Ron Paul Won Early Primaries, Mathematicians Find. Election Judge Threatened.
- Thread starter James_Madison_Lives
- Start date
Vote flipping threads belong in hot topics. I've seen a lot of worthwhile stuff go to hot topics, yet this stays?
There might be something going on regarding vote flipping, but these people have gotten nowhere.
My argument is not that there isn't fraud.
My argument is that the people who are claiming fraud are doing a terrible job of proving it.
The stupid argument which you continue to make is that people naturally should be voting in the same percentages for the same people whether they live in Greenwich or the Canadian border.
I know someone quite well who liked McCain, and now likes Romney. Management class likes those guys. Period. You might not know anybody who is management of a Fortune 500 company. But I do. And they like Mitt Romney. And they liked McCain.
Make your arguments better. Right now, your arguments SUCK. And you haven't improved them one bit in months.
There may very well be any number of types of fraud. Clearly it happens over and over at conventions. Lots of cheating there.
But you haven't found anything. Try harder. Be smarter. Be more creative. Think more. Because right now, you vote flippers suck at what you're doing.
My argument is that the people who are claiming fraud are doing a terrible job of proving it.
The stupid argument which you continue to make is that people naturally should be voting in the same percentages for the same people whether they live in Greenwich or the Canadian border.
I know someone quite well who liked McCain, and now likes Romney. Management class likes those guys. Period. You might not know anybody who is management of a Fortune 500 company. But I do. And they like Mitt Romney. And they liked McCain.
Make your arguments better. Right now, your arguments SUCK. And you haven't improved them one bit in months.
There may very well be any number of types of fraud. Clearly it happens over and over at conventions. Lots of cheating there.
But you haven't found anything. Try harder. Be smarter. Be more creative. Think more. Because right now, you vote flippers suck at what you're doing.
I also used we. Someone bitched about that as well.
Agreed. But you have to consider that the people who have it good right now are uncertain about what life would be like behind door #2, and they aren't complaining right now.
This should clarify the case for vote stealing for all who read this. Originally, it was observed in South Carolina that in select larger counties, Ron Paul received 20- 25% in precincts with less than 250 votes but in precincts with more than 800- 100 votes, he received 7-10%. Mitt Romney's percentage of the vote seemed to increase from small to large precincts by a very similar percentage. What was the cause of this? Demographics surely was a factor no doubt. After exhausting most resources in a 6 week period, it was decided that information should be released onto the internet in order to involve more analysts and engineers. It was noted that in all 3 GOP primary states- NH, Iowa, and SC- Mitt Romney underwent HUGE gains from small to large precincts. Were these gains honest and legitimate, or was the Primary being RIGGED on a wide scale? I had no idea, but the circumstantial evidence warranted getting more people involved. A paper was written https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_wWkfsJPShUMWQxMTc2NzgtM2MzYy00ZGJhLWI1MmYtMWU2ZGU1OWZkZjhk/edit?pli=1 that used elementary linear math so that most readers could comprehend and do their own research.
At the time, there was no analysis of any previous elections. As more people became involved and devoted time to research this, any previous election data available was analyzed to see how earlier Primaries compared to the 2012 Primary; specifically, when the graph of each candidate’s cumulative percentage versus cumulative votes via ascending precinct size is graphed, is the curve ALWAYS a horizontal line OR or does a candidate’s percentage increase/ decrease dramatically with respect to precinct size?
All of the data of previous Primaries that were analyzed showed horizontal flat lines before 2008… except Louisiana (1990’s) and Tennessee (the exact years escape me at the moment). Initially, it was believed that this proved the candidate discrepancy from small to large precincts disproved the vote rigging theory. However, special thanks to Dr. K and Bev Harris for calling attention to the fact that the Louisiana election commissioner from 1991 to 1999, Jerry M. Fowler, was convicted in a vote machine scandal where special “voting machine counters” were installed into the EVM’s. I recall vividly that the Presidential Primary graphs looked just like Romney’s graphs while Fowler was commissioner but right after he was removed, the graphs FLATLINED. A similar situation occurred in Tennessee that coincided with the graphs mentioned above. In summary, not only did these graphs NOT disprove the occurrence of vote flipping, they more seemed to prove that when there IS electronic vote rigging then there will be a large gain in the larger precincts for the “assisted” candidate. This information is available in the other threads on this Forum site. I will post more details when I have the time to locate. If you already have located, please post for me.
