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

[The Man]

Most anyone could design and build a mistake-free voting system within days. The so-called "errors" are obviously by design.

 

[KingNothing]

Game. Changer. In. An. Honest. World.

Uhh, no. Do people still believe this nonsense?

 

[parocks]

A lot of the people that were there weren't jews. Supposed to be, but wasn't. And yes, we do perform better at night. Old people are asleep at 10pm.

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.

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

The fact of the matter is. These men are willing to kill innocent people, for self-interest, and agenda. If you think they wouldn't have done this, or haven't, you're being far too entrusting.

 

[parocks]

Either figure 1 is labeled wrong or figure 2 is labeled wrong. In Figure 1, it's the total votes, and total delegates (however that's arrived at, that's unclear)
it also shows the gap - votes minus delegates. And it's clear on Figure 1 - which is also x1000, that the gap (votes minus delegates) is around 2K

In figure 2, the line is votes minus delegates, and that line shows approx 23K. So either about 2K is right, or about 20K is right. One of the 2 charts either has an extra 0 or is missing a 0.

Whoever is making these graphs should fix up whatever sloppy errors are there.

Right now I think I do see what you're talking about. Unless there's some reason why as the size of the precinct increases, the more likely that Romney voters won't vote for Romney delegates, even then, the change is abrupt there, and it does seem inexplicable.

"Romney's vote count was altered at 300,000 total votes" Exactly how would that work?

I laid out my suggestion of what might've happened in some detail on another post. How is "vote count was altered at 300,000 total votes."?

Are you sure that you even understand what this graph shows? You're probably just saying it wrong?

There is no "at 300,000 total votes" You aren't looking at the first precincts to report, and then the last precinctsto report. It's the smallest precincts, then the largest precints. So, the 300,000 is Romneys votes from the smaller precincts. So, the number 300,000 is not going to act like some sort of trigger. But maybe you aren't saying that. What is more likely is that the precincts to the right, are exhibiting different behavior from the precincts at the left. Why is this? What exactly happened at those precincts that didn't happen at the other precincts?

And could this change at 300K be attributed to the fact that there was overvoting for delegates? It was noted several months ago that there were too many votes for delegates in the case of Ron Paul especially, but also Newt Gingrich. It was determined that what happened in Alabama is that about 25% of each of the candidates voters didn't vote for delegates, about 10% voted in every delegate race no matter which candidate. We also noted "voter fatigue" which caused more people to vote in Newt's first delegate race than in Santorums last delegate race. It was a solid plausible explanation of what happened.

Now, using what was found there, one might guess that the "before 300K precincts" were precincts that Romney got more "wrong" delegate votes. If, say 20% voted for Romney, and 80% voted for someone else, but votes for Romneys delegates are coming from everybody, you'll get a higher percentage of delegate to candidate then if it was 40%. As the % of right votes goes up, the % of wrong votes goes down.

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?

 

[parocks]

The fact of the matter is. These men are willing to kill innocent people, for self-interest, and agenda. If you think they wouldn't have done this, or haven't, you're being far too entrusting.

I'm not saying that. I'm from the anticonspiracy wing. My overall position on this is that the arguments are weak, and need to be a lot stronger. If I asked somebody to explain why the sun will rise in the east, and they came back with a piece of paper that said "sun will rise in east" and below it just a bunch of scribbles, they did a terrible job. It doesn't mean the sun won't rise in the east.

 

[parocks]

I'm not saying that ONLY Rich Republicans vote for Romney. Romney is the candidate that the Rich Republicans really really like. But Romney certainly got a lot of votes from the group people characterize as "sheeple". Middle class Conservative Republicans voted for Romney, also Paul, Gingrich, Santorum. But the Rich Republicans, Country Club, Rockefeller Republicans, RINOs whatever liked Romney almost unanimously. That's his base. And, out west, Mormons, that's another base. But republicans other than country club republicans did vote for him.

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.

 

[RonRules]

Right now I think I do see what you're talking about.... and it does seem inexplicable.

The Man has explained and re-explained this to you dozens of times in the original Alabama thread and just NOW you're getting it?!!

