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

[parocks]

go back to mitt romney forums already

Said the 2012 to the 2007.

This "vote flipping" stuff is a distraction. Of course, now, there's really nothing to do, so there really isn't much to distract from.

I'm not sure if there is vote rigging (btw, what's with the term "vote flipping"? it's confusing, perhaps intentionally so), but whoever is here and talking about it does not
do a great job of making the case.

Romney simply does well with Country Club Republicans who tend to live in big precincts. The rich suburbs of major cities. The rich suburbs of major cities tend to have more people registered republican, more people eligible to vote, more people voting than the average precinct.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...Connecticut!&p=4372528&viewfull=1#post4372528

 

[James_Madison_Lives]

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.

Sure statisticians would choose an ordering of precincts which historically shows positive correlation, which is why the other dozen charts from previous elections flatline like a graph in a text book. If what you are saying is true, those biases would have shown up in other charts as well. And you are mentioning only one factor: Romney doing well. You are conveniently neglecting:

- Ron Paul declining

- Ron Paul declining in a mirror image of Romney suddenly "doing well."

One at a time any of those factors is fantastic enough, given historical precedent. Put together it's called vote-flipping.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Said the 2012 to the 2007.

So, you don't get intellent until you join RPF?

 

[Indy Vidual]

I would LOVE to show you the proof...

...
I would LOVE to have proof of vote-flipping or whatever....

First, we establish a 99.76% probability that it IS possible for the establishment to cheat.




Second, we establish that you get to figure out the rest...

 

[parocks]

Listen mr 20 posts only here to talk about this craziness, The numbers add to 100%. If Romney does extremely well in some area, the other people do badly. Rich people are protected well by the government. The federal government is something that rich people want to preserve. Ron Paul does not want to preserve the federal government, and we'd get rid of all those perks that the rich people get from the fed gov. Rich County Club Republicans do not like Ron Paul. In places like Texas, where there were only 2 candidates running (and 4 on the ballot), one would assume that when one guy gets more, the other guy gets less. If there are only 2 people on the ballot - you will find a perfect relationship between the 2 lines. That just means that the 2 numbers always add up to 100%.

Sure statisticians would choose an ordering of precincts which historically shows positive correlation, which is why the other dozen charts from previous elections flatline like a graph in a text book. If what you are saying is true, those biases would have shown up in other charts as well. And you are mentioning only one factor: Romney doing well. You are conveniently neglecting:

- Ron Paul declining

- Ron Paul declining in a mirror image of Romney suddenly "doing well."

One at a time any of those factors is fantastic enough, given historical precedent. Put together it's called vote-flipping.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Listen mr 20 posts only here to talk about this craziness, The numbers add to 100%. If Romney does extremely well in some area, the other people do badly. Rich people are protected well by the government. The federal government is something that rich people want to preserve. Ron Paul does not want to preserve the federal government, and we'd get rid of all those perks that the rich people get from the fed gov. Rich County Club Republicans do not like Ron Paul. In places like Texas, where there were only 2 candidates running (and 4 on the ballot), one would assume that when one guy gets more, the other guy gets less. If there are only 2 people on the ballot - you will find a perfect relationship between the 2 lines. That just means that the 2 numbers always add up to 100%.

Wrong.

300 votes is 300 votes, adding 2000 doesn't deplete 300 it adds 1700. One candidate does not need to go down when another goes up when more votes is added. 2+2=4 but 2+10 = 12.

oh, and you aren't a vald carpenter, electrician or statictitian unless you joined RPF prior to 2012 /sarcasm

 

[CPUd]

Listen mr 20 posts only here to talk about this craziness, The numbers add to 100%. If Romney does extremely well in some area, the other people do badly. Rich people are protected well by the government. The federal government is something that rich people want to preserve. Ron Paul does not want to preserve the federal government, and we'd get rid of all those perks that the rich people get from the fed gov. Rich County Club Republicans do not like Ron Paul. In places like Texas, where there were only 2 candidates running (and 4 on the ballot), one would assume that when one guy gets more, the other guy gets less. If there are only 2 people on the ballot - you will find a perfect relationship between the 2 lines. That just means that the 2 numbers always add up to 100%.

If you look at maps of the primary results, especially the ones where romney didn't sweep all the counties like SC and MS, it supports what parocks is saying; the spots where romney wins are metropolitan and surrounding areas, which just happen to be more populated than rural counties. What I believe the data will show is that there is a correltation between votes per precinct and margin of victory.

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.

You may be defeating your own argument here. Because the x-axis shows precincts by size, going form left to right on the graph means a larger sample size, and it is the smaller precincts that are less representative of the actual percentages.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

If you look at maps of the primary results, especially the ones where romney didn't sweep all the counties like SC and MS, it supports what parocks is saying; the spots where romney wins are metropolitan and surrounding areas, which just happen to be more populated than rural counties. What I believe the data will show is that there is a correltation between votes per precinct and margin of victory.



You may be defeating your own argument here. Because the x-axis shows precincts by size, going form left to right on the graph means a larger sample size, and it is the smaller precincts that are less representative of the actual percentages.

It's not a larger sample size, it's a larger jar.

 

[bcreps85]

Those trying to discount the theory are missing several things and obviously didn't read the full billion page thread.

1. If Romney does so much better in the larger areas, as stated, then why didn't polling data from rural, urban, and suburban areas from three different states show this? Instead it showed that all of the candidates in the race at the time enjoyed almost the same percentage of support from all areas. Another possibility is that larger areas are more likely to be counted by electronic voting machines.

2. You shouldn't see the "mirror image" between Romney and Paul when there are multiple other people running. In the full billion page thread, not one detractor could come up with a plausible explanation for that.

