Statistical Anomaly (25%), New Hampshire style

W

WeBeGood

Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
61
Statistical Anomaly, New Hampshire Style,


When looking at voter fraud of Hand Counted vs Machine Counted, you have to consider what the computer algorithm might look like. The simplest is to take a certain percentage of the votes from candidates and give it to another. Simply give one out of every four votes the candidate received to a different candidate of your choice.

So the proper way to look at the anomaly is in percentages of votes that each individual candidate received from the Machine, assuming the Hand Counted is correct.

Thanks for the nice statistics at:
http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php
and taking a look at the Machine vs Hand as percentages of each individual candidate's votes, we get

Guiliani......... + 5%.........= +996 / 20054
Huckabee..... - 23% ........= -6028 / 26035
Hunter.......... - 20%.........= -236 / 1195
McCain........... - 7%..........= -5939 / 86802
Paul............. - 28% .........= -4907 / 17659
Romney....... + 24%.........= +17659 / 73806
Thompson... - 11%..........= -333 / 2808
Other.......... - 25%..........= -1213 / 4849


If it is assumed that only the Machine is counting wrong, these numbers need to be corrected to see what the computer algorithm would look like in the Machine.
(Percent difference * Total Machine Votes / Candidates Machine Votes)

Guiliani.......... + 5%.............= 0.00427 * 170411 / 14682
Huckabee...... - 24%.............= -0.02583 * 170411 / 26035
Hunter........ - 21%.............= -0.00101 * 170411 / 822
McCain........... - 7%..............= -0.02545 * 170411 / 62805
Paul.............. - 29%..............= -0.02103 * 170411 / 12175
Romney...... + 23%.............= +0.07567 * 170411 / 56586
Thompson.... - 11%.............= -0.00143 * 170411 / 2031
Other........... - 25%.............= -0.00520 * 170411 / 3235

A computer algorithm to account for this anomaly would be very simple to write, one or two lines of code.

Looks like 25% of the votes for Huckabee, Hunter, Paul, or any one else (Other) were given to some other candidate by the Machine.

Looks like Guiliani, McCain, and Thompson were allowed to keep their votes.

Looks like the Machine likes Romney, as the Machine gave Other candidates votes to him. There is a youtube video of Romney supporters stuffing a Straw Poll ballot box, using cash.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ReSorted

Machine/HandCount ratio percent change,

MainStreamMedia so-called 2007 FrontRunners as reported by Fox on RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national-primary.html)

-7% , McCain, #1 during 2006........................................(-0.02545 * 170411 / 62805)
+5%, Guiliani, #1 from 2007...........................................(0.00427 * 170411 / 14682)
+ 23%, Romney, #2 during Sept 2007.................(0.07567 * 170411 / 56586)
-11%, Thompson, #2 during Oct,Nov 2007.....................(-0.00143 * 170411 / 2031)

MainStreamMedia so-called Second Tier,
-24% Huckabee...............................(-0.02583 * 170411 / 26035)
-21% Hunter....................................(-0.00101 * 170411 / 822)
-29% Paul........................................(-0.02103 * 170411 / 12175)
-25% Other......................................(-0.00520 * 170411 / 3235)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Dane said:
:(
dosen't look random
Click to expand...
I agree, far from it. I need to recalculate with the latest numbers, I don't know PHP, but sure looks consistent with what a very simple code change would produce. A statistical anomaly with almost no probability (well, to be truthful, a TBD low probability) of occurring. Kind of like what the MainStreamMedia has been saying about Ron Paul's chances for the last year, except this has to do with Mitt Romney.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ron2Win said:
Do you know if those results stand for each individual machine?

If individually they are equal to aggregate, we have something.
Click to expand...

These numbers are an aggregate of the primary in New Hampshire. I'm not a statistician, but I really suspect that a good statistician could compute the probability of such an anomaly quite accurately. I suspect that statistically, this is highly improbable. 1 in a million, or billion, or more. This is a very large sample. The numbers I have listed haven't been updated, as the totals have change a little. But 25% difference is large.

Maybe there is a Math Major, or statistician out there who could quantify the probability of such an anomaly occurring.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry about that, I had an equation error, I guess it helps to sleep on it and review your work.
The equation should be.
(Percent_difference_Mach_vs_Hand * Total_Machine_Votes / [Candidates Machine Votes - Delta_Candidates_Mach_vs_Hand_Votes])

Using the latest data on http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php 6am 1/10/2008

Percent of Machine votes if Hand count is considered correct (Machines have a problem)

MainStreamMedia so-called 2007 FrontRunners
-7% , McCain, #1 during 2006
+6%, Guiliani, #1 from 2007
+ 29%, Romney, #2 during Sept 2007.........(.0751 * 189004) / ( 62455 - 14192)

MainStreamMedia so-called Second Tier,
-20% Huckabee
-15% Hunter
-22% Paul...................(-.02001 * 189004) / (13671 + 3783)
-8% Other
-13%, Thompson

This could be demographics, urban areas vs rural. Or, the Machines like Romney. Or, a bunch of Mass people flooded over the border to vote in NH.

I think we should consider what happened in the urban areas. Did Mitt have a huge media blitz? Ron Paul supports in urban areas only?

I still don't know what to think of it.
 
