The case for the occurence of algorithmic vote flipping

[RonRules]

Good morning little fishies. I have a couple of morsels of truth for y'all this morning.

The PA 18th district delegate race looked fishy to me:

Note at how only two traces are flipping up on this chart. Well guess what, they are Jim and Sue Means, husband and wife!

You didn't even need to flip, but you're husband's race was a real squeaker! Good job.

Oh hai Sue!

Did you happen to get a free ride on Romney's election stealth aircraft? What's the price for the tickets?

http://www.smartvoter.org/2012/04/24/pa/state/vote/means_sa1/
(Does that look to you like a Liberty candidate? Where's the "End The Fed" priority?

Hey Sue, what is "LifePac"?
http://www.lifepac.net/LIFEPAC_2012_APR.pdf
Look at the list of delegates on the flyer:

Paul Adametz -- Stealth Delegate
Richard Alloway -- Stealth Delegate
Jill Cooper -- Mitt Romney
Philip English -- Mitt Romney
Richard Geist -- Stealth Delegate
Christopher Fromme -- Stealth Delegate
Daryl Metcalfe -- Stealth Delegate
Dick Hess -- Stealth Delegate
David Majernik -- Stealth Delegate
Wade Kagarise -- Stealth Delegate
Mike McMullen -- Newt Gingrich
Bill Shuster -- Mitt Romney
Jeannette Pavlick -- Stealth Delegate
Bob Thomas -- Stealth Delegate
Lidia Turzai -- Mitt Romney (More about her in a little while)
Melissa Haluszczak -- Stealth Delegate
Brian Daugherty -- (misspelled) Ron Paul
Steven Morreale-- Ron Paul
Mary Ann Meloy -- Stealth Delegate
James Garsteck -- Stealth Delegate
Mary Jo Silvis -- Stealth Delegate
C. Edward Pfeiffer -- Stealth Delegate
Jim Means -- Stealth Delegate (Mitt Romney?)
Sonia Stopperich -- Stealth Delegate
Josh Wander -- Newt Gingrich
Sue Means -- Stealth Delegate (Mitt Romney?)
Michael Baker -- Mitt Romney
Bruce Erb -- Stealth Delegate
Sara Kennedy -- Stealth Delegate
Patricia Gambol -- Stealth Delegate
Mike McMullen -- Stealth Delegate
Bruce Kelley -- Stealth Delegate
Andy Maul -- Stealth Delegate
James Garsteck -- Stealth Delegate
Sonia Stopperich -- Stealth Delegate

So out of 35 recommended delegates only 2 are for Ron Paul!

Hey Sue, one more thing, if you are so "Pro-Life" why are you recommending five Mitt Romney delegates?


You'll all find this interesting:

I found this post from 4/25 on the Daily Paul: (http://www.dailypaul.com/228677/follow-pa-delegate-results)
"I volunteered at one of the larger polling places in Allegheny county all day passing out our delegate cards for CD-18. Sue Means was running for State Senate, but also as a delegate, and her husband was there all day as well. Needless to say we talked the entire day and he said he was a strong Paul supporter, agreeing with 90% of Paul's views..[THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH]...I did not ask him whether or not she agreed with most of his views as well. Looking back I can't believe I didn't even think to ask. She wasn't part of our delegate slate [OH REALLY?], but hopefully she may be a closet Paul supporter like her husband [PROBABLY NOT]. She finished first in the district as a delegate. [FOR WHOM?]

Edit: Jim Means ran as a delegate too in CD18, finished 5th. CD18 elects 4 delegates. He was not on the alternate ballot. Could have been another possible delegate for Paul. [LIKE NOT]"



PS: I need to add that both Sue and Jim Means are State members of the GOP.
http://www.pagop.org/counties/allegheny-county/

It would be nice to see how the other 19 members did in their respective races.

 

[KingNothing]

I don't think you understand how election results are posted. Do you check the math? Do you go around to precinct chairs all around the state and collect their vote totals and add them up yourself and compare it to the reported total on the secretary of state website? Does anyone do this? No one does this. They turn in the results to county or state officials (depending on where you are talking about) and sometimes they hang around to see what the totals are when their results are added with other precincts/counties. WE ALL ASSUME THE COMPUTER KNOWS HOW TO ADD CORRECTLY.

Seriously, when was the last time you used a calculator for something and then checked the results by doing the math by hand? 7th grade math class maybe?

Ummmm, remember Maine and how people found the absurdity of what actually did go on there?
You don't think people notice it in Iowa?

