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

[parocks]

"be respectful of what I and many other on this site believe." Like religion?

Hey, you have your own special thread where no one can criticize you. I can't think of too many threads like that, or any, maybe you can point them out to me.

All I was doing was pointing out the counter argument, which is based on people being able to vote for delegates without voting for the candidate. Delegate votes did not exceed candidate votes in 2008. In 2012, delegate votes did exceed candidate votes. You can ignore that, but if you wanted your theory to withstand challenges, you would probably want to factor that in.

Basically, again, a higher percentage of Romney delegate votes were cast by people who didn't vote for Romney in the smaller precincts where Romney was less popular.
That's the counter-argument. That's why the slope of the curve changed right in the middle. The left half is small precincts where Romney is less popular, the right half is large precincts where Romney is more popular. Neither side is the right way, the slope of the curve should be right in the middle between the 2.

Do you have graphs that aren't cumulative along the horizonal axis? Those might be revealing.

Parocks- I've only referenced facts that are irrefutable in this thread. Notice that I have only referred to the fact that RP received 30k votes in Alabama versus 70k delegates as circumstantial BECAUSE it could POSSIBLY be explained as voter/ machine error (though not likely). There is simply NO explanation for what happened in Jefferson County other than vote manipulation.
So look- you have the right to believe what you want to believe. I won't disrespect your belief, but I urge you to be respectful of what I and many other on this site believe.

 

[Bossobass]

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.

Prove it.

 

[freedomordeath]

Pretty close, but would be coded using arrays and indices (for flexibility in the number of candidates), and that would also make it harder to read and tell where the flipping happened. I could write it so that it would be almost impossible to find except by a good programmer that was willing to take quite a bit of time.

you guys are so clever, I've seen loads of your posts and its like boom... this programming talk comes out of no where. Wow no wonder why they can't get you guys beat so easy.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

you guys are so clever, I've seen loads of your posts and its like boom... this programming talk comes out of no where. Wow no wonder why they can't get you guys beat so easy.

Just out of curiosity, do we have what order the names were on the ballots on the machines that were in question (Baine affiliated machines in particular precincts)? IF we have a good sample, someone please PM me with them or where I can find a good sample of them.

 

[Monotaur]

you guys are so clever, I've seen loads of your posts and its like boom... this programming talk comes out of no where. Wow no wonder why they can't get you guys beat so easy.

The thing about this is, if there was any sort of algorithmic vote flipping, it could (and would have) been done in such a way as to not be detectable. No need to obfuscate the data using programs with arrays, etc, just "change" the percentage in a consistent way and it would not be detectable.

These discrepancies can be completely explained by varying demographics of the precinct sizes, that is all.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

I wonder if they will have electronic voting in Tampa. Just mulling over the resulting pandemonium if the first vote happened and Romney gets 110% of the delegate vote...

It would be interesting seeing them try to explain away those results and trying to convince anyone that electronic voting machines were reliable...

You know - if it can't accuratly count a couple of thousand delegates votes, doesn't that put the entire election in question? And on National TV, at that... lol!

-t

 

[parocks]

Prove it.

Do you deny that Greenwich, CT is a rich area? There's a huge correlation between Romney votes and rich suburbs.

And the idea that this is a controversial idea is quite surprising.

Do you think that phrases like "country club Republican" were made up by me? That I'm identifying something new?

 

[parocks]

The thing about this is, if there was any sort of algorithmic vote flipping, it could (and would have) been done in such a way as to not be detectable. No need to obfuscate the data using programs with arrays, etc, just "change" the percentage in a consistent way and it would not be detectable.

These discrepancies can be completely explained by varying demographics of the precinct sizes, that is all.

agree

 

[LinuxJedi]

Just some things to think on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

* Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
* Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation
* Lack of openness to testing by other experts
* Absence of progress
* Personalization of issues

The last is relevant: "Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims", and "In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies." (all of the above snipped from the article). I don't know if people are doing this on purpose, or if this is the result of a bizarre Internet-forum-psychology thing, but these threads certainly match the criteria of pseudo-science.