Now up to this point, ALL claims of vote rigging were based on the fact that one candidate- Mitt Romney- was making HUGE gains from lower vote total precincts to higher vote- total precincts; enter the Alabama Primary. The investigators were given a gift in this Primary; the voters were asked to vote for 1. His/ her preferred presidential candidate and 2. That candidate’s delegate, which each candidate had multiple delegate positions. There were approximately 600,000 candidate votes cast for each candidate AND 600,000 total delegate votes (each position). There’s no doubt that there were massive voter error related to delegate votes. IF the voting were perfect with no error (which is not the case), the candidate votes = candidates’ delegate votes. In realty, Ron Paul received approximately 30,000 candidate votes versus 70,000 delegate votes, Gingrich’s candidate votes = approximately delegate votes, while Romney and Santorum combined received approximately 40,000 more candidate than delegate votes. Did this PROVE that the candidate votes in Alabama were rigged while the riggers FORGOT to adjust the corresponding delegate vote count? My opinion is that although the likelihood is high that this IS the case, the evidence is still circumstantial, like all the other evidence to this point. So how can we prove/ disprove the vote flipping phenomena irrefutably? Strap yourself in.
A graph was constructed of VOTES MINUS DELEGATES versus ASCENDING ORDER PRECINCT VOTE TOTALS in Alabama. To me, this IS the Holy Grail of this entire argument. There simply is no other explanation for this other than VOTE RIGGING IN THE FAVOR OF MITT ROMNEY IN LARGER VOTE TOTAL PRECINCTS. I re-post my original AND the attempted rebuttal by DSW. What both of these shows is that at around 300k votes Mitt Romney undergoes an unexplainable increase in his vote receiving percentage in relation to his delegate percentage. Repeat: There is NO explanation for this other than VOTE RIGGING.[/COLOR]
Next, it was observed when graphing the precincts in Alabama where Mitt Romney received an excess of candidate votes versus delegate votes that Jefferson County was where many of these precincts were located. IF I were asked to testify in this obvious vote rigging scandal to give the precinct locations where vote rigging would be the most easily found, this is probably where I would begin. The Jefferson County, Alabama graph below shows each candidate's vote total graph AND his delegate total graph. The solid lines represent real candidate votes and the dotted lines are delegate votes. Below the graph is a simple chart showing the candidate AND delegate vote totals 8 of the largest precincts; the first four columns are each candidate's vote totals and the last 4 columns are each candidate's delegate totals. notice how similar each candidate's vote/ delegate totals are except for one- Mitt Romney. Why does he ALWAYS gain candidate votes versus delegate votes in Jefferson County? IF there were some legitimate reason for this gain, you would find ALL candidates with a similar candidate/ delegate vote gain/ loss. I've explored every plausible theory that might explain this with but a single conclusion: WIDE SCALE VOTE RIGGING
One might say, "Well you've cherrypicked a few precincts in a single county and ignored the rest in order to bolster you hypothesis." OH how much time and space am I allowed to occupy on this thread? So let's tak a look at the entires state of ALL 4 CANDIDATES: REPORTED CANDIDATE VOTES MINUS DELEGATE VOTES versus VOTES in ASCENDING VOTE TOTAL PRECINCT ORDER. As anyone who has read the Alabama thread already knows, It is highly likely that Romney AND Santorum were the recipient of Paul's votes above 5%. This graph clearly shows an unexplainable benefit for Romney AND Santorum and a unexplainable vote loss for Ron Paul- from small to large precincts.