 

[RonRules]

And, out west, Mormons, that's another base.

Well then, explain why the Utah chart flat-lines?

They make up 60 % of the population. Should there not be a hump or a slope in the curve?

 

[The Man]

Either figure 1 is labeled wrong or figure 2 is labeled wrong.

You ARE very intelligent Parocks! You are correct- figure 1 Y-Axis should be labeled x10,000 instead of X1000.
You ask how this could be accomplished? the easiest answer is "in the central tabulator computation software." But as I look at the chart in Jefferson county, it's still possible that certain EVM's at select precincts are causing this. BUT the only thing that is 100% is this: Mitt Romney is the beneficiary of extra votes that are either being (1)stolen from other candidates or (2)created out of thin air in larger precincts. This phenomenon is taking place in higher vote-count precincts. I would present another example of an attempted "debunk" that ultimately serves to bolster the case of "vote flipping":

This entire thread can be found at http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?367223-The-Case-Against-Vote-Flipping-(no-fraud)/page14

User "DA32130" claimed to debunk the "vote-flipping" phenomenon in the following post regarding the GOP Primary results in Virginia Beach City, Va. 2012. Now understand at that point I personally never had even seen the results from Va. Bch City. But I thought "let's give this guy EVERY benefit of the doubt, every license, etc. and see what he can come up with to counter the vote-flipping. We allowed him to use ridiculous Libertarian vote totals from 2008- some precincts there were 1, 3, 4, etc. votes total from 4 years earlier! Anyway- Below is the graph showing cumulative percent Paul (blue) vs Romney (red) using the reported data.

Using the 08 election results adjusting for democratic, republican, libertarianism, etc. he claimed to prove that the graph flattened out thus proving that he had found the couse of Romney's gains (see below)

DA32130 claimed that by "flattening" this graph, he had debunked vote flipping. He didn't understand these important facts of the fundamental claim:
1. Romney's gains that we're concerned about are in the largest precincts (corresponding to the right-most above).
2. He argued that the gains in the largest precincts to the right were insignificant/miniscule, only found in a small portion of the precincts, and that the graph could be further flattened by using more demographic information.

Upon closer inspection it was learned that his X-Axis DID order the precincts from lowest to highest vote total as required, however he gave equal spacing to EVERY precinct, regardless of its size. In other words, the upward slope seen in the rightmost 25% of the precincts really occurred across more like 40% of the vote from the largest precincts which, BTW, is precisely what we have independently verified in Alabama by comparing delegate to candidate vote count. Below is my creation of the Virginia Beach City graph. Note the R- SQUARED value of the curve in the right-most portion! I'm not sure what you statistics background is but this occurence is highly unnatural to say the least! Just to clarify- the chances of having a sloped line (not horizontal) that corresponds 99% with a candidate's vote % is not just a red flag- it's ridiculous.

Parrocks, EVERY single case over the past 5 months in which a "debunker" has claimed to disprove Romney's fraudulent gains in larger precincts, the end result has served to bolster the claim of "vote flipping". I was 85% sure at the beginning of this journey and now I'm 100%; there is simply no other plausible explanation. Again, I realize there are a lot of posts on this site from some persons who may not fully understand the claim; some people still think the graphs are time-based, some think a graph should always be perfectly horizontal, etc. I think everyone just wants the truth.

 

[Copenhagen]

I think a lot of people don't want to believe the evidence. They're afraid to be labeled a *gasp* Crazy Conspiracy Theorist! The truth is a conspiracy.

 

[freedomordeath]

The Man is the scary looking guy with the dredlocks, most poeple would run away (That is Isreal Andersons home country, the guy that heads up RonPaulFlix)

 

[Miss Annie]

The Man is the scary looking guy with the dredlocks, most poeple would run away (That is Isreal Andersons home country, the guy that heads up RonPaulFlix)

I love Rugby and that is HOT!

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Ron Paul was kicking ass and taking names until they cheated him in enough states that people stopped voting for him.

 

[The Man]

The Man is the scary looking guy with the dredlocks, most poeple would run away (That is Isreal Andersons home country, the guy that heads up RonPaulFlix)

Ba Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I gotta ask... Where DID you find this video of me?!?!?!

