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

[parocks]

Seriously? And if this does end up in hot topics it will be thanks to you and Brandon. Everyone else seems pretty on board that the math lends to fraud or flipping or whatever the hell you want to call it.

Seriously, yes. Not every single person knows people in management of a Fortune 500 company.

Listen, the flippers already have their own thread, and it's a big thread, where you can discuss - without criticism - your theories. Special rules just for you. That doesn't allow you to have all of your threads be criticism-free.

 

[parocks]

Parocks. You obviously read these threads, but then argue as if you're ignorant of their contents.

Hey, congratulations on your 3rd post!!! 3 posts, but telling me that I don't know the contents. WOW. Impressive!

What nuance of meaning am I missing Mr 3 post?

 

[The Man]

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.

To clarify, I personally spoke with the Jefferson County election commissioner and explained what had been found. He responded that there is no reason he could think of that would explain the skewed differential between delegate and candidates that favored any one candidate. You mention that there was clear error in Alabama that gets "ignored" and yet my post alludes to this error as a definite occurence. Please help me to understand your position Parocks. And you don't even respond to my points but rather spew generalities? This is a bit silly. But let's focus on the first graph, which has NOTHING to do with anything you mention above. I ask you- do you really understand what I have laid out? With respect to Romney's own delegate votes received in Alabama, his candidate votes experience a 4% increase at a vote count of around 300k votes. It's important to note that this irrefutable discovery 100% supports the contention that Romney is receiving extra votes in larger vote- count precincts, which was asserted at least 3 months before this graph was created. What are the odds? It defies logic that an intelligent human being (please don't misinterpret- you're obviously intelligent) wouldn't give pause and have the courage to change direction as new evidence is presented.

 

[parocks]

You said: "I've asked you pointed questions regarding your theories and you've willfully ignored them."

Which post was that? I'm noticing that my pointed questions aren't being addressed. What pointed question or yours have I been missing?
Perhaps there is one, and I missed it. I'll go look.

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?

 

[NowCured]

Hey, congratulations on your 3rd post!!! 3 posts, but telling me that I don't know the contents. WOW. Impressive!

What nuance of meaning am I missing Mr 3 post?

Thanks! I'm mostly only following these threads. I've had nothing to add, so I keep my mouth shut. I wish you'd do the same.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Thanks! I'm mostly only following these threads. I've had nothing to add, so I keep my mouth shut. I wish you'd do the same.

Your screen name interests me. Have you recently developed interest in Ron's platform?

And don't take some spew personal. Heck, I'm still only half way through the vote flipping thread myself.

 

[parocks]

It's like fighting a hydra. If the curves are produced by amazing GOTV efforts, then how is it that only Romney manages to do so well at GOTV? Surely we should see a curve for Santorum or Gingrich somewhere. If the anti-fraud argument shifts back to demographics... are there even enough voters in the rich, country club uniformly thinking block to outnumber the hoi polloi? I live in a very large city and I can understand if precinct level charts showed the most affluent neighborhoods going 80-90% Romney, but there aren't enough voters in those precincts not only to counterbalance the poor and blue-collar neighborhoods but to tip the scales so much so that a curve develops.

Ok, this is your pointed question that I failed to address.

Q: Why did only Romney have GOTV, basically?

A: Because GOTV costs money. And Romney had much more money than any other candidate. Romney was known to have an organization, it was saiecd that Gingrich and Santorum were almost broke at one time or another. We had our own version of GOTV, which seemed to be centered on phone from home. But it really wasn't our focus especially after the focus was shifted to conventions.

Q: If the anti-fraud argument shifts back to demographics... are there even enough voters in the rich, country club uniformly thinking block to outnumber the hoi polloi?

Yes. Often, the hoi polloi are Democrats. But the Republican ones support Ron Paul. And there is also a big middle there. And they split their votes a number of ways. Another thing to note is that we never really did all that well at Colleges and Universities. We might've won, but I haven't seen any precinct at a college or university where it could be said we really kicked ass. I can remember thinking, I think it was Minnesota, wow, we won that dorm precinct 7 votes to 2 to 1 - great job. There are 10s of thousands of students at these places and we rocked none of them (that I can recall, I'd like to see if we did well anywhere like that).

