Ron Paul Won Early Primaries, Mathematicians Find. Election Judge Threatened.

[parocks]

Oh god not this crap again. If only these people realized how stupid they look to anyone with half an education.

the article makes more sense if you replace "mathematician" or "analyst" with "crazy person".

"The official Travis County polling data, which shows each candidate's percentage as the day progresses," - as the day progresses?

The Anne Beckett thing is worth looking at.

 

[parocks]

Ok. I'm torn. Half of you say this is ground breaking and half of you say it's shit. Please enlighten me.

The people who think it's at least mostly bs (like me) point out that Romney is more likely to do well in the precincts with the most registered republicans. And that's what most of these charts show. Most of these charts aren't (as the article says) based on time, but on the size of the precinct. Big, fast growing suburbs have country club republicans. The precincts without a lot of registered republicans are either small and rural or urban and democrat. But the big precincts are the Romney precincts in the suburbs.

I predicted, days before the primaries in CT, NY, PA, DE where Romney would do best. Was I predicting where I thought fraud would be occuring? Or was I just understanding the stereotype of the country club Republican, knowing that the richest neighborhoods, typically the suburbs of the major cities, were the most favorable to Romney.

 

[parocks]

//

 

[ChristopherShelley]

The people who think it's at least mostly bs (like me) point out that Romney is more likely to do well in the precincts with the most registered republicans. And that's what most of these charts show. Most of these charts aren't (as the article says) based on time, but on the size of the precinct. Big, fast growing suburbs have country club republicans. The precincts without a lot of registered republicans are either small and rural or urban and democrat. But the big precincts are the Romney precincts in the suburbs.

I predicted, days before the primaries in CT, NY, PA, DE where Romney would do best. Was I predicting where I thought fraud would be occuring? Or was I just understanding the stereotype of the country club Republican, knowing that the richest neighborhoods, typically the suburbs of the major cities, were the most favorable to Romney.

Ok, well, and I'm sorry I went off there...

All I'm saying is that if someone here is presenting a theory as to how or if Paul was cheated, "THAT'S A BUNCH OF CRAP" is not a scientific refutation.

Nor is a theory proof of fact.

I would LOVE to have proof of vote-flipping or whatever. I just get tired of coming to threads with my hopes up and then see someone step on it via opinion or just some meaningless insult.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be aloud or whatever, spouting off or being emotional. I'm just reminding everyone that it doesn't help the flow of discovery as to whether this is a valid claim. I should be held to those standards as well.

I put my foot in my mouth, I act like an a-hole sometimes. I'm not trying to take moral high-ground here.

I appreciate that someone is trying to prove that there was fraud and I would hope that I would have the decency and the strength to not, no matter how much I wanted to, just go say they're a dumb f for trying to do it, even if I sincerely believe that they are. I would hope I would just keep my mouth shut. Cause if I'm right, then they will discover it on their own. No harm done. In the meantime, other people who might like to try something like that, or some other pro-liberty project might not feel like someone is gonna call them an ass if they try.

I mean if you have a kid and they come to you and say, "I want to be Superman," do you say, "Shut up, you're never gonna be Superman"? No, because it serves no purpose. Everyone knows he/she will never be Superman/Woman, but once you kill that freedom to dream and discover for yourself what is true, what is possible, well, then you get a lot of people who just want to destroy s--t, and not give a damn about anything.

 

[thoughtomator]

The truth of the matter may very well be that this was our election to win and the Romney camp outright stole it through simple fraud.

 

[asurfaholic]

The people who think it's at least mostly bs (like me) point out that Romney is more likely to do well in the precincts with the most registered republicans. And that's what most of these charts show. Most of these charts aren't (as the article says) based on time, but on the size of the precinct. Big, fast growing suburbs have country club republicans. The precincts without a lot of registered republicans are either small and rural or urban and democrat. But the big precincts are the Romney precincts in the suburbs.

I predicted, days before the primaries in CT, NY, PA, DE where Romney would do best. Was I predicting where I thought fraud would be occuring? Or was I just understanding the stereotype of the country club Republican, knowing that the richest neighborhoods, typically the suburbs of the major cities, were the most favorable to Romney.

Im pretty sure you are wrong. The precint totals (the x axis) have absolutely nothing to do with "how many registered republicans" there are. It is completely independent of that. Precints that have more voting activity does not neccessarily mean that it is a higher population or have more republicans. I believe this has been addressed multiple times, and for some reason, people like yourself wont accept it, but can NOT seem to gather any evidence to the contrary.