I would love to see the following from this research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing

These threads and discussions follow a common pattern:

1) Ask for an expert to verify claims
2) Some "outsider" asks quesions
3) Initially act helpful to the outsider
4) Further questions from outsider, doubt of hypothesis
5) Begin "it's obvious", and "you should read 120 pages of the previous thread"... "I'm not an expert but even I can see ... ", start to attack intelligence of questioner
6) Begin to attack character, search for motives of outsider... they must be a "plant"
7) Begin to ask outsider to verify some other hypothesis, mass distraction from initial hypothesis posed... they are asked to "prove X" to distract from it
8) Outsider leaves
9) Ask for an expert to verify claims...

 

[ClydeCoulter]

The thing about this is, if there was any sort of algorithmic vote flipping, it could (and would have) been done in such a way as to not be detectable. No need to obfuscate the data using programs with arrays, etc, just "change" the percentage in a consistent way and it would not be detectable.

These discrepancies can be completely explained by varying demographics of the precinct sizes, that is all.

Not so, something algorithmic requires algorithms, and they would use arrays or list<>s and that would be the way to do it. Otherwise you don't have an algorithm, you would have strightline code that must be rewritten for every location that a machine would be used. Anything in the least bit complicated and you get what we used to call "spagetti code", which is what an amatuer writes and has to be rewritten by an experienced programmer to get reuse and value out it.

As far as "just change the percentage", that would be the easiest to find if one should examine the software, and it would be the first thing that I would check for.

A variation on @freedomordeaths algorithm or some other type of index or modulus index flipping would account for the graphs and be harder to find/understand and could be made variable so that it could be paramerterized, then only one piece of code could be used by many machines in many locations with only a few parameter changes to get the desired results.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Part of the problem comes when a question is asked. I've seen this in my own line of work as a principal software architect.

There are things that a person assumes is well known, but in fact it is not. At least not the way that you youself know it. It comes along with being in a certain field of expertise.

Certain words or phrases have a particular meaning to a person in that field of expertise. These words or phrases will have their own meaning even within a technological field that differs slightly in the way it is used in particular fields of expertise within that technological field.

For example, being a principal software architect, I design software architectures that programmers will use to design and develop software. Now these architectures usually require that I, or my sidekicks/associates, develop some software that the programmers will use to build upon to create software for end-users. So, since my group writes software you would think that we could communicate with programmers without a language problem, but that is not so. We have to speak "programmer" talk or they won't understand a thing we are saying. And if we don't understand their "programmer" talk then we won't have a clue what they are asking, or we will all just get into an argument. All the while thinking we are right, and they think they are right.

Perhaps, that's some of the problem ya'll are having here?

Just some things to think on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

* Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
* Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation
* Lack of openness to testing by other experts
* Absence of progress
* Personalization of issues

The last is relevant: "Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims", and "In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies." (all of the above snipped from the article). I don't know if people are doing this on purpose, or if this is the result of a bizarre Internet-forum-psychology thing, but these threads certainly match the criteria of pseudo-science.

I would love to see the following from this research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing

These threads and discussions follow a common pattern:

1) Ask for an expert to verify claims
2) Some "outsider" asks quesions
3) Initially act helpful to the outsider
4) Further questions from outsider, doubt of hypothesis
5) Begin "it's obvious", and "you should read 120 pages of the previous thread"... "I'm not an expert but even I can see ... ", start to attack intelligence of questioner
6) Begin to attack character, search for motives of outsider... they must be a "plant"
7) Begin to ask outsider to verify some other hypothesis, mass distraction from initial hypothesis posed... they are asked to "prove X" to distract from it
8) Outsider leaves
9) Ask for an expert to verify claims...

 

[freedomordeath]

A variation on @freedomordeaths algorithm or some other type of index or modulus index flipping would account for the graphs and be harder to find/understand and could be made variable so that it could be paramerterized, then only one piece of code could be used by many machines in many locations with only a few parameter changes to get the desired results.