Explanation- More than 1800 precinct results are plotted in these graphs. Any point shown that is located above the X-Axis is an actual precinct where that candidate received more candidate votes than delegate votes; Any point below the X-Axis represents a precinct in which the candidate received less reported votes than delegate votes. In how many precincts does Ron Paul benefit from "excess" candidate votes? ZERO in the largest 200 precincts representing more than half the vote in Alabama. I'll let you calculate THOSE odds: FLIP A COIN 200 TIMES AND WHAT'S THE PROBABILITY THAT IT LANDS "HEADS EVERY TIME? 1/(2 e*200) or (one in 1.6 times 10 to the 60th power). Note that Gingrich's graph appears to be "honest" (random above/ below the zero point X-Axis) while Santorum and Romney consistently gain.
it can be argued and a linear mathematical model can be constructed (it HAS been constructed by this author) whereby Santorum's gains above COULD have been conceivably caused by an honest sincere election. However, Mitt Romney's gains cannot.
It's worth mentioning that RonRules has discovered conclusively in the Wisconsin Primary that every County that entrusted a contract voting machine company to tabulate votes in the 2012 GOP Primary produced results where the Romney anomaly was present whereas EVERY county that tabulated using their own tabulator flatlines.
If you truly understand this post and sincerely want the truth, there is NO other explanation than MASSIVE VOTE RIGGING. These are what are considered highlights of this investigation that, when properly understood, leave NO room for any other conclusion.
At the time, there was no analysis of any previous elections. As more people became involved and devoted time to research this, any previous election data available was analyzed to see how earlier Primaries compared to the 2012 Primary; specifically, when the graph of each candidate’s cumulative percentage versus cumulative votes via ascending precinct size is graphed, is the curve ALWAYS a horizontal line OR or does a candidate’s percentage increase/ decrease dramatically with respect to precinct size?
All of the data of previous Primaries that were analyzed showed horizontal flat lines before 2008… except Louisiana (1990’s) and Tennessee (the exact years escape me at the moment). Initially, it was believed that this proved the candidate discrepancy from small to large precincts disproved the vote rigging theory. However, special thanks to Dr. K and Bev Harris for calling attention to the fact that the Louisiana election commissioner from 1991 to 1999, Jerry M. Fowler, was convicted in a vote machine scandal where special “voting machine counters” were installed into the EVM’s. I recall vividly that the Presidential Primary graphs looked just like Romney’s graphs while Fowler was commissioner but right after he was removed, the graphs FLATLINED. A similar situation occurred in Tennessee that coincided with the graphs mentioned above. In summary, not only did these graphs NOT disprove the occurrence of vote flipping, they more seemed to prove that when there IS electronic vote rigging then there will be a large gain in the larger precincts for the “assisted” candidate. This information is available in the other threads on this Forum site. I will post more details when I have the time to locate. If you already have located, please post for me.
Now up to this point, ALL claims of vote rigging were based on the fact that one candidate- Mitt Romney- was making HUGE gains from lower vote total precincts to higher vote- total precincts; enter the Alabama Primary. The investigators were given a gift in this Primary; the voters were asked to vote for 1. His/ her preferred presidential candidate and 2. That candidate’s delegate, which each candidate had multiple delegate positions. There were approximately 600,000 candidate votes cast for each candidate AND 600,000 total delegate votes (each position). There’s no doubt that there were massive voter error related to delegate votes. IF the voting were perfect with no error (which is not the case), the candidate votes = candidates’ delegate votes. In realty, Ron Paul received approximately 30,000 candidate votes versus 70,000 delegate votes, Gingrich’s candidate votes = approximately delegate votes, while Romney and Santorum combined received approximately 40,000 more candidate than delegate votes. Did this PROVE that the candidate votes in Alabama were rigged while the riggers FORGOT to adjust the corresponding delegate vote count? My opinion is that although the likelihood is high that this IS the case, the evidence is still circumstantial, like all the other evidence to this point. So how can we prove/ disprove the vote flipping phenomena irrefutably? Strap yourself in.