I am certain that RonRules, and anyone else who has worked so hard to make this happen would actually welcome real proof to the contrary. Any good investigation has to disprove that other alternatives are possible.

 

[ChristopherShelley]

This is me when I was like 5 at The Maryland Science Center. The guy actually swooped in on a rope.

Baltimore, Maryland used to be a wonderful, beautiful place. My father helped make that happen. We had a mayor, William Donald Schaefer, who was a goof, a people person. He made national headlines by swimming with the seals at the Baltimore Aquarium (across the Inner Harbor from the Science Center) in an old timey swimsuit.

Belief is important. Don't kill it.

Our recent former Mayor, now Governor, Martin O'Malley, who would like to be the president in 2016, ran on the slogan "BELIEVE."

Believe in what? Baltimore is dead.

Don't tell people what to believe. You will either inspire it in them or you won't. You can either kill it, or just let them be.

 

[ChristopherShelley]

http://mirandamakesablog.com/blog/2010/8/5/bolton-hill-renaissance-print.html

My dad made that. He helped make a renaissance happen in his neighborhood.

 

[asurfaholic]

Ok, well, and I'm sorry I went off there...

All I'm saying is that if someone here is presenting a theory as to how or if Paul was cheated, "THAT'S A BUNCH OF CRAP" is not a scientific refutation.

Nor is a theory proof of fact.

I would LOVE to have proof of vote-flipping or whatever. I just get tired of coming to threads with my hopes up and then see someone step on it via opinion or just some meaningless insult.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be aloud or whatever, spouting off or being emotional. I'm just reminding everyone that it doesn't help the flow of discovery as to whether this is a valid claim. I should be held to those standards as well.

I put my foot in my mouth, I act like an a-hole sometimes. I'm not trying to take moral high-ground here.

I appreciate that someone is trying to prove that there was fraud and I would hope that I would have the decency and the strength to not, no matter how much I wanted to, just go say they're a dumb f for trying to do it, even if I sincerely believe that they are. I would hope I would just keep my mouth shut. Cause if I'm right, then they will discover it on their own. No harm done. In the meantime, other people who might like to try something like that, or some other pro-liberty project might not feel like someone is gonna call them an ass if they try.

I mean if you have a kid and they come to you and say, "I want to be Superman," do you say, "Shut up, you're never gonna be Superman"? No, because it serves no purpose. Everyone knows he/she will never be Superman/Woman, but once you kill that freedom to dream and discover for yourself what is true, what is possible, well, then you get a lot of people who just want to destroy s--t, and not give a damn about anything.

It is really simple actually.

You have a jar.

Its full of marbles. There are 4 different color marbles.

45% red
30% blue
15% green
10% yellow

Now, let's randomly draw marbles. The first time we draw 5, then 10, then 15, then 20, all the way up to 100, which is how many marbles there are.

The first draw, since you only draw 5, they could be 2 yellows, 2 red, 1 green. That's a far cry from the actual 45% red, 30%green, ect.

But as the draw gets larger at a time, the actual percentages will begin to get closer and closer to the real percentage. Charted by size on an x axis, lowest to highest, these will look scattered at first, due to small sample, but will flatline at 45%, 30% ect.

The x axis in RonRule's charts are basically the same thing. They are precint sizes. Small ones are not messed with because it would be very easy to catch that. But in very large precints, it is much easier to manipulate the numbers, and can turn the entire tide of an election.

Now, I don't know about you, but I have no doubt that there are people who are capable of pulling this off. And with that, as well as the evidence presented, I don't understand those who so fiercly attack this. Like they don't think the powers that be are willing to cheat to protect their gravy train.

While I would like to see this directly pinned on someone, the evidence to me is clear. Ron paul had superior organization and the most dedicated support. And it was all wisked away in one 3rd place finish in iowa. If someone wants to call this nasty names or insult the intelligence of those who worked hard to make this available for study, then at least come up with something tangible too.

 

[parocks]

Im pretty sure you are wrong. The precint totals (the x axis) have absolutely nothing to do with "how many registered republicans" there are. It is completely independent of that. Precints that have more voting activity does not neccessarily mean that it is a higher population or have more republicans. I believe this has been addressed multiple times, and for some reason, people like yourself wont accept it, but can NOT seem to gather any evidence to the contrary.