Last edited:
From ABC,
Please read!

h ttp://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2008/01/new-hampshires.html
 
Resorted the Machine/HandCount ratio percentages

Machine/HandCount ratio percent change,

MainStreamMedia so-called 2007 FrontRunners as reported by Fox on RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...l-primary.html)

-7% , McCain, #1 during 2006.........................................(-0.02545 * 170411 / 62805)
+5%, Guiliani, #1 from 2007...........................................(0. 00427 * 170411 / 14682)
+ 23%, Romney, #2 during Sept 2007..........................(0.07567 * 170411 / 56586)
-11%, Thompson, #2 during Oct,Nov 2007.....................(-0.00143 * 170411 / 2031)

MainStreamMedia so-called Second Tier,
-24% Huckabee...............................(-0.02583 * 170411 / 26035)
-21% Hunter....................................(-0.00101 * 170411 / 822)
-29% Paul........................................(-0.02103 * 170411 / 12175)
-25% Other......................................(-0.00520 * 170411 / 3235)
 
Do you know if those results stand for each individual machine?

If individually they are equal to aggregate, we have something.
 
Any Statisticians who happen to Support Ron Paul?

Ron2Win said:
Do you know if those results stand for each individual machine?

If individually they are equal to aggregate, we have something.
Click to expand...

These numbers are an aggregate of the primary in New Hampshire. I'm not a statistician, but I really suspect that a good statistician could compute the probability of such an anomaly quite accurately. I suspect that statistically, this is highly improbable. 1 in a million, or billion, or more. This is a very large sample. The numbers I have listed haven't been updated, as the totals have change a little. But 25% difference is large.

Maybe there is a Math Major, or statistician out there who could quantify the probability of such an anomaly occurring.
 
There are two ways that votes can be tabulated.

One is if each machine operates on its own. In this case, each precinct should exhibit the same behavior, please follow through the analysis! I am eager to learn the results.

The other way is if all the votes come back to a central tabulation machine. In this case, there need not be a consistent pattern across all precincts.
 
Somebody posted this on the ABC News blog, and it got me thinking:

"Here's the problem. The polls accurately predicted to within 1% error EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE EXCEPT OBAMA/CLINTON. If you look at the pre-vote polls for ALL other candidates, they match up exactly. I mean exactly. Then, it is as if the Clinton/Obama results are reversed. They're both off by 5+% each. The statistical odds of this happening by chance must be astronomically small."

Now, does anyone remember when Politico were testing their reporting service, a few hours before the results started coming in?

Their test had Ron Paul at just over 5%, and Obama at around 5%.

(I took a screenshot, but unfortunately I just checked it and it's blank.)

I just thought it was a bit weird that they'd set Paul at around 5%, and Obama at around the same level. At the time, I thought it was clever marketing... getting both camps to publicize their link.

But maybe those figures indicated something else...

Anyone have a screenshot of the Politico early testing figures?
 
WeBeGood said:
.... taking a look at the Machine vs Hand as percentages of each individual candidate's votes, we get

Guiliani......... + 5%.........= +996 / 20054
Huckabee..... - 23% ........= -6028 / 26035
Hunter.......... - 20%.........= -236 / 1195
McCain........... - 7%..........= -5939 / 86802
Paul............. - 28% .........= -4907 / 17659
Romney....... + 24%.........= +17659 / 73806
Thompson... - 11%..........= -333 / 2808
Other.......... - 25%..........= -1213 / 4849
Click to expand...

WeBeGood, I am not seeing how you are computing this initial set of figures.
Can you please give more insight.

Thanks.
 
UK4Paul said:
Somebody posted this on the ABC News blog, and it got me thinking:

"Here's the problem. The polls accurately predicted to within 1% error EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE EXCEPT OBAMA/CLINTON. If you look at the pre-vote polls for ALL other candidates, they match up exactly. I mean exactly. Then, it is as if the Clinton/Obama results are reversed. They're both off by 5+% each. The statistical odds of this happening by chance must be astronomically small."

Now, does anyone remember when Politico were testing their reporting service, a few hours before the results started coming in?

Their test had Ron Paul at just over 5%, and Obama at around 5%.

(I took a screenshot, but unfortunately I just checked it and it's blank.)

I just thought it was a bit weird that they'd set Paul at around 5%, and Obama at around the same level. At the time, I thought it was clever marketing... getting both camps to publicize their link.

But maybe those figures indicated something else...

Anyone have a screenshot of the Politico early testing figures?
Click to expand...

I have these screenshots.
What do you need me to do?
 
UK4Paul said:
Somebody posted this on the ABC News blog, and it got me thinking:

"Here's the problem. The polls accurately predicted to within 1% error EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE EXCEPT OBAMA/CLINTON. If you look at the pre-vote polls for ALL other candidates, they match up exactly. I mean exactly. Then, it is as if the Clinton/Obama results are reversed. They're both off by 5+% each. The statistical odds of this happening by chance must be astronomically small."

Now, does anyone remember when Politico were testing their reporting service, a few hours before the results started coming in?

Their test had Ron Paul at just over 5%, and Obama at around 5%.

(I took a screenshot, but unfortunately I just checked it and it's blank.)

I just thought it was a bit weird that they'd set Paul at around 5%, and Obama at around the same level. At the time, I thought it was clever marketing... getting both camps to publicize their link.

But maybe those figures indicated something else...

Anyone have a screenshot of the Politico early testing figures?
Click to expand...

2182178182_326f745c06.jpg

2182189964_272486a3b1.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

V
Statistical Test of Hand vs. Machine Counts for NH
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
Molly1
M
C
The Dangers Ron Paul (The Revolution) is facing
Replies
4
Views
641
Edu
E
Back
Top