So if I can't explain something that nobody else can explain either, that makes me a troll?
"Outpacing his own demographics" may sound elegant to you, but I'm not even sure what it means. How do I calculate a candidates's demographic pace?
(Huge) delegate vote anomaly in Alabama verified
- Thread starter Liberty1789
- Start date
So if I can't explain something that nobody else can explain either, that makes me a troll?
"Outpacing his own demographics" may sound elegant to you, but I'm not even sure what it means. How do I calculate a candidates's demographic pace?
Here you go. ALL were in Jefferson County except for Montgomery precinct 101. Honestly, this is simply astounding to me. Included are all 4 candidates' totals in these same precincts so you can gauge the tendency of that particular precinct ov over/ under voting delegates. Note that the first 4 columns are vote totals while the next 4 are the delegate#2 totals. Geeezzz:
note: the third from the right precinct was NOT included here (not purposefully) and, instead, the precinct "BHM Botanic Gardens" was added, which is the Romney spike at vote total 85,489.
The elephant in the room is the number of votes that Romney picks up in relation to his delegates. Now look- there was HUGE voter error happening all over Alabama in regards to delegates- it's a FACT. BUT you look for trends in each precinct as to WHAT the voters were instructed to do- how clear was it to each voter that he/she was to vote for only his/ her candidate's delegate AND for all positions at that. Precincts are manned by human beings whose communication skills/ motives vary widely. When you see a candidate with a 300+ vote delegate/candidate gain in a single precinct(s) while the other candidates' comparisons are reasonable or exhibit losses? I want some of you, including you trolls, to give me a good creative explanation here.
Name......Votes/Delegates= Ratio
Gingrich= 1672/1638= 1.02
Santorum= 1273/1077= 1.18
Paul= 306/450 = 0.68
Romney= 4843/2923 = 1.66
Santorum's Ratio is a little high, but Romney's ratio is through the roof. And Paul's ratio, as usual, is VERY low.
Romney has 2/3 more votes than he has delegates, Paul has 1/3 less votes than he has delegates. I said before that those peaks didn't make sense... Looks like I had reason to be suspicious.
So I graphed only Jefferson County, Alabama. Guys, I've heard the argument that Romney does better in certain areas, which causes his spikes. Well, this is certainly true. I know it, you know it, Bob Dole knows it... and the vote manipulators Know it. So those of you that have speculated that the manipulators MAY be smart enough to play the demographics card as to throw off the would-be investigators were right. Is there some explanation why Romney gains 300- 400 votes in some precincts versus his own delegate count? I doubt it. Note that the total delegate votes to candidate votes in Jefferson County is within 831 votes (71,592 votes, 70,761 delegates). Maybe someone could simply ask the election commissioner for an explanation?
It's obvious that County- level analysis is much more revealing than Statewide. Reason- There are some counties, like Jefferson, that were massively manipulated and some that were probably untouched. Mixing all of them dilutes what's really at play.
It's obvious that County- level analysis is much more revealing than Statewide. Reason- There are some counties, like Jefferson, that were massively manipulated and some that were probably untouched. Mixing all of them dilutes what's really at play.
Last edited:
Hey DSW- I'll admit you've won me over a bit. Hey, let's get past the Troll- calling and do some analysis. The answer is very simple- the good people of Alabama are simply smarter than for what they've been given credit. The delegates ARE very accurate indicators of the voters' intent. NOTHING else makes any more sense. Look at my post above for the Jefferson County graph. The ridiculous spikes we've been discussing are seen on a county level from a different perspective- cumulative vote totals. I want to hear your rebuttal. Why do Romney's reported vote totals severely outpace his delegate totals? Besides obvious vote- reassignment, the only possible explanations would be a)Ballot design that favors Romney receiving more unintended delegate votes or b)(out of ideas help me DSW).
RonRules
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,485
You use a lot of kitchen analogies. If it gets too hot in there, you know what to do!
drummergirl
Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2012
- Messages
- 676
I kinda doubt that she's a happy camper right now.
Votes Minus Delegates Cumulative VERSUS ascending precinct vote count precinct-by-precinct Jefferson County Alabama. Note that the total votes outnumber the total delegates by 831. Again, WHY is Mitt Romney receiving hundreds of extra votes in many precincts versus reported delegates? Is there some legitimate reason? Remember that all along we have used small precinct vote% as a benchmark which were compared to the larger precincts. Now we have a GIFT from the Alabama Election Commission AND SOE SCYTL that does NOTHING to diminish the hypothesis and does everything to support AND give additional details- like, for example, there's a heck of a lot more going on than just 'FLIPPPING" in the larger precincts such as Paul's vote reassignment start to finish to Santorum. Help me DSW. I am depending on you and your associates to explain why there's nothing to see here. I have all the confidence in you.
Votes Minus Delegates Cumulative VERSUS ascending precinct vote count
Votes Minus Delegates Cumulative VERSUS ascending precinct vote count
Last edited:
I believe he meant 'outpacing his own delegates', which you should have understood as well since we've been discussing it for days.
As for the troll comment, I'll retract it. It was based on the fact that you suddenly decided to buddy up with all the people constantly insulting us and posted graphs with no labels to ridicule us.