A graph was constructed of VOTES MINUS DELEGATES versus ASCENDING ORDER PRECINCT VOTE TOTALS in Alabama. To me, this IS the Holy Grail of this entire argument. There simply is no other explanation for this other than VOTE RIGGING IN THE FAVOR OF MITT ROMNEY IN LARGER VOTE TOTAL PRECINCTS. I re-post my original AND the attempted rebuttal by DSW. What both of these shows is that at around 300k votes Mitt Romney undergoes an unexplainable increase in his vote receiving percentage in relation to his delegate percentage. Repeat: There is NO explanation for this other than VOTE RIGGING.[/COLOR]
Next, it was observed when graphing the precincts in Alabama where Mitt Romney received an excess of candidate votes versus delegate votes that Jefferson County was where many of these precincts were located. IF I were asked to testify in this obvious vote rigging scandal to give the precinct locations where vote rigging would be the most easily found, this is probably where I would begin. The Jefferson County, Alabama graph below shows each candidate's vote total graph AND his delegate total graph. The solid lines represent real candidate votes and the dotted lines are delegate votes. Below the graph is a simple chart showing the candidate AND delegate vote totals 8 of the largest precincts; the first four columns are each candidate's vote totals and the last 4 columns are each candidate's delegate totals. notice how similar each candidate's vote/ delegate totals are except for one- Mitt Romney. Why does he ALWAYS gain candidate votes versus delegate votes in Jefferson County? IF there were some legitimate reason for this gain, you would find ALL candidates with a similar candidate/ delegate vote gain/ loss. I've explored every plausible theory that might explain this with but a single conclusion: WIDE SCALE VOTE RIGGING
One might say, "Well you've cherrypicked a few precincts in a single county and ignored the rest in order to bolster you hypothesis." OH how much time and space am I allowed to occupy on this thread? So let's tak a look at the entires state of ALL 4 CANDIDATES: REPORTED CANDIDATE VOTES MINUS DELEGATE VOTES versus VOTES in ASCENDING VOTE TOTAL PRECINCT ORDER. As anyone who has read the Alabama thread already knows, It is highly likely that Romney AND Santorum were the recipient of Paul's votes above 5%. This graph clearly shows an unexplainable benefit for Romney AND Santorum and a unexplainable vote loss for Ron Paul- from small to large precincts.
Explanation- More than 1800 precinct results are plotted in these graphs. Any point shown that is located above the X-Axis is an actual precinct where that candidate received more candidate votes than delegate votes; Any point below the X-Axis represents a precinct in which the candidate received less reported votes than delegate votes. In how many precincts does Ron Paul benefit from "excess" candidate votes? ZERO in the largest 200 precincts representing more than half the vote in Alabama. I'll let you calculate THOSE odds: FLIP A COIN 200 TIMES AND WHAT'S THE PROBABILITY THAT IT LANDS "HEADS EVERY TIME? 1/(2 e*200) or (one in 1.6 times 10 to the 60th power). Note that Gingrich's graph appears to be "honest" (random above/ below the zero point X-Axis) while Santorum and Romney consistently gain.
it can be argued and a linear mathematical model can be constructed (it HAS been constructed by this author) whereby Santorum's gains above COULD have been conceivably caused by an honest sincere election. However, Mitt Romney's gains cannot.
It's worth mentioning that RonRules has discovered conclusively in the Wisconsin Primary that every County that entrusted a contract voting machine company to tabulate votes in the 2012 GOP Primary produced results where the Romney anomaly was present whereas EVERY county that tabulated using their own tabulator flatlines.
If you truly understand this post and sincerely want the truth, there is NO other explanation than MASSIVE VOTE RIGGING. These are what are considered highlights of this investigation that, when properly understood, leave NO room for any other conclusion.
Last edited:
HopeForHumanity
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2012
- Messages
- 52
I'm 100% positive that you are simply determined to shut down anyone who believes there could be voting fraud for a simple appearance.
HopeForHumanity
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2012
- Messages
- 52
I think he is just determined to help make ron paul supporters appear less rebellious, but in this case I think a substantial amount of evidence really does reveal voter fraud. I mean, we caught small cases of it all over the place, so vote flipping is not out of the realm of possibility. The "I have more posts than you so i'm better argument" is a standard childish tactic on many forums with lots of fanboys. Its actually really common on gaming forums. I just think it shouldn't be on forums like this considering these people are supposed to be more mature and aware.
Listen, I'm all in favor of someone who is versed in the raw data to come on over. Here's the problem. The "flippers" arguments are piss poor. They just really suck. They don't seem to understand that they need to make their arguments a lot better. I'm not saying there isn't fraud or whatever term people want to use. Clearly at the conventions there was a ton of cheating. And the "flippers" are working on this element. And have gotten nowhere. I'm not against the "flippers" becoming competent, and capable of looking at the actual data. But over and over again, they don't.