 

[parocks]

In the east, the Romney voters (country clubbers) are located in the Rich Suburbs, the large precincts.

In Utah, the Romney voters (Mormons) are located in small and large precincts.

Well then, explain why the Utah chart flat-lines?

They make up 60 % of the population. Should there not be a hump or a slope in the curve?

 

[parocks]

Because Paul and Romney were the only 2 names on the ballot, the 2 graphs should be mirror images of each other.

Romney's base would be Fairfax county - with Alexandria, Arlington, Falls Church, etc. That's were people who work for the departments that Ron Paul wants to close live. So, Romney completely kicked ass with Federal Government workers who work in DC and live in Northern Virginia.

Romney does very well in those big DC suburbs precincts. That's what you're looking at.

Another thing to consider is that the horizontal axis is votes by precinct. The left 50% has many more precincts than the right 50%. 100 precincts with 50 votes a piece on one hand - 5000 votes and 10 precincts with 500 votes a piece - 5000 votes on the other.

You ARE very intelligent Parocks! You are correct- figure 1 Y-Axis should be labeled x10,000 instead of X1000.
You ask how this could be accomplished? the easiest answer is "in the central tabulator computation software." But as I look at the chart in Jefferson county, it's still possible that certain EVM's at select precincts are causing this. BUT the only thing that is 100% is this: Mitt Romney is the beneficiary of extra votes that are either being (1)stolen from other candidates or (2)created out of thin air in larger precincts. This phenomenon is taking place in higher vote-count precincts. I would present another example of an attempted "debunk" that ultimately serves to bolster the case of "vote flipping":

This entire thread can be found at http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?367223-The-Case-Against-Vote-Flipping-(no-fraud)/page14

User "DA32130" claimed to debunk the "vote-flipping" phenomenon in the following post regarding the GOP Primary results in Virginia Beach City, Va. 2012. Now understand at that point I personally never had even seen the results from Va. Bch City. But I thought "let's give this guy EVERY benefit of the doubt, every license, etc. and see what he can come up with to counter the vote-flipping. We allowed him to use ridiculous Libertarian vote totals from 2008- some precincts there were 1, 3, 4, etc. votes total from 4 years earlier! Anyway- Below is the graph showing cumulative percent Paul (blue) vs Romney (red) using the reported data.

Using the 08 election results adjusting for democratic, republican, libertarianism, etc. he claimed to prove that the graph flattened out thus proving that he had found the couse of Romney's gains (see below)

DA32130 claimed that by "flattening" this graph, he had debunked vote flipping. He didn't understand these important facts of the fundamental claim:
1. Romney's gains that we're concerned about are in the largest precincts (corresponding to the right-most above).
2. He argued that the gains in the largest precincts to the right were insignificant/miniscule, only found in a small portion of the precincts, and that the graph could be further flattened by using more demographic information.

Upon closer inspection it was learned that his X-Axis DID order the precincts from lowest to highest vote total as required, however he gave equal spacing to EVERY precinct, regardless of its size. In other words, the upward slope seen in the rightmost 25% of the precincts really occurred across more like 40% of the vote from the largest precincts which, BTW, is precisely what we have independently verified in Alabama by comparing delegate to candidate vote count. Below is my creation of the Virginia Beach City graph. Note the R- SQUARED value of the curve in the right-most portion! I'm not sure what you statistics background is but this occurence is highly unnatural to say the least! Just to clarify- the chances of having a sloped line (not horizontal) that corresponds 99% with a candidate's vote % is not just a red flag- it's ridiculous.

Parrocks, EVERY single case over the past 5 months in which a "debunker" has claimed to disprove Romney's fraudulent gains in larger precincts, the end result has served to bolster the claim of "vote flipping". I was 85% sure at the beginning of this journey and now I'm 100%; there is simply no other plausible explanation. Again, I realize there are a lot of posts on this site from some persons who may not fully understand the claim; some people still think the graphs are time-based, some think a graph should always be perfectly horizontal, etc. I think everyone just wants the truth.

 

[The Man]

Because Paul and Romney were the only 2 names on the ballot, the 2 graphs should be mirror images of each other.