 

[dsw]

I don't think you understand how election results are posted. Do you check the math? Do you go around to precinct chairs all around the state and collect their vote totals and add them up yourself and compare it to the reported total on the secretary of state website? Does anyone do this? No one does this. They turn in the results to county or state officials (depending on where you are talking about) and sometimes they hang around to see what the totals are when their results are added with other precincts/counties. WE ALL ASSUME THE COMPUTER KNOWS HOW TO ADD CORRECTLY.

Seriously, when was the last time you used a calculator for something and then checked the results by doing the math by hand? 7th grade math class maybe?

First, since it was a caucus, did the Secretary of State post them at all? AFAIK the official results were only posted at the GOP web site.

Second, they weren't just posted at the county level:
www.iowagop.org/2012 Iowa Certified CaucusResults.xls
No calculator needed, just compare the precinct-level numbers directly.

Third, you say that "no one" checks the totals. Here's an example of someone who did, and found a discrepancy:
http://www.watchthevote2012.com/AffidavitTrue.htm
(There were only 53 votes at that precinct so either the flipper theory needs tweaking or this was a non-flipper discrepancy.) That's from a web site that was set up specifically to allow for this kind of checking. Are you suggesting that after people went to the trouble of collecting the precinct-level vote totals, as witnessed and reported by Ron Paul supporters, they didn't follow through and compare those numbers to the official report? That after the above affidavit forced the GOP to back down, and with all of the publicity surrounding it and the frontrunners separated by such a small amount, are you suggesting that they didn't go back and carefully check every single precinct they had reports from against the official results?

Fourth, a lot of other people reported first-hand results, so even if it were plausible that all the flipped precincts went un-checked it's not too late. For example, here's a first-hand report from the largest precint (which also had the largest total votes cast):
http://theiowarepublican.com/2012/live-blog-caucusing-at-iowas-largest-gop-precinct/
And another from the top ten:
http://sawandseen.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/des-moines-christian-school-caucus-day/

And you can find lots more first-hand reports, especially if you're willing to dig into twitter and facebook. Also first-hand reports in local newspapers. I look forward to a flipper theory that involves a central tabulator flipping algorithm connected to the internet, cleverly deciding to flip only those precincts that were not being live-blogged, tweeted, facebooked or youtubed.

The relationship does exist in caucus states like Iowa and Maine. This is actually incredibly meaningful information. It's what tells us that the problem is in the central tabulator (The computer at headquarters where all those hand counted and witnessed votes are added together).

 

[dsw]

Wow, you've totally uncovered election fraud on behalf of a homemaker from Bethel Park PA. What's your theory here? You probably want to come up with a theory that doesn't accuse her of being complicit in that election fraud, to avoid the potential of a libel suit. Maybe tone down the "What's the price for the tickets?" kind of innuendo too. Because, one, she's got a black belt in karate, and two, the libel thing. Mostly the libel thing. In case she googles her own name, for example.

The link you included has her email address and other contact info. If someone was manipulating the central tabulator on behalf of her and her husband to try to make sure that they were delegates (lets pretend that actually sounds plausible) she might want to know. And you've got her on another graph too, in case you didn't realize it, in which she's losing votes to another candidate but for some unclear reason you thought that one might be ballot stuffing instead of flipping. So you've discovered fraud in her favor, and against her, in the same election! Or else you're wrong about the math and a graph that doesn't flatline doesn't prove fraud. But you know *that's* impossible, so hey! You've found a candidate who *on one ballot* has fraud working for her in one race and against her in another! Awesome!

Good morning little fishies. I have a couple of morsels of truth for y'all this morning.

The PA 18th district delegate race looked fishy to me:

Note at how only two traces are flipping up on this chart. Well guess what, they are Jim and Sue Means, husband and wife!

You didn't even need to flip, but you're husband's race was a real squeaker! Good job.

Oh hai Sue!

Did you happen to get a free ride on Romney's election stealth aircraft? What's the price for the tickets?

http://www.smartvoter.org/2012/04/24/pa/state/vote/means_sa1/
(Does that look to you like a Liberty candidate? Where's the "End The Fed" priority?

Hey Sue, what is "LifePac"?
http://www.lifepac.net/LIFEPAC_2012_APR.pdf
Look at the list of delegates on the flyer:

