any basic stats web site and even wikipedia.

 

[rb3b3]

Again, you may be right, but this has never been established. Asserting that demographics has no impact on the sort order of precincts and the eventual path that the plot follows is not the same as demonstrating/proving it.

If you want to follow the urn example, you have to select individual votes at random from the entire county. Any form of clustering and sorting is non-random and different methodologies need to be applied.

This can be found on any basic stats web site and even wikipedia.

Cjm I know ur the debunker in this thread and for once I say that's a good thing!!!! I would like to know what your conclusions are to this point?? Fraud ??? Nothing??? Possible fraud? Definite fraud that still needs some info?

 

[bbwarfield]

Again, you may be right, but this has never been established. Asserting that demographics has no impact on the sort order of precincts and the eventual path that the plot follows is not the same as demonstrating/proving it.

If you want to follow the urn example, you have to select individual votes at random from the entire county. Any form of clustering and sorting is non-random and different methodologies need to be applied.

This can be found on any basic stats web site and even wikipedia.

yes... i have suggested doing a random sampling to prove the demographic issue.... i think most demographics are disproven but some (wealth especially) will show some of the variance in numbers... but not all variances in the numbers. Those variances I believe will show that only manipulation of the vote totals is the culprit


but a random sample of demographics should be taken to see if there is any need to broaden that theory

 

[cjm]

Cjm I know ur the debunker in this thread and for once I say that's a good thing!!!! I would like to know what your conclusions are to this point?? Fraud ??? Nothing??? Possible fraud? Definite fraud that still needs some info?

I'm not sure what to think. Sorry guys, I have to go knock on doors. Super Tuesday state here.

 

[rb3b3]

yes... i have suggested doing a random sampling to prove the demographic issue.... i think most demographics are disproven but some (wealth especially) will show some of the variance in numbers... but not all variances in the numbers. Those variances I believe will show that only manipulation of the vote totals is the culprit


but a random sample of demographics should be taken to see if there is any need to broaden that theory

Bb war,,,,,, what has been the best argument so far as to why these graphs wouldn't be true?? U r a main player in this thread as well so id like ur opinion on this.... Does cjm raise valid debunking points??????? Goddddd I knew I should've never cut my statistic class!!!!! I knew one day I would need to know this!!!!! And that day has come!!!

 

[Danan]

Bb war,,,,,, what has been the best argument so far as to why these graphs wouldn't be true?? U r a main player in this thread as well so id like ur opinion on this.... Does cjm raise valid debunking points??????? Goddddd I knew I should've never cut my statistic class!!!!! I knew one day I would need to know this!!!!! And that day has come!!!

Besides the fact that Liberty says it's almost impossible from a scientific, statistical viewpoint, you can also add common sense observations. Why would Romney switch votes only with Ron Paul in one county and only with Gingrich in the neighbouring county as the precinct size grows? Why would the flip kick in only at various sizes? And so on.

 

[Liberty1789]

+rep

 

[affa]

Again, you may be right, but this has never been established. Asserting that demographics has no impact on the sort order of precincts and the eventual path that the plot follows is not the same as demonstrating/proving it.

The smoking gun here is the lack of 'white noise' -- the algorithmic precision of Romney's rise in the various charts. This rise has little or no 'white noise' as all non-manipulated candidates have. This effectively means Liberty has found the algorithm. Think of it like a key and a lock; only the algorithm will provide the answer with no noise.

For example, let's say I give every passerby 1-3 m&ms, but I give every 5th passerby 2-4 m&ms. This will be virtually undetectable, let alone predictable, until one looks at the data ordering by position in line, at which point it becomes crystal clear that only those positions divisible by 5 ever get 4 m&ms. From there, you can work backwards, and also show they never get 1, either, and that they average higher than all other positions. What looks like random noise from any other angle (say, evaluating m&ms based on gender or wealth) becomes not only clear, but predictable, once you discover the algorithm.

That's what, imo, Liberty/The Man have discovered. They (specifically Liberty, in this case) found the algorithmic, predictable slope of Romney's votes as precinct size rises. This rise isn't just different between tiny and large precincts, but rather, rises constantly even when we compare precincts in the 80% vs 90% size brackets. This rise is 'clean', with little to no 'white noise', as can be found in the candidates not affected. The steady, constant, no-noise rises begin at defined 'hinge points' which clearly link up to vote flipping with the victim(s).