Well, that's easy to explain with demographics. You see, the extremely wealthy simply must have their chauffeurs drive them post-haste to vote for Romney in droves, but they have to get to their golf, wine, and cheese outing as well so don't have time to vote for Romney's delegates. You can calculate it based on (wealth*cheese/distraction).
I'm not sure who you think I'm buddying up with. I've been pretty scornful of parocks, whose position would be an absurd strawman except for the fact that he's advocating it. I blasted another fly-by person who launched into scorn before he even understood what the basic issue was. Those sorts of things give skepticism a bad name.
As for the graph with no labels that I posted on the "no fraud" thread ... it was a reaction to the claim that demographic factors never correlate with precinct size, and more generally a reaction to the way the arguments seem to be getting more extreme and critical analysis more scarce. If you go back a ways you can find sub-threads where people were debating, pro and con, whether the correlations were sufficient to explain Romney's success, or not. As far as that went, I think the "not" side was winning. Fast forward to today, and there's a blanket claim that demographic factors *never* correlate with precinct size, without a coherent argument to support the claim.
So yeah, I picked a California county, found a demographic factor that didn't flatline, and posted a graph without labels. Consider it a mathematical version of a facepalm. (Just to be sure I checked a second county, then grabbed random demographic data for two other states and checked one county in each of them. And that's not even with the kind of data that I'd expect to be most interesting, like median income. And no, I'm not claiming that any of those demographic correlations prove anything. The facepalm reaction was purely to the blanket claim that the cumulative graphing technique removes all demographic factors. If I were a flipper I wouldn't want to let such a basic misunderstanding go unchallenged. It substitutes a claim that could be defensible, namely that demographic correlations are not sufficient to explain the anomalies, with a claim that is easily refuted, namely that demographic factors never correlate with precinct size.)
Look at what I posted about Va Beach City and precincts to the right of the "crime" point accounting for more than half of the votes to the right of that point *and* aligning very prettily with a zillow map of where you find million-dollar homes. What's that if not a correlation between a demographic factor (ritzy real estate) and precinct size? As I've pointed out repeatedly, the "crime" point was *exactly* the point at which you hit the first precinct in that million-dollar cluster of large precincts that were overwhelmingly pro-Romney.
Or what about when the counties with the highest population density contribute a much higher fraction of the vote to the right-most 20% of a cumulative graph than they do to the left-most 20%? Is population density not a demographic factor?
Or consider the 1996 bond measure that didn't flatline. I don't have the demographic data for that county, but I can tell you why I expected to find a non-fraud example that didn't flatline there. I picked a large county with a liberal/university urban area but also a lot of small town and farmland areas. And what could possibly skew more urban vs. rural than an attempt to tax everyone in the county to build a light-rail system that would really only benefit the people in the city? Sure enough, the smaller precincts were, on average, very strongly opposed to the bond measure, and the larger ones were on average very strongly in favor of it. So the cumulative graph was *far* from flat, and it happened to have the lines crossing right near the end, which was a nice touch. There were lots of others that didn't flatten out but that was the most dramatic. And other counties with data in a similar format that could make the same point, but again not as dramatically.
Now, I'm not claiming to have proven that it isn't fraud. Maybe this kind of central tabulator fraud goes back to the oldest on-line data I could find, and includes even little local ballot issues and races of no national significance. But considering the natural urban/rural divide on that particular issue, and the way the largest precincts were also the ones (on average) most positive on the issue, and the way that so many elections in that area don't flatline, my hypothesis is that it's a correlation between precinct size and urban/liberal demographics that best explains it.
drummergirl
Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2012
- Messages
- 676
If you have an extreme data set and small vote totals, you can do that. If you look at the standard deviations and the confidence intervals, they are probably within them even though the graph may look like a flipper at first glance. The only primary we've seen that could have small enough numbers to qualify that way was the Maine caucus (and there were definitely problems on the ground in Maine completely unrelated to vote tabulation).
The larger the total number of votes and the broader the area (states and nations as opposed to a single county), the more the law of large numbers comes into play.
Last edited:
The Man... Can you do me a favor???
I think that Santorum siphoned his votes from Paul in Jefferson County which is why his ratio is a little high.
Check this out...
If I subtract Paul's delegates (450) from his vote count (306) I get 144. If I add 144 to Santorum's delegate count (1077+144) or subtract 144 from Santorum's vote count, his ratio goes from 1.18, to 1.04.
Can you add a new line to your graphs including either an adjusted delegate count or an adjusted vote count for Santorum?
The formula should look like this:
Santorum's adjusted delegate count = (Paul's delegate count - Paul's vote count) + Santorum's delegate count
Or
Santorum's adjusted vote count = Santorum's vote count - (Paul's vote count - Paul's Delegate count).
For each row respectively.
If you either replace Santorum's delegate total with the adjusted delegate total, or his vote total with his adjusted vote total (not both at the same time) I believe Santorum's line in your "Votes Minus Delegates Cumulative" graph will look a lot more like Gingrich's. And Santorum's lines in your "Picture is worth a thousand votes" graph will be much closer together.