LOL... I'm not in that realm of intelligance my friend, I think you refering to tangent4ronpaul post, he came up with that simple algorithim.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

LOL... I'm not in that realm of intelligance my friend, I think you refering to tangent4ronpaul post, he came up with that simple algorithim.

My bad, yes it was tangent4ronpaul's, thanks for the correction

 

[freedomordeath]

Just some things to think on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

* Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
* Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation
* Lack of openness to testing by other experts
* Absence of progress
* Personalization of issues

The last is relevant: "Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims", and "In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies." (all of the above snipped from the article). I don't know if people are doing this on purpose, or if this is the result of a bizarre Internet-forum-psychology thing, but these threads certainly match the criteria of pseudo-science.

I would love to see the following from this research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statist...thesis_testing

These threads and discussions follow a common pattern:

1) Ask for an expert to verify claims
2) Some "outsider" asks quesions
3) Initially act helpful to the outsider
4) Further questions from outsider, doubt of hypothesis
5) Begin "it's obvious", and "you should read 120 pages of the previous thread"... "I'm not an expert but even I can see ... ", start to attack intelligence of questioner
6) Begin to attack character, search for motives of outsider... they must be a "plant"
7) Begin to ask outsider to verify some other hypothesis, mass distraction from initial hypothesis posed... they are asked to "prove X" to distract from it
8) Outsider leaves
9) Ask for an expert to verify claims...

Read this very interesting, Failures of crowd intelligence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds#Failures_of_crowd_intelligence

Yes, I might be guilty of some of these points on the phuedoscince stuff, but I'm a ball of rage, my blood boils with rage daily thinking of what these poeple are getting away with. I don't attack poeple generally and keep my irritation to myself, but this dude Parrocks talks in generalizations and talks about rich poeple this, coutry club this, and Ron Paulers are mainly night time voters, this for me is all phsudeo science. If there is a bit of dirt then you take it to court, and let team Mitt defend it, why must we blow each other apart, worse then losing is not doing anything at all.

He refers to counties where they vote Romney, but what he fails to realize is the bigger picture. A guy like me would have voted for Bush as a former neo con, lets say Bush didn't make it and his opposite got it, I might not like the dude, but following crowd intellegance and having an INTENSE DISLIKE FOR OBAMA would go with the majority, so although Ron Paul might get me on fiscal stuff, but as the elections go down the line and Ron Paul looks like a long shot, I would go with the crowd. The poeple that are AWAKE and popped the red pill obiously will stick to Ron Paul, but the poeple on the fringe that only hear parts of RPs message can have their mind changed very easy. YOU CANNOT EXCLUDE MSM FROM THIS DEBATE, because of it, they only have to do tactical vote flipping. MSM are foreign run and owned and are traitors.

 

[Monotaur]

Not so, something algorithmic requires algorithms, and they would use arrays or list<>s and that would be the way to do it. Otherwise you don't have an algorithm, you would have strightline code that must be rewritten for every location that a machine would be used. Anything in the least bit complicated and you get what we used to call "spagetti code", which is what an amatuer writes and has to be rewritten by an experienced programmer to get reuse and value out it.

As far as "just change the percentage", that would be the easiest to find if one should examine the software, and it would be the first thing that I would check for.

A variation on @freedomordeaths algorithm or some other type of index or modulus index flipping would account for the graphs and be harder to find/understand and could be made variable so that it could be paramerterized, then only one piece of code could be used by many machines in many locations with only a few parameter changes to get the desired results.

I am a Sr. Software Engineer, so I understand code. I, admittedly, have not followed the other thread in it's entirety so I am unaware of whatever algorithm has been devised.

Are you familiar with the areas of steganography, detecting image water marks, etc? These areas deal with extracting information from streams of information and detecting changes in information within those streams. While not the same, the ideas are similar. If anyone is going to risk massive vote fraud, they are going to do it in a way that is not easily detectable. "Flipping" votes based on precinct size is easily detectable. Something like changing votes by a certain scaling factor across all precincts, however, would not be. The reasonable reason that the vote percentages change with precinct size is due to demographics.