I am certain that RonRules, and anyone else who has worked so hard to make this happen would actually welcome real proof to the contrary. Any good investigation has to disprove that other alternatives are possible.

Ok, you're right, it isn't "registered republicans" it's total votes in the republican primary.

This is something that I and others have long argued about. What the graphs show is that Romney does better in the "largest precincts" and "largest precincts" is based on the number of votes in the republican primary. The question is whether Romney doing better than Paul in the largest precincts was a natural occurence, because that's where the Romney voters are (the largest suburbs of the largest cities where rich people live) or it's due to vote flipping. I believe the largest precincts is where the Romney voters are. Others believe that "vote flipping" causes that.

 

[asurfaholic]

Ok, you're right, it isn't "registered republicans" it's total votes in the republican primary.

This is something that I and others have long argued about. What the graphs show is that Romney does better in the "largest precincts" and "largest precincts" is based on the number of votes in the republican primary. The question is whether Romney doing better than Paul in the largest precincts was a natural occurence, because that's where the Romney voters are (the largest suburbs of the largest cities where rich people live) or it's due to vote flipping. I believe the largest precincts is where the Romney voters are. Others believe that "vote flipping" causes that.

So you think the votes were counted fair and square?

 

[brandon]

So you think the votes were counted fair and square?

There's certainly no evidence indicating otherwise.

 

[JellyRev]

There's certainly no evidence indicating otherwise.

kidding right? dead people voting, iowa vote trucks missing, etc.

 

[asurfaholic]

There's certainly no evidence indicating otherwise.

Sorry, I just don't have that confidence. At any rate, if someone presents possible evidence of voting fraud, why be SO quick to dismiss it? You don't even KNOW its true, just like I will honestly say that I DON'T know the absolute truth either. Why not encourage investigation?

 

[brandon]

kidding right? dead people voting, iowa vote trucks missing, etc.

That's just the minor stuff that happens with every election. There's no evidence of any systemic election conspiracy.

 

[brandon]

Sorry, I just don't have that confidence. At any rate, if someone presents possible evidence of voting fraud, why be SO quick to dismiss it? You don't even KNOW its true, just like I will honestly say that I DON'T know the absolute truth either. Why not encourage investigation?

I'm not being quick to dismiss it. I spent weeks trying to explain why this is nonsense before. I'm not getting into that again. Go read some of the old 200 page threads if you want some of the background.

 

[Eisenhower]

That's just the minor stuff that happens with every election. There's no evidence of any systemic election conspiracy.

go back to mitt romney forums already

 

[RDM]

There is NOOO WAYYY, vote flipping happens!!! Right??? Right??? Right???

 

[James_Madison_Lives]

That's just the minor stuff that happens with every election. There's no evidence of any systemic election conspiracy.

Sorry but this sounds very trollish. In the case of Travis County you have an election judge who knows the county in her gut and did her own poll watching, whose conclusions are backed up to the hilt by the very same kind of analysis which now assert the "First in the Nation" states, which set the stage and gives the media the excuse to ignore you, were rigged.

This is no minor stuff. This is systematic and strategic vote-flipping. The first thing a court asks before it takes a case like this is: would this have changed anything? Would it have made a material difference? A little petty cheating somewhere down the line by operatives would not rise to that bar. This does. We are talking about NH, Iowa, and SC ("do or die blah blah...")

This should throw the entire convention into a big question mark. For starters let's get busy and put this into the public mind, spread this article far and wide. RON PAUL WON.

 

[parocks]

Key thing to remember is that the people who believe in "vote flipping" do not believe that there is any natural reason why precincts with more republican votes should vary from precincts with fewer republican votes.

I have explained why larger precincts are more likely to vote Romney than smaller precincts. And all I hear is, oh, we've explained that before. But they never can point to exactly where that explanation was. They compared "urban" to "rural", believed they saw those 2 were similar enough for them, and thought that was enough. But they didn't deal with "suburban", which is where the Romney votes are.

I was able to predict where Romney was going to do well, down to the town. Especially in CT. I named, beforehand, all the towns where Romney was going to kick ass. It's really easy to do. Ask "where do the rich people live" ? And, viola, that's where Romney gets the most votes. Does Romney get the most votes in Greenwich, CT by a large margin because this rich area cheats more than in other areas? Or is it because Rich People Love Romney?

Put it another way Country Club Republicans (like Romney) do well where there are country clubs. Some people never really wanted to absorb the lessons of Politics 101.