Paul Adametz -- Stealth Delegate
Richard Alloway -- Stealth Delegate
Jill Cooper -- Mitt Romney
Philip English -- Mitt Romney
Richard Geist -- Stealth Delegate
Christopher Fromme -- Stealth Delegate
Daryl Metcalfe -- Stealth Delegate
Dick Hess -- Stealth Delegate
David Majernik -- Stealth Delegate
Wade Kagarise -- Stealth Delegate
Mike McMullen -- Newt Gingrich
Bill Shuster -- Mitt Romney
Jeannette Pavlick -- Stealth Delegate
Bob Thomas -- Stealth Delegate
Lidia Turzai -- Mitt Romney (More about her in a little while)
Melissa Haluszczak -- Stealth Delegate
Brian Daugherty -- (misspelled) Ron Paul
Steven Morreale-- Ron Paul
Mary Ann Meloy -- Stealth Delegate
James Garsteck -- Stealth Delegate
Mary Jo Silvis -- Stealth Delegate
C. Edward Pfeiffer -- Stealth Delegate
Jim Means -- Stealth Delegate (Mitt Romney?)
Sonia Stopperich -- Stealth Delegate
Josh Wander -- Newt Gingrich
Sue Means -- Stealth Delegate (Mitt Romney?)
Michael Baker -- Mitt Romney
Bruce Erb -- Stealth Delegate
Sara Kennedy -- Stealth Delegate
Patricia Gambol -- Stealth Delegate
Mike McMullen -- Stealth Delegate
Bruce Kelley -- Stealth Delegate
Andy Maul -- Stealth Delegate
James Garsteck -- Stealth Delegate
Sonia Stopperich -- Stealth Delegate

So out of 35 recommended delegates only 2 are for Ron Paul!

Hey Sue, one more thing, if you are so "Pro-Life" why are you recommending five Mitt Romney delegates?


You'll all find this interesting:

I found this post from 4/25 on the Daily Paul: (http://www.dailypaul.com/228677/follow-pa-delegate-results)
"I volunteered at one of the larger polling places in Allegheny county all day passing out our delegate cards for CD-18. Sue Means was running for State Senate, but also as a delegate, and her husband was there all day as well. Needless to say we talked the entire day and he said he was a strong Paul supporter, agreeing with 90% of Paul's views..[THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH]...I did not ask him whether or not she agreed with most of his views as well. Looking back I can't believe I didn't even think to ask. She wasn't part of our delegate slate [OH REALLY?], but hopefully she may be a closet Paul supporter like her husband [PROBABLY NOT]. She finished first in the district as a delegate. [FOR WHOM?]

Edit: Jim Means ran as a delegate too in CD18, finished 5th. CD18 elects 4 delegates. He was not on the alternate ballot. Could have been another possible delegate for Paul. [LIKE NOT]"

 

[RonRules]

http://sawandseen.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/des-moines-christian-school-caucus-day/

Using your own links, here's some hilarious comments with very different numbers than the real results:

"My group picked an awesome caucus spot because Tagg Romney (son of Mitt Romney) and Jimmy Cushman (Newt Gingrich’s son-in-law) spoke on behalf of their father and father-in-law. Both of them spoke from the heart (or memory) rather than using a script which I thought was more moving for the attendants."

Romney's lover blog:

Romney – 190
Santorum – 87
Paul – 58
Gingrich – 48
Perry – 35
Bachmann – 16


The real numbers: (not from some Romney lover BS blog DSW likes to follow)
Romney – 160
Santorum – 87
Paul – 63
Gingrich – 48
Perry – 44
Bachmann – 8

This is where I get the results:
https://www.google.com/fusiontables/data?docid=17VbNe0NvfLa2OWdmEAUrIdi8ud_ukX5t8qmJJtY

Another "honest" mistake?

 

[dsw]

Here are the official results:
www.iowagop.org/2012 Iowa Certified CaucusResults.xls
The ones mucked up by the central tabulator, dontchaknow. She says it's in Urbandale. You cleverly searched in Des Moines which wasn't the name of the city, it was the name of the school where the caucus was held.

A tiny bit of searching finds the actual location to be Polk county, Urbandale 11. Hey, it's in the document you linked to also. How 'bout that. Hidden under "Urbandale."

All I did was google for people reporting the results from their caucus sites. If you don't like that one, if you think maybe she went back and edited the numbers after the fraudulent results were reported to play her part in the coverup, then just go find as many more as you want.

The counts were done in public, by manual counting. You can find them in local newspaper reports, blogs, twitter, facebook, youtube, etc. If the central tabulator was really mucking up the precinct numbers then it would be easy to prove it in Iowa. If you don't like the two I posted, you can find many, many more. You could contact watchthevote and ask them why they collected all those first-hand reports and then either didn't check them or did check them and didn't report the fraud (because you know from the math that it *must* be fraud). When you're done uncovering homemakers who have the central tabulator helping them become delegates.

Using your own links, here's some hilarious comments and the vote results are nowhere to be seen on the real results:

"My group picked an awesome caucus spot because Tagg Romney (son of Mitt Romney) and Jimmy Cushman (Newt Gingrich’s son-in-law) spoke on behalf of their father and father-in-law. Both of them spoke from the heart (or memory) rather than using a script which I thought was more moving for the attendants."