That lack of white noise is a smoking gun in a room full of smoking guns.

 

[rb3b3]

Besides the fact that Liberty says it's almost impossible from a scientific, statistical viewpoint, you can also add common sense observations. Why would Romney switch votes only with Ron Paul in one county and only with Gingrich in the neighbouring county as the precinct size grows? Why would the flip kick in only at various sizes? And so on.

The reason I'm soo excited about this thread is because lets face it, something just isn't right with these elections,,, we hear the news of dead people voting, we hear the news of taking ballots to secret locations etc, as damaging as all that is, this is just on a whole different level..... My problem is that everything has been swept under the rug, I don't want this to be swept under the rug as well..... So now I will be the debunker............. If this is proved, who can tell me that all of this will not be swept under the rug as well???? We are fighting a fight that is much bigger then we all know!!!!!!!!!!!! What will happen if this is proved to be true, will they start all over?? Someone help me out here!!! I'm afraid we get, " crazy Ron Paul supporters at it again trying to claim fraud as usual!!!!

 

[affa]

The reason I'm soo excited about this thread is because lets face it, something just isn't right with these elections,,, we hear the news of dead people voting, we hear the news of taking ballots to secret locations etc, as damaging as all that is, this is just on a whole different level..... My problem is that everything has been swept under the rug, I don't want this to be swept under the rug as well..... So now I will be the debunker............. If this is proved, who can tell me that all of this will not be swept under the rug as well???? We are fighting a fight that is much bigger then we all know!!!!!!!!!!!! What will happen if this is proved to be true, will they start all over?? Someone help me out here!!! I'm afraid we get, " crazy Ron Paul supporters at it again trying to claim fraud as usual!!!!

take a deep breath.

vote fraud generally gets swept under the rug. It's possible that will happen here. However, this is so big, and so blatant, that it's possible we can break through with it, and force the media to report on it.

whether we will accomplish that goal is still up in the air. we need to hope recognized statisticians start looking at this, and that a enterprising journalist decides he (or she) wants that Pulitzer.

 

[Liberty1789]

take a deep breath.

vote fraud generally gets swept under the rug. It's possible that will happen here. However, this is so big, and so blatant, that it's possible we can break through with it, and force the media to report on it.

whether we will accomplish that goal is still up in the air. we need to hope recognized statisticians start looking at this, and that a enterprising journalist decides he (or she) wants that Pulitzer.

+ 100 rep if I could

 

[rb3b3]

take a deep breath.

vote fraud generally gets swept under the rug. It's possible that will happen here. However, this is so big, and so blatant, that it's possible we can break through with it, and force the media to report on it.

whether we will accomplish that goal is still up in the air. we need to hope recognized statisticians start looking at this, and that a enterprising journalist decides he (or she) wants that Pulitzer.

Ok thanks,,,, so what else are we waiting on to make this official?? What else do we need to know to make sure we are not overlooking anything??? Once official what's the next step??? I mean I would hope the campaign really takes this and runs with it!!!

 

[rb3b3]

+ 100 rep if I could

LIBERTY!!!!!!! You are the man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I just want you to know that I really really appreciate your hard no really really hard work!!!!

 

[havox112]

No mainstream outlet will report on this. It will be their endgame if they do.

 

[Adam West]

The reason I'm soo excited about this thread is because lets face it, something just isn't right with these elections,,, we hear the news of dead people voting, we hear the news of taking ballots to secret locations etc, as damaging as all that is, this is just on a whole different level..... My problem is that everything has been swept under the rug, I don't want this to be swept under the rug as well..... So now I will be the debunker............. If this is proved, who can tell me that all of this will not be swept under the rug as well???? We are fighting a fight that is much bigger then we all know!!!!!!!!!!!! What will happen if this is proved to be true, will they start all over?? Someone help me out here!!! I'm afraid we get, " crazy Ron Paul supporters at it again trying to claim fraud as usual!!!!

The left leaning liberal media would salivate over this like rabid dogs.

 

[rb3b3]

Can someone please tell me if this is a fact yet??????????????? If not what more info do we need to make it 100%????