I do wish we could just drop this subject though. It only serves to make us look 'wacky' as a whole, especially since it is on a publicly viewable forum...

 

[ClydeCoulter]

I am a Sr. Software Engineer, so I understand code. I, admittedly, have not followed the other thread in it's entirety so I am unaware of whatever algorithm has been devised.

Are you familiar with the areas of steganography, detecting image water marks, etc? These areas deal with extracting information from streams of information and detecting changes in information within those streams. While not the same, the ideas are similar. If anyone is going to risk massive vote fraud, they are going to do it in a way that is not easily detectable. "Flipping" votes based on precinct size is easily detectable. Something like changing votes by a certain scaling factor across all precincts, however, would not be. The reasonable reason that the vote percentages change with precinct size is due to demographics.

I do wish we could just drop this subject though. It only serves to make us look 'wacky' as a whole, especially since it is on a publicly viewable forum...

It would depend on the voting machine, not precinct size. I think someone already stated that earlier. It just happens that larger precints seem to use a particular type of machine (newer?) that may be of the type produced by a firm that is somehow connected with Baine.

Also, if people would discuss the issue with a professional touch and not post non-arguments as arguments, it might not seem so "crazy". Doing analysis is what brings light to a subject. And, doing research on possible vote fraud when using machines to count votes is doing the world a service.

 

[freedomordeath]

If anyone is going to risk massive vote fraud, they are going to do it in a way that is not easily detectable. "Flipping" votes based on precinct size is easily detectable.

the assumption they care to make this undectable can be called Pseudoscience, we as decent poeple would worry about this, but these poeple operate at a different level. Sometimes being so smart gets in the way, because the answer can be under your nose, the FED is one such example, the biggest con yet only recently are poeple talking about it.

I watch hours of youtube videos and I've seen alot, I've seen what levels they are prepared to goto. Remember North Dekota where Steyn railroaded us, you could see the distain for us, that we were mere knats to be swatted.

Also, if people would discuss the issue with a professional touch and not post non-arguments as arguments, it might not seem so "crazy". Doing analysis is what brings light to a subject. And, doing research on possible vote fraud when using machines to count votes is doing the world a service.

This is an excellent point, we are on the losing end and we can only benifit from leaving no stone unturned in the pursuit of possible voter fraud, if we find nothing then we have lost nothing, if we stop those looking for something, then you only hinder and you have produced a net loss for the movement.

 

[The Man]

"be respectful of what I and many other on this site believe." Like religion?
Hey, you have your own special thread where no one can criticize you. I can't think of too many threads like that, or any, maybe you can point them out to me.

Wow. I only asked for you to RESPECT the positions of others on this site regarding vote stealing and you imply this? RESPECTING does NOT mean you can't argue with someone- just don't attack personally. Throw in the Religion card?!? WTF!! I have tried to look past the troll allegations Parocks, but EVERY time solid evidence is posted, you deflect attention from the subject matter.
Just so you know, I would definitely be considered a "country club Republican". Many, if not most, of my friends would be considered that as well. I have presented evidence that makes ZERO assumptions while you keep repetitvely spewing the MSM creationes of "Mitt does better here... RP doesn't do as well here,,, blah blah blah." Honestly, you are a joke.
BTW, I have derived the linear equations which PROVE that Romney's gains are false in Alabama. But honestly, you don't GET the simple graphs I have laid out in this thread (you claim they were never posted in the Alabam thread, which is FALSE) so you will NEVER understand what I lay out in a higher level mathematical exercise.

 

[CPUd]

For a programmer to create something "undetectable," like the guy had testified in the film Hacking Democracy, he already knows there is no such thing. Whatever he does will definitely not be in the source code that they make available for inspection. So what he would do is look to the compiler; you can add something to the source code of a compiler that would, before compiling, modify the source code for the voting machine software. Then you compile the compiler. If someone wants to look at the source code for the compiler, you could modify a 2nd compiler's source code that injects the code into the 1st compiler before compiling. This can be done to infinity, and no one is going to try to look that high up the source chain.