So, at this point, we're talking about the largest precincts doing the best for Romney -

1) because the upper middle class / rich establishment Republicans prefer Romney. For some reason where Romney voters live, are the largest precincts. We could test this by looking at data.

2) Romney did some type of localized GOTV, which turned out voters for him in some precincts (which caused those precincts to have bigger numbers - ordinarily, these would be farther to the left, but, because of GOTV, they were more to the right.

What very large city? Maybe if you could get the data, we could pick it apart - see if the numbers match what WE EXPECT THEM TO. Which is the key that is missing. You have to understand that not everybody votes alike. What really bugs me is that this is basic common sense, and you're assuming it away. You need to incorporate these basic facts, and then continue to develop your theory. Look at the data. Compare the results from 2008 and 2012. The overall theory is "Romney is cheating" right? At conventions, we have lots and lots of video that looks like "Romney is cheating" I would argue that instead of insisting that an upward sloping line is proof of fraud, you have to dig much deeper, and do a lot more work to proof anything.

Has anyone said what they think happened in any given case? It really seems like "it should be flat, algorithms made a curve" without explaining how that happened. What did the algorthm do exactly?

In Manhattan, Romney got 3,964 votes. Westchester 6,336 (with 66% reporting).

What needs to be understood is that the Republicans are in the suburbs, the Democrats are in the inner cities.
In Manhattan, Romney got 3,964 votes. Westchester 6,336 (with 66% reporting). More Republican votes in the suburbs.
We got 9% in Westchester. 3rd after Gingrich. Westchester is Romney homebase. Country Club. All the suburbs are, but Westchester and Rockland especially.
Rockland was Romney 78% Gingrich 10% Paul 7%.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/county/table/r/ct?refresh=1 - here's CT, you'll see that the bigger cities did not have the most votes at all.

 

[affa]

i see the 'move along, there is nothing to see here' folks are here in force, insulting the living daylights out of anyone who might even think about researching it for themselves, while not understanding (or intentionally distorting) the very basics of the flipping algorithm being discussed.

You people should be ashamed of yourselves. You really should.

 

[parocks]

Ok, are you talking about how certain delegates for Ron Paul got more votes than Ron Paul? Which is impossible, unless faulty ballots were wrongly counted.

Are you talking about THAT, or are you talking about something else?

Because THAT is what should be talked about.

Did you ask the person from Jefferson County about how delegate candidates did, often, get more votes than the Presidential candidate? Gingrich got more, Paul got more. What did they say about that?

What you have, without any graphs that require interpretation, is clear evidence that the machines weren't working correctly.

You shouldn't ignore that aspect. Here, the Machines Weren't Working Right. Since their argument will be the machines work fine. When you say "oh, there was vote flipping" someone would say "what evidence do you have that the Machines Weren't Working Right?" And you can say "in Alabama, the machines were broken. They allowed people to vote for the delegate of a candidate that they didn't vote for. And you can't do that.

That's your Alabama headline. Machines Didn't Work Right.

If you find, anywhere, any unusual data points, and those unusual data points help tell a story about a weird graph, then tell that story.

To clarify, I personally spoke with the Jefferson County election commissioner and explained what had been found. He responded that there is no reason he could think of that would explain the skewed differential between delegate and candidates that favored any one candidate. You mention that there was clear error in Alabama that gets "ignored" and yet my post alludes to this error as a definite occurence. Please help me to understand your position Parocks. And you don't even respond to my points but rather spew generalities? This is a bit silly. But let's focus on the first graph, which has NOTHING to do with anything you mention above. I ask you- do you really understand what I have laid out? With respect to Romney's own delegate votes received in Alabama, his candidate votes experience a 4% increase at a vote count of around 300k votes. It's important to note that this irrefutable discovery 100% supports the contention that Romney is receiving extra votes in larger vote- count precincts, which was asserted at least 3 months before this graph was created. What are the odds? It defies logic that an intelligent human being (please don't misinterpret- you're obviously intelligent) wouldn't give pause and have the courage to change direction as new evidence is presented.