I think that Santorum siphoned his votes from Paul in Jefferson County which is why his ratio is a little high.
Check this out...
If I subtract Paul's delegates (450) from his vote count (306) I get 144. If I add 144 to Santorum's delegate count (1077+144) or subtract 144 from Santorum's vote count, his ratio goes from 1.18, to 1.04.
Can you add a new line to your graphs including either an adjusted delegate count or an adjusted vote count for Santorum?
The formula should look like this:
Santorum's adjusted delegate count = (Paul's delegate count - Paul's vote count) + Santorum's delegate count
Or
Santorum's adjusted vote count = Santorum's vote count - (Paul's vote count - Paul's Delegate count).
For each row respectively.
If you either replace Santorum's delegate total with the adjusted delegate total, or his vote total with his adjusted vote total (not both at the same time) I believe Santorum's line in your "Votes Minus Delegates Cumulative" graph will look a lot more like Gingrich's. And Santorum's lines in your "Picture is worth a thousand votes" graph will be much closer together.
RonRules
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,485
DSW, NOBODY has ever claimed that.
You keep obfuscating, throwing red herrings left and right, and make our threads full of non-nonsensical discussions.
Maybe, just maybe it's because you haven't yet figured out how to do a cumulative chart. We have noticed that your charts aren't the most professional and often have no titles and label names at all.
So let me help you again. Here's how you do a cumulative chart. Take a week and go try that.
(Responding to my "it was a reaction to the claim that demographic factors never correlate with precinct size,")
If demographic factors can correlate with precinct size, then a sample taken from the smallest precincts may not be a representative sample.
If a sample taken from the smallest precincts may not be a representative sample, then the graph is not guaranteed to flatline.
How small? The county I was looking at (Lane county, Oregon) isn't what I would consider particularly small. The 1996 bond vote had a total of over 130k votes cast. Around 150 precincts.
http://www.lanecounty.org/Departments/MS/CountyClerk/Elections/Documents/19961105s.txt
Search for "AUTH BONDS PTLD REG LIGHT RAIL, TRANS PROJ".
Indeed, a reductio argument can be rejected by embracing the absurdum. Well played. In that case, "flippers" have been happening for a long time, and not just involving Romney but deep into local politics. That one rich guy and a programmer have been busy, busy, busy.
But then the question is how do they decide what to flip? Why did they care so much about funding a public transportation system in a small west-coast city that they would hijack that vote? Why do they care about so many local races, and why is most of the flipping (i.e., graphs that don't flatline) on races and ballot measures that are such landslides that moving them a little further apart or a little closer together couldn't possibly change the outcome? Wait ... could it be that they're just trying to make it *look* like there are demographic correlations with precinct size in order to hide their tracks? Diabolical!
drummergirl
Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2012
- Messages
- 676
I'm sorry to burst your bubble DSW, but this is not a flipper. Because of the rather extreme nature of the data set, the lines take their time about going flat (not until about 80% vote counted). They do go flat though.
This is a flipper:
Note that the lines go flat until, for reasons still not fully understood, suddenly at about 50% of the vote counted the lines deviate in an almost perfect linear fashion. This is IMPOSSIBLE.
How small? The county I was looking at (Lane county, Oregon) isn't what I would consider particularly small. The 1996 bond vote had a total of over 130k votes cast. Around 150 precincts.
http://www.lanecounty.org/Departments/MS/CountyClerk/Elections/Documents/19961105s.txt
Search for "AUTH BONDS PTLD REG LIGHT RAIL, TRANS PROJ".
This is a flipper:
Note that the lines go flat until, for reasons still not fully understood, suddenly at about 50% of the vote counted the lines deviate in an almost perfect linear fashion. This is IMPOSSIBLE.
Don't worry about bursting my bubble, I don't think it's a flipper at all. It's just an illustration of the facepalmingly obvious fact that you can't look at 20% or 25% or 50% of the data taken from the smallest precincts and assume that you have a statistically random sample. And because you can't assume that, graphs that don't flatline (or that sort of kind of flatten out near the end) don't prove fraud. It could simply be, as seems to be the case here, that there's some sort of demographic correlation between precinct size and the vote outcome, in this case a particularly good example I think of larger precincts tending to be urban and smaller tending to be rural.
Is there an objective test that could be applied by a program to determine whether a graph is a flipper? And how does the usual statistical argument (what that argument has evolved into lately, I mean) reconcile with the idea that it would flatline only after 80% of the data has been included? And what do you mean by "the extreme nature of the data set"? It's just one county's data, and it happens to include some ballot measures but that's not the only place that the graphs don't flatline. I deliberately picked a county that I knew to have a significant rural/urban and conservative/liberal split, but that's not really so unusual.
From your example, your argument seems to be a lot more subtle than what has become common here lately. I'd love to see that turned into an objective test. It would be fine if it were a test that were overly strict to eliminate false positives as much as possible. I've got a lot of data ready to go.
Or if you can point me to the Chesterfield data, the one that's clearly a flipper, I'd love to have a closer look. Unless Virginia Beach City is clearly a flipper too in which case it would save me a bunch of time because I've already dug into that one quite a bit.