If the vendor is forced to use a specific compiler that can be verified by a checksum, then it gets interesting. It is still possible to inject some code, but you must now know a great deal about the hashing algorithm that creates the checksum. This knowledge will allow you to make small changes in the source code, but only in specific places, using a limited set of characters. Imagine trying to write some code that implements the flipping algo, in about 20 characters, and you can only use half the keys on your keyboard. This is because hashing algorithms aren't perfect- it is possible (although on good hash algos, highly improbable) for 2 files that are not identical to produce the same checksum (AKA collision).

You're not going to be able to just bring in someone off the street to do this, either. You'd need a real programmer- someone that is not going to tell you it can't be done.

Another way to do it would be through the hardware. If they're using their own machines with proprietary hardware components, they could embed an IC in there that has the flipping algo 'hardwired'. Then, all you'd have to do is write a driver that interacts with that component, and the flipping would be done transparently without any modification of the source code. The only thing you'd need is a way to tell it who to flip. This may require no interaction at all, if it were to flip 2 candidates who held 2 specific rankings. Or it could be something more elaborate- there was once a guy who did something like this to a slot machine in Vegas- it was programmed to pay out after a certain sequence of coins were dropped in. For instance, you had the option to put 1,2,3 or 4 coins in- he programmed it to pay out when it was played with a sequence of 2,3,1,2,4,2,3....3,2,1 coins.

If it is done this way, it wouldn't be too hard to find it, if you had full access to all the hardware; but if it is proprietary, they will never let that happen.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

For a programmer to create something "undetectable," like the guy had testified in the film Hacking Democracy, he already knows there is no such thing. Whatever he does will definitely not be in the source code that they make available for inspection. So what he would do is look to the compiler; you can add something to the source code of a compiler that would, before compiling, modify the source code for the voting machine software. Then you compile the compiler. If someone wants to look at the source code for the compiler, you could modify a 2nd compiler's source code that injects the code into the 1st compiler before compiling. This can be done to infinity, and no one is going to try to look that high up the source chain.

If the vendor is forced to use a specific compiler that can be verified by a checksum, then it gets interesting. It is still possible to inject some code, but you must now know a great deal about the hashing algorithm that creates the checksum. This knowledge will allow you to make small changes in the source code, but only in specific places, using a limited set of characters. Imagine trying to write some code that implements the flipping algo, in about 20 characters, and you can only use half the keys on your keyboard. This is because hashing algorithms aren't perfect- it is possible (although on good hash algos, highly improbable) for 2 files that are not identical to produce the same checksum (AKA collision).

You're not going to be able to just bring in someone off the street to do this, either. You'd need a real programmer- someone that is not going to tell you it can't be done.

Another way to do it would be through the hardware. If they're using their own machines with proprietary hardware components, they could embed an IC in there that has the flipping algo 'hardwired'. Then, all you'd have to do is write a driver that interacts with that component, and the flipping would be done transparently without any modification of the source code. The only thing you'd need is a way to tell it who to flip. This may require no interaction at all, if it were to flip 2 candidates who held 2 specific rankings. Or it could be something more elaborate- there was once a guy who did something like this to a slot machine in Vegas- it was programmed to pay out after a certain sequence of coins were dropped in. For instance, you had the option to put 1,2,3 or 4 coins in- he programmed it to pay out when it was played with a sequence of 2,3,1,2,4,2,3....3,2,1 coins.

If it is done this way, it wouldn't be too hard to find it, if you had full access to all the hardware; but if it is proprietary, they will never let that happen.

How do you tell if the source code you are looking at is the code that is on a machine? You would have to download the code, any interpreter and the OS and then decompile and examine.

The real point is, using a computer for vote counting is plain out right invalid without a paper trail.