 

[parocks]

i see the 'move along, there is nothing to see here' folks are here in force, insulting the living daylights out of anyone who might even think about researching it for themselves, while not understanding (or intentionally distorting) the very basics of the flipping algorithm being discussed.

You people should be ashamed of yourselves. You really should.

I'm sure you mean me.

Please, tell me more about the "flipping algorithm". It's mathematical equation of course. What is this mathematical equation. You've had 5 months to work on this. You should have mathematical equation to share, since you're talking about a algorithm. What is it?

 

[parocks]

Thanks! I'm mostly only following these threads. I've had nothing to add, so I keep my mouth shut. I wish you'd do the same.

And your 4th post. Hooray!

 

[parocks]

Figure 2 is pretty good. What have you figured out for that?

Figure 2 is labeled wrong. both figure 1 and figure 2 are not likely to be x1000. I would guess that Figure 2 should be x100

To clarify, I personally spoke with the Jefferson County election commissioner and explained what had been found. He responded that there is no reason he could think of that would explain the skewed differential between delegate and candidates that favored any one candidate. You mention that there was clear error in Alabama that gets "ignored" and yet my post alludes to this error as a definite occurence. Please help me to understand your position Parocks. And you don't even respond to my points but rather spew generalities? This is a bit silly. But let's focus on the first graph, which has NOTHING to do with anything you mention above. I ask you- do you really understand what I have laid out? With respect to Romney's own delegate votes received in Alabama, his candidate votes experience a 4% increase at a vote count of around 300k votes. It's important to note that this irrefutable discovery 100% supports the contention that Romney is receiving extra votes in larger vote- count precincts, which was asserted at least 3 months before this graph was created. What are the odds? It defies logic that an intelligent human being (please don't misinterpret- you're obviously intelligent) wouldn't give pause and have the courage to change direction as new evidence is presented.

 

[freedomordeath]

The weird Alabama results were based on people overvoting for delegates. In 2012 the machines were broken.

where is your source that these machines are broken... also you make gross generalizations as to what demographic will vote for what. I geniunly believe that most Americans are patriots, and would die for their country. They are simply asleep and not aware they in the matrix. If you have an American that gets the red pill, even if dirty Rich, he'll fight for his country. The poeple hooked on welfare not so much, but then again I can make a gross generalization that the welfare poeple are Democrats and hate Republicans.

Other poeple here base their arguments on facts, I'm not clever enough to come up with the facts, but am clever enough to tell what is BS and what is not BS. Parrocks, your generalizations as to what demographics will vote for what is just that generalizations and not based on fact where as these clever folk are coming WITH HARD FACTS. YOU CANNOT BRING GENERALIZATIONS TO THE TABLE, BRING FACTS.

Also we keep saying to you that not all of them had to be vote flipped, some parts of the country will simply not vote Ron Paul, but they flipped it where it was important.
Here is a youtube clip in Nevada shown live from CNN because there was no way a Jewish community was gonna vote Ron Paul right, am I right Parrocks, would you have watched CNN expecting a non Ron Paul outcome.



notice, whenever these were displayed on TV, Ron Paul did well all of a sudden except for those done behind closed doors.

 

[parocks]

I get what you're saying (I think, a little). What you have in Alabama is a control of sorts. The number of delegate votes. The numbers should be aligned very strongly.
Now, we know that the machines screwed up, and I'm not sure what effect that has on all this.

It appears that in the largest precincts, there was the highest percentage of Romney votes without the equivalent delegate vote. And at an easily identifiable point on the graph, the spread widened faster.

Is the theory that the precincts on the right side of the graph are the suspect ones? Has anyone looked at the actual data to try to see if there was anything unusual there?

What I'm seeing here IS different from what I saw before.