Romney's base would be Fairfax county - with Alexandria, Arlington, Falls Church, etc. That's were people who work for the departments that Ron Paul wants to close live. So, Romney completely kicked ass with Federal Government workers who work in DC and live in Northern Virginia.

Romney does very well in those big DC suburbs precincts. That's what you're looking at.

Another thing to consider is that the horizontal axis is votes by precinct. The left 50% has many more precincts than the right 50%. 100 precincts with 50 votes a piece on one hand - 5000 votes and 10 precincts with 500 votes a piece - 5000 votes on the other.

Of course they're mirror images- nowhere in my account do I even mention the fact that they're mirror images of each other- because they have to be in a 2 man race! The point is that the debunker was able to use political preference demographics from 2008 to flatten 75% of the curve. He thought he had debunked vote flipping, not realizing that vote flipping only occurs in the largest precincts- in this case it was the largest 25 precincts representing approximately 40% of the total vote. What his resulting graph showed is a 7-8% gain by Romney (14- 16% swing) in the largest precincts representing 40% of the vote that could NOT be explained by how voters voted in the 2008 election. It was later revealed by the author that he believed the vote flippers claimed that the vote stealing occurred from the very smallest through the very largest precincts, which is clearly not the case.
Secondly, this is Virginia Beach City, 150- 200 miles from DC. DC Suburbs? FairFax County? What? I believe you misunderstand the whole premise here. I'll doublecheck on map though.

Lastly, the ridiculous R-squared coefficient of .98 is totally unnatural and "off-the-chart". In laymen's terms in the largest 25 percent of the precincts, 99% of the variance in Romney's received percentage in each precinct can be explained by the variance in number of voters in each precinct! It's plainly obvious that there was an algorithm that altered the largest 25 precinct vote totals in this case.

 

[parocks]

The Man has explained and re-explained this to you dozens of times in the original Alabama thread and just NOW you're getting it?!!

Oh, no, this wasn't talked about in the Alabama thread when I was there. I wasn't discussing graphs about those graphs - small to large / votes minus delegates.

However, Alabama was all screwed up, because people were voting for delegates when they didn't vote for that candidate. That leads to screwy graphs.

However

 

[parocks]

Ok, we're in agreement on the mirror image.

I don't really want to argue about what some other person said about what happened in Virginia. Whether some other person has insight or not isn't really relevant. I'm not using those arguments.

My argument is that Romney is strongest in the largest precincts, especially when we're talking about the I-95 corridor from Falmouth, ME to Fairfax Co, VA. That's the land of the country club Republican.

You've got more than one graph, some VA Beach, some all of Virginia. Typically, anywhere, the democrat inner cities and the conservative rural areas aren't going to be Romney strongholds. I don't know as much about the VA Beach area as the other major cities in the NE. But VA Beach likely does have upscale suburbs, and those are likely to be Romney areas and they're likely to be larger precincts.

Of course they're mirror images- nowhere in my account do I even mention the fact that they're mirror images of each other- because they have to be in a 2 man race! The point is that the debunker was able to use political preference demographics from 2008 to flatten 75% of the curve. He thought he had debunked vote flipping, not realizing that vote flipping only occurs in the largest precincts- in this case it was the largest 25 precincts representing approximately 40% of the total vote. What his resulting graph showed is a 7-8% gain by Romney (14- 16% swing) in the largest precincts representing 40% of the vote that could NOT be explained by how voters voted in the 2008 election. It was later revealed by the author that he believed the vote flippers claimed that the vote stealing occurred from the very smallest through the very largest precincts, which is clearly not the case.
Secondly, this is Virginia Beach City, 150- 200 miles from DC. DC Suburbs? FairFax County? What? I believe you misunderstand the whole premise here. I'll doublecheck on map though.

Lastly, the ridiculous R-squared coefficient of .98 is totally unnatural and "off-the-chart". In laymen's terms in the largest 25 percent of the precincts, 99% of the variance in Romney's received percentage in each precinct can be explained by the variance in number of voters in each precinct! It's plainly obvious that there was an algorithm that altered the largest 25 precinct vote totals in this case.