Significance of 0 votes in Sutton County (Statistical)

[cjhowe]

You are all morons. Voting results are not random datasets. No sampling. it is a reflection of an actual event. And you have no reason to suspect correlation (nor have you offered correlation). Statistical models in finance works, for the most part, because people base their buying and selling actions on statistical models. It's a self fulfilling prophecy in finance. Judging by who did receive votes, one would suspect that health care is VERY important to these voters. Kucinich received twice he percentage in Sutton as he did across the state. Obama, Hillary and Edwards did well (all with a health care plan), Romney (healthcare plan), McCain (stumped on re-importation of drugs). You can find someone who voted in Sutton for RP to prove fraud, but statistics offers no help in your cause here.

 

[Hangly Man]

It's not clear the Obama campaign themselves would care.

But, their voters might.

Well, yeah.

 

[hillertexas]

HQ needs to know about this.

Enough circumstantial evidence got Scott Peterson the death penalty...maybe it can get us a recount!!

 

[robatsu]

Well, by the same analysis, what is the probability that he would win one county, as he did. In that case, we are willing to maybe credit hard core campaign work. Maybe there was a big screwup in Sutton?

 

[Ron2Win]

I am never for a conspiracy theory. but couple of things that disturb me.

First the McCain surge in the polls in NH out of the dead. He surged to 35% and then low and behold he finishes at 38%.

The other thing is that we have people that come in here and say: "We need to start believing in the polls" I know these people like to condition others, but you can't mess with us.

All we need is to find 1 soul in Sutton county that can testify they voter for Paul

 

[Ron2Win]

Well, by the same analysis, what is the probability that he would win one county, as he did. In that case, we are willing to maybe credit hard core campaign work. Maybe there was a big screwup in Sutton?

I think these types of discussions are healthy. They go to the core of what the campaign is about.

If there is no fraud, then there is NOTHING for the establishment to fear. Why try to squash it?

 

[jupiter]

You are all morons. Voting results are not random datasets. No sampling. it is a reflection of an actual event. And you have no reason to suspect correlation (nor have you offered correlation). Statistical models in finance works, for the most part, because people base their buying and selling actions on statistical models. It's a self fulfilling prophecy in finance. Judging by who did receive votes, one would suspect that health care is VERY important to these voters. Kucinich received twice he percentage in Sutton as he did across the state. Obama, Hillary and Edwards did well (all with a health care plan), Romney (healthcare plan), McCain (stumped on re-importation of drugs). You can find someone who voted in Sutton for RP to prove fraud, but statistics offers no help in your cause here.

Voting results are the aggregate result of a large number of independent events. As such, they define a probability distribution. It is certainly a random process (albeit one that is very difficult to define mathematically), conditioned on many variables. This is the basis of gerrymandering, redistricting, and tens of millions of dollars that goes into voter demographic analysis.

If you examine the evidence indicating the 2004 voter fraud, they were all produced statistically (by comparing the expected results derived from exit polling data and the actual count).

In the absence of exit polling data, we are making a very reasonable assumption that Ron Paul's average in Sutton County was roughly that of the entire state (0.0774).

What is perhaps the most telling is that given 378 votes, Ron Paul would have had to have such a low probability (on a per-voter basis) in order for the actual results to have been manifested.

I find this extremely suspect from an objective point of view.

One other note:
Regarding statistical models in finance: the majority of trading actually is not driven by quantitative models, but rather from other information (earnings, news, etc.).

 

[error]

Um, guys, Sutton and those other places are towns, not counties. Why politico.com is labeling them as counties, I can't say.

 

[cjhowe]

Voting results are the aggregate result of a large number of independent events. As such, they define a probability distribution. It is certainly a random process (albeit one that is very difficult to define mathematically), conditioned on many variables. This is the basis of gerrymandering, redistricting, and tens of millions of dollars that goes into voter demographic analysis.

If you examine the evidence indicating the 2004 voter fraud, they were all produced statistically (by comparing the expected results derived from exit polling data and the actual count).

In the absence of exit polling data, we are making a very reasonable assumption that Ron Paul's average in Sutton County was roughly that of the entire state (0.0774).

What is perhaps the most telling is that given 378 votes, Ron Paul would have had to have such a low probability (on a per-voter basis) in order for the actual results to have been manifested.

I find this extremely suspect from an objective point of view.

One other note:
Regarding statistical models in finance: the majority of trading actually is not driven by quantitative models, but rather from other information (earnings, news, etc.).