 

[Tiso0770]

Could this also be Ballot sheet tampering?....the reason i said this was it would be easy to mark the most populated areas which the RNC has total access to. changing the name would be more logical and everyone looks at the printouts anyway, but what about the Ballot sheets themselves. it would be simpler to just switch names on the ballot.

How would this effect the chart?.

 

[puppetmaster]

I believe we have been robbed. I know they are capable of this and who knows how high this goes.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

If they can, they will.

edit: and if they can't, they'll do it anyway.

 

[CPUd]

Could this also be Ballot sheet tampering?....the reason i said this was it would be easy to mark the most populated areas which the RNC has total access to. changing the name would be more logical and everyone looks at the printouts anyway, but what about the Ballot sheets themselves. it would be simpler to just switch names on the ballot.

How would this effect the chart?.

That was suspected to have happened in Palm Beach County , FL in the 2000 election:

Maybe graphing Gore vs Buchanan will show what this looks like.

 

[CPUd]

Those trying to discount the theory are missing several things and obviously didn't read the full billion page thread.

2. You shouldn't see the "mirror image" between Romney and Paul when there are multiple other people running. In the full billion page thread, not one detractor could come up with a plausible explanation for that.

What percentage of votes for other candidates came from absentee ballots?

 

[Tiso0770]

That was suspected to have happened in Palm Beach County , FL in the 2000 election:

Maybe graphing Gore vs Buchanan will show what this looks like.

LOL!!, what a screwed up Ballot...

 

[parocks]

I would LOVE to show you the proof...



First, we establish a 99.76% probability that it IS possible for the establishment to cheat.




Second, we establish that you get to figure out the rest...

No, we can't assume that cheating took place because cheating could've took place. We just can't.

Honestly, Rich Republicans I would think would prefer Romney to Ron Paul. It's natural for them to want Romney. They're making a lot of money, right now, and they don't want someone to come in and change things up. Because if that happens, they might not get as much money as they're getting right now. The rich people are very very happy with Romney's proposals, which are, basically, more of the same. And rich people don't want change. Rich people don't like the tea party. Rich Republicans, Country Club Republicans, Establishment, Rockefeller Republicans, all of those who are beneficiaries of the fed gov / big business partnership, with the agencies hiring regulators from the corporations they're supposed to regulate, all of those people prefer Romney to Ron Paul. Middle management and up at any Fortune 500 company is going to prefer Romney to Ron Paul by a wide margin. That just makes sense. We're the ones who want to end all that bs. They're the ones who want to keep it going.

Here are some Romney vote totals

Conn
Greenwich Mitt Romney 1,437 81%
Westport Mitt Romney 640 82%
Weston Mitt Romney 250 84%
New Canaan Mitt Romney 683 82%
Darien Mitt Romney 631 84%

3,641 votes for Romney in those 5 towns
Statewide total for Romney - 67.1% 40,171 votes
9% of all of Romney's votes came from those 5 towns.

61,171 Greenwich fairfield
20,732 darien fairfield
19,738 new caanan fairfield
26,391 westport fairfield
10,179 weston fairfield

138,211 people live in those 5 towns
3,580,709 in CT 3.8% of CT's population lives in those 5 towns, all in Southern Fairfield County.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Preditors always seek an advantage.

They didn't pass the NDAA?

 

[cocrehamster]

No, we can't assume that cheating took place because cheating could've took place. We just can't.

Honestly, Rich Republicans I would think would prefer Romney to Ron Paul. It's natural for them to want Romney. They're making a lot of money, right now, and they don't want someone to come in and change things up. Because if that happens, they might not get as much money as they're getting right now. The rich people are very very happy with Romney's proposals, which are, basically, more of the same. And rich people don't want change. Rich people don't like the tea party. Rich Republicans, Country Club Republicans, Establishment, Rockefeller Republicans, all of those who are beneficiaries of the fed gov / big business partnership, with the agencies hiring regulators from the corporations they're supposed to regulate, all of those people prefer Romney to Ron Paul. Middle management and up at any Fortune 500 company is going to prefer Romney to Ron Paul by a wide margin. That just makes sense. We're the ones who want to end all that bs. They're the ones who want to keep it going.

Here are some Romney vote totals

Conn
Greenwich Mitt Romney 1,437 81%
Westport Mitt Romney 640 82%
Weston Mitt Romney 250 84%
New Canaan Mitt Romney 683 82%
Darien Mitt Romney 631 84%

3,641 votes for Romney in those 5 towns
Statewide total for Romney - 67.1% 40,171 votes
9% of all of Romney's votes came from those 5 towns.

61,171 Greenwich fairfield
20,732 darien fairfield
19,738 new caanan fairfield
26,391 westport fairfield
10,179 weston fairfield

138,211 people live in those 5 towns
3,580,709 in CT 3.8% of CT's population lives in those 5 towns, all in Southern Fairfield County.

does it not strike you as odd that it doesn't happen in any other way than benefiting romney?

 

[DanK22]

Assuming Parocks is right in that rich, country club suburbanites are skewing the data and are the cause of the flipping phenomenon... why haven't we seen them skew other races both past and present? And how do you explain elections with flat line results? How could such a sizable, uniform voting block not cause the phenomenon in every race?

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Assuming Parocks is right in that rich, country club suburbanites are skewing the data and are the cause of the flipping phenomenon... why haven't we seen them skew other races both past and present? And how do you explain elections with flat line results? How could such a sizable, uniform voting block not cause the phenomenon in every race?

ah, you're trying to use logic, whatz a matta ya?