Since you're talking about vote flipping, or moving of votes from one candidates column to anothers, have you determined anything there?
You could have for each precinct - Romney votes, Romney delegate votes, votes minus delegates, and "expected" votes minus delegates. Where "expected" is what
the number would be if the slope stayed flat. The difference between votes minus delegates and "expected votes minus delegates is the number of votes Mitt got switched to him.

After that, you take a look, precinct by precinct, derive those "number of votes stolen" and try to see, from the other candidates, where those votes would be coming from. Seeing any patterns there? If there is any vote flipping, I would assume you'd see the pattern there.

Is the assumption that some machines were rigged and others weren't, and that all machines were rigged with the same ratio something like Romney = Romney + .1XPaul, paul = .9xpaul or something similar?

did you notice that the slope of the Romney delegates goes up in Figure 3? did you realize that most of my arguments are with people that argue that any upward sloping curve is fraud? I recognize that what you've shown is different. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a legitimate reason why larger precincts are less likely to have Romney voters vote for Romney delegates. "Rich people are too busy" is just not good enough.

Based on those numbers, about 1200 votes flipped? The gap between the top line and the dotted line in figure 2?

To clarify, I personally spoke with the Jefferson County election commissioner and explained what had been found. He responded that there is no reason he could think of that would explain the skewed differential between delegate and candidates that favored any one candidate. You mention that there was clear error in Alabama that gets "ignored" and yet my post alludes to this error as a definite occurence. Please help me to understand your position Parocks. And you don't even respond to my points but rather spew generalities? This is a bit silly. But let's focus on the first graph, which has NOTHING to do with anything you mention above. I ask you- do you really understand what I have laid out? With respect to Romney's own delegate votes received in Alabama, his candidate votes experience a 4% increase at a vote count of around 300k votes. It's important to note that this irrefutable discovery 100% supports the contention that Romney is receiving extra votes in larger vote- count precincts, which was asserted at least 3 months before this graph was created. What are the odds? It defies logic that an intelligent human being (please don't misinterpret- you're obviously intelligent) wouldn't give pause and have the courage to change direction as new evidence is presented.

 

[parocks]

The machines were broken because there were overvotes, the number of votes for delegates was greater than the votes for the candidate. In 2008, that didn't happen.
I spent a lot of time a few months ago on this. Making charts and graphs, etc showing that the numbers are pretty normal when you consider that some people voted in all of the delegate races, and many people didn't vote in any delegate races. However, I wasn't looking at the precinct size, and that figure 2 looks very interesting.

Yeah, I'm making a gross generalization. I'm not arguing that it isn't. Reality is often more nuanced than gross generalization. But it's basically true. And I don't feel the need to describe the wonderful diversity of Greenwich, CT. It's one of the richest towns in the US, and it voted for Romney 80%. It's just the way it is. And yes, welfare people are democrats and hate republicans. Public employee unions, also democrats who hate republicans. other unions, same, except a lot of union members aren't that.

The adelson caucus was AT NIGHT. Old people sleeping at night. This was the takeaway, which we ignored. If we want to win, we do things at night. When the old people are asleep. Schedule our county committee meetings for night. Our people show up, theirs don't. I saw that caucus live, and I was impressed with the good job we all did. We clearly were organized and we had our A game going.

where is your source that these machines are broken... also you make gross generalizations as to what demographic will vote for what. I geniunly believe that most Americans are patriots, and would die for their country. They are simply asleep and not aware they in the matrix. If you have an American that gets the red pill, even if dirty Rich, he'll fight for his country. The poeple hooked on welfare not so much, but then again I can make a gross generalization that the welfare poeple are Democrats and hate Republicans.

Other poeple here base their arguments on facts, I'm not clever enough to come up with the facts, but am clever enough to tell what is BS and what is not BS. Parrocks, your generalizations as to what demographics will vote for what is just that generalizations and not based on fact where as these clever folk are coming WITH HARD FACTS. YOU CANNOT BRING GENERALIZATIONS TO THE TABLE, BRING FACTS.