The 2004 junk, you had exit polling, a marker for comparison. Absent a marker, you can make no assumption. Why would you assume that he would get 7.74% even in a random model? What of the townships he got 30+%, these stand many additional deviations away from the "expected" than do a 0 tally. The fact of the matter is you have no reason to suspect correlation between townships. You have every reason to suspect correlation to actual events. Pull out a calendar. Did the people who received votes stump in Sutton? Did Ron Paul? That's more likely an explanation for a zero vote. Did we have truthers or tax deniers canvassing in the area? Did the smear piece reach the voters in that town. Are they a close knit town? Are they all union? If they are, maybe they got pissed about RP going on Leno. There is nothing to make a statistical claim on.

 

[RonPaulFTW08]

bump, and 5 till 100 posts hahaha...

For laughs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6ykrQbO6AQ

 

[Electric Church]

You are all morons.

Let me tell you somethin you federal reserve IRS supportin piece of crap. You go to New Hampshire and tell one of those hard workin Americans who have been ripped off by a bunch of your Fed buddies with their machines a "moron" and they'll take that 30ft long poll sign of Ron Paul and shove it up your rear.

So shut up and go kiss Bernanke's rear end

 

[time4change]

Let me tell you somethin you federal reserve IRS supportin piece of crap. You go to New Hampshire and tell one of those hard workin Americans who have been ripped off by a bunch of your Fed buddies with their machines a "moron" and they'll take that 30ft long poll sign of Ron Paul and shove it up your rear.

So shut up and go kiss Bernanke's rear end

Yes, well said!

 

[deedles]

They love to leave clues and drop hints.

Did any other candidate on either side get 9.11% in any county?

I'll look if no one has yet.

 

[SovereignMN]

here's another one. it's amusing, but serious. what are the odds that giuliani gets 9.11% in THREE COUNTIES (Campton, Hampton, Sandwich). no other candidate got 9.11% once in any county.

could it really be that someone is was fooling with the numbers and either:
(1) decided to have some fun, thinking no one would notice, or be able to prove anything
OR
(2) was trying to purposely send a message since they were coerced into this and weren't totally on board

sorry if this is too out there.... but seriously.... if it was once, ok. but in THREE COUNTIES???!?!?!?

2 of those 3 counties are hand counted ballots.

 

[SovereignMN]

I could MAYBE buy that Paul got 0 votes in Sutton County out of 378 votes if there was something especially unique about the county. But all the other Republican candidates were very close to their statewide tally which tells me that it isn't much different than the rest of the state. Thus we return to our probability formulas which tells us it's next to impossible.

 

[VoluntaryMan]

One thing I've noticed about these clowns over the years is that they are very sloppy.

Everything they do depends on nobody paying too much attention or looking too closely.

If there is anything there, you will find it for sure. It will be clear as day.

I readily admit that calculating statistical probabilities isn't exactly one of my strengths. I'm more of a liberals arts guy (history and language). For those of you who do possess these skills, though, please continue; it's fascinating. What I find completely bizarre is the establishment's uncanny ability to precisely "predict" Ron Paul's percentage of the vote, but no one else's. After the caucuses, the IA polls were praised for their accuracy in predicting the exact percentage of the vote that Dr. Paul would receive. But, Dr. Paul's was the only percentage that the polls hit on the nose. Here, again, in NH, the polls are on the nose with Paul's percentage, but no one else's. What are the odds? Also, what are the odds that, while everyone else's percentages fluctuated, as the percentage of precincts reporting grew, Dr. Paul's percentage of the reported vote remained fixed, as if he'd been assigned an immutable ranking? Something about this just doesn't smell right: Paul experiences a series of statistical anomalies, while Hillary dramatically defies expectations....

 

[Highstreet]

I could MAYBE buy that Paul got 0 votes in Sutton County out of 378 votes if there was something especially unique about the county. But all the other Republican candidates were very close to their statewide tally which tells me that it isn't much different than the rest of the state. Thus we return to our probability formulas which tells us it's next to impossible.

The votes should still be counted.

 

[webber53]

From ABC,
Please read.

h ttp://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2008/01/new-hampshires.html

 

[mollila]

Did any other candidate on either side get 9.11% in any county?

I'll look if no one has yet.

No, only Giuliani three times according to http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php


Campton - 604 votes
VOTE COUNT METHOD: Hand Counted Paper Ballots
- Giuliani = 55 votes = 9.11%

Hampton - 3,141 votes
VOTE COUNT METHOD: Diebold Accuvote optical scan ; contractor: LHS Associates/John Silvestro
- Giuliani = 286 votes = 9.11%

Sandwich - 395 votes
VOTE COUNT METHOD: Hand Counted Paper Ballots
- Giuliani = 36 votes = 9.11%

 

[justatrey]

From ABC,
Please read.

h ttp://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2008/01/new-hampshires.html

Ok I read this and it says absolutely nothing about the impossible result in Sutton County. Don't waste your time everyone.

Don't you understand that this is about much more than Sutton County? Sure, Paul will still be in fifth but we need to get to the bottom of why the result is clearly wrong and make sure it doesn't happen in future states.