What you're saying about very large populated areas having more precincts and low population areas having more votes is true. The way it works in reality, is that the suburbs, not the urban areas and not the rural areas, especially the rich country club suburbs, are the ones with the big precincts.
A couple ways to look at this.
1) Precinct lines are drawn based on number of voters. When there is an inner city precinct - there will likely be at least twice as many Democrats as Republicans. That's just the way it is. So, there will be very few votes in the Republican Primary. But there will be a lot of voters there.
2) Rich suburbs will contain more Republicans than Democrats. In the primary, there will be more votes in the Republian Primary than the Democratic Primary.
But looking at the raw data is definitely the way to go.
I mentioned elsewhere on this thread that I predicted (before the primary) that Romney would kick ass in Southern Fairfield County Connecticut. And he did. I haven't seen any charts or graphs about that.
What kind of psychic ability did I have to come up with that prediction? Do people think that I was predicting that fraud would be taking place there? No, my prediction was based on the theory that rich people like Romney, and he did completely rock in those counties. No reasonable person should be disputing that.
However, you are right when you say that those Fairfield County precints might be the richest precincts, but they're not necessarily the largest. And you really have to look at the data to make these determinations.
If I wanted to get to the bottom of this, and I believed that there was some sort of vote rigging going on, I would look closely at the data, and I would use the awareness of things like Rich, or in the west, Mormon, to help make sense of the data. The "flippers" are going to be unable to find anything, because they don't believe that factors like "Rich" or "Mormon" should effect voter choice. They just see sloped lines and say "that can't be right".
You have said some ridiculous things over the course of these last months. What were you saying about McDonalds and Eskimos?
Just the idiots and the sock puppets.
Though the burden of proof is on those who claim that there has been fraud, it would benefit the discussion if you could try to prove some of your sweeping generalizations. I do not appreciate being labeled an idiot and a sock puppet for not accepting your count-theory sans evidence. I've asked you pointed questions regarding your theories and you've willfully ignored them. If your goal in this and previous threads was to make others aware that you don't find the evidence compelling and that you think your counter-theory explains everything perfectly, then your work here is complete. Unless you are about to provide your evidence, then I can't imagine why you'd waste any more of your time on these threads. If you intend to continue hurling insipid, interpersonal, invectives, then would you kindly tell me how to block you?
James_Madison_Lives
Member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2010
- Messages
- 2,959
The Man is definitely the Man. His astonishing additional data aside, what should convince people that it is vote flipping is fundamental here is not just Romney's percentage vote going up in larger precincts, but Paul's going down, and no one else's, at a slope that is a mirror image inverse of Romney's. That is not just one, or two, but three statistical wonders in a row.
RonRules
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,485
It's a debate technique called "Argument from ridicule", which I occasionally use, but that you use as a matter of course.
The weird Alabama results were based on people overvoting for delegates. In 2012 the machines were broken. They took ballots they shouldn't have. In 2008, the machines did not take those ballots. There weren't overvotes in 2008 but there were in 2012. Perhaps this is something different. There is no doubt that the Alabama results were impossible on their face. There was NO WAY that a delegate candidate for a presidential candidate can get more votes than the actual presidential candidate gets.
This was a clear error in Alabama, and for some reason, it's ignored. The flippers simply want to talk about flipping.
This was a clear error in Alabama, and for some reason, it's ignored. The flippers simply want to talk about flipping.
So, I really don't actually. But I do, often on vote flipping threads. Because seriously, "team flipping" really hasn't gotten anywhere new in months. You're still saying the same things, you haven't dug any deeper or accomplished anything more than you did the first day. Like someone else said - dig deeper into the data.
Your basic premise - which isn't really that there's fraud or vote flipping - is that people have the same preferences in every single precinct. And that's just stupid. And I don't know if that's an "argument from ridicule" or what exactly, but really, hello, people in the South Bronx have different preferences from the people in Greenwich, CT.
Do you agree with this statement? Or do you disagree?
True or False: People in the South Bronx, NY and people in Greenwich, CT have different preferences.
Similar threads