Also we keep saying to you that not all of them had to be vote flipped, some parts of the country will simply not vote Ron Paul, but they flipped it where it was important.
Here is a youtube clip in Nevada shown live from CNN because there was no way a Jewish community was gonna vote Ron Paul right, am I right Parrocks, would you have watched CNN expecting a non Ron Paul outcome.



notice, whenever these were displayed on TV, Ron Paul did well all of a sudden except for those done behind closed doors.

 

[freedomordeath]

The adelson caucus was AT NIGHT. Old people sleeping at night. This was the takeaway, which we ignored. If we want to win, we do things at night. When the old people are asleep. Schedule our county committee meetings for night. Our people show up, theirs don't. I saw that caucus live, and I was impressed with the good job we all did. We clearly were organized and we had our A game going.

there we go again, now only night time poeple vote Ron Paul. you forget that this was for seventh day adventists and Jews because of the sabath thing, thats why it was held at night. Remember we were told Jews don't vote Ron Paul because he is racist anti-semite right, that he is anti-Isreal right.. yet these guys are clearly your Von Mises, Rothbard types that stubbornly refuse to fall under the MSM GENERALIZATIONS. Infact so confident was CNN that they stayed through this caucus, you can even hear the reporter say, we are done with the Ron Paul poeple (suggesting they were cutting in ONLY AFTER 10 SPEAKERS SPOKE FOR RON PAUL) and were ready for the Mittens speakers... HAHAHAHAHA NO MITTENS SPEAKERS CAME UP.


SEE THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GENERALIZE.... stick to facts dude.

 

[idiom]

This is one of the more mind numbing arguments I have seen and I am know to troll the LVT puppets...

A voting machine has to be one of the simplest applications of technology since the abacus. They are in their fifth generation now. Yet somehow they are supposedly having massive computational errors consistently across myriad brands and states entirely accidentally and innocently.

 

[KEEF]

This is one of the more mind numbing arguments I have seen and I am know to troll the LVT puppets...

A voting machine has to be one of the simplest applications of technology since the abacus. They are in their fifth generation now. Yet somehow they are supposedly having massive computational errors consistently across myriad brands and states entirely accidentally and innocently.

Well yeah...fraud, HA, the government wouldn't do something like that to my little vote, Nope, don't believe it. /Sarcasm

 

[Bossobass]

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.

You just like to hear yourself talk. Apparently, so much so that you miss the point religiously. People liked McCain? Duh. The point is that "rich Republicans", even if they were 100% behind Romney, cannot possibly make a majority in ANY election. They don't, they can't, they haven't and they didn't... period.

So, it's your lame contention that I'm calling out.

The folks who've begun to gather evidence aren't the Justice Department, but they've gone far and above you're "rich Republicans" BS.

A year ago, any mention of vote fraud was immediately swept under the rug... probably yours. Today, that's not the case. That in itself is a major move forward, so back the fuck off and find something positive to contribute.

 

[The Man]

Figure 2 IS labeled correctly I can assure you; X1000 is correct. To be direct, there are ZERO assumptions here. The fact is that that Mitt Romney's ratio (slope) of votes/ delegates, after holding steady for 300,000 votes, suddenly increases to give him 11,000 extra votes. What happened? EITHER the delegate count was altered OR Romney's vote count was altered at 300,000 total votes- and there's no apparent motive for the former. See the chart for Jefferson county, which shows obvious votes being added to Romney's totals in select larger precincts.
Parrocks, if anybody appreciates a counter argument it's me. But there is simply no credible defense of election integrity left. No doubt that there have been posts over the last 1000 plus pages that are a stretch from persons that don't fully understand what is going on here, but we've moved beyond the initial comparison of small to large vote precincts.
You speak of EVM's malfunctioning, which is NOT the point; the point is that IF malfuntioning occurred, it rewarded one candidate-Mitt Romney at the expense of another- Ron Paul. What are the odds that in the 200 largest precincts of Alabama, Ron Paul loses votes (versus delegates) in every one?

Figure 2 is pretty good. What have you figured out for that?

Figure 2 is labeled wrong. both figure 1 and figure 2 are not likely to be x1000. I would guess that Figure 2 should be x100