None of the DesMoine precincts show any of these numbers:

Romney – 190
Santorum – 87
Paul – 58
Gingrich – 48
Perry – 35
Bachmann – 16

This is where I get the results:
https://www.google.com/fusiontables/data?docid=17VbNe0NvfLa2OWdmEAUrIdi8ud_ukX5t8qmJJtY

Here are the real numbers, not from some Romney loBS blog you like to follow:
Romney – 160
Santorum – 87
Paul – 63
Gingrich – 48
Perry – 44
Bachmann – 8

 

[RonRules]

All 1775 Iowa precincts using the Google Fusion data table:

Looks the same as before.

 

[RonRules]

Time again for the Flipper song:
http://www.televisiontunes.com/Flipper.html

 

[RonRules]

she's got a black belt in karate,

More about Sue:
I have also served as a volunteer in Girl Scouts and 4-H where I taught karate, cake decorating, ...dolphin behavior training ...


Imagine the female version of this:

 

[dsw]

What were you expecting? BTW, if the flipping is under way by the 40,000 vote mark or so, based on your graph, then the flipping was being done for precincts with as few as 70 votes. Is that right? Because if that's true then you can find even more posted results that are after the "crime happens here" point. Maybe the anomaly reported by Edward True (the affidavit I linked to) was an example of flipping!

But of course there would need to be a lot more than just one. Can you look at the data and estimate how many precincts would have to be "flipped" to make the graph look the way it does, based on your understanding of the "must flatline" math? Because then you could estimate the percentage that were flipped. Then you could calculate the odds that the central tabulator could flip enough votes to make the graph look the way it looks, in a state where the counts were done by hand and witnessed by many people (and reported, in many cases, via social media), and yet when you compare the numbers reported by those first-hand witnesses to the numbers out of the central tabulator the only discrepancy turns out to be this one http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9044 . Now that would be an interesting calculation to see.

All 1775 Iowa precincts using the Google Fusion data table:

Looks the same as before.

 

[RonRules]

bla bla bla
the only discrepancy turns out to be ...

There were 1775 precincts in Iowa.

Lurk moar.

 

[dsw]

More about Sue:
I have also served as a volunteer in Girl Scouts and 4-H where I taught karate, cake decorating, ...

And yet you've caught *someone* taking enough of an interest in her that she's being helped by election fraud in one race and hurt by election fraud in another race on the same ballot! A homemaker caught up in a maelstrom of election fraud, and she probably doesn't even realize it.

What's your theory here? Did the team who planted the viruses that implement flipping in the central tabulators take a personal interest in her? Did they finally hear about your proof of their scheme and implement this plan to try to implicate her? Or did she track them down and go all Mr. Miyagi on their asses and force them to flip the delegate race in her favor, only to have them stab her in the back with good old-fashioned ballot stuffing that denied her the race she *really* wanted to win? Or maybe you just don't understand the math and you're wrong about the graphs having to flatline without fraud ... but no, it can't be that, so *something* interesting is going on here!

 

[RonRules]

Coming next, maybe tomorrow:

 

[KingNothing]

More about Sue:
I have also served as a volunteer in Girl Scouts and 4-H where I taught karate, cake decorating, ...dolphin behavior training ...


Imagine the female version of this:

HAHAHHAH! YOU'RE RIGHT! IT'S A MIDDLE AGED WOMAN WITH HOBBIES! HAHAHAHAH IT'S EVEN MORE HILARIOUS THAN YOU MADE IT OUT TO BE! I MEAN, WHO DOES SHE THINK SHE IS, BEING PHYSICALLY ACTIVE, AND A HOMEMAKER?!? BBAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

What a pawn in the game of chess that the masters of our universe are playing she is!

 

[dsw]

There were 1775 precincts in Iowa.

Yes, with reports from many of them reported first-hand by witnesses, because unlike the primary states these votes were counted at the precinct level manually, and publicly.

It would be interesting to see someone with your prowess in the calculation of statistical odds estimate the odds that with so many precincts "flipped" at the tabulator and so many precincts reported independently by witnesses, only one of the flipped precincts was detected, the one reported by Edward True.

Except that if you look at the discrepancy reported by True, it's not flipping. The total at the precinct level didn't agree with the total from the evil tabulator. Romney's 2 actual votes got turned into 22 votes without the extra 20 being taken from another candidate.

So zero. Out of all the precincts where people reported the count via youtube or facebook or twitter or blogs or a reporter wrote it up for a local paper or whatever, what are the odds that the flipping algorithm seems to have managed to avoid all of them? Is the virus a sentient AI that reads blogs and watches youtube and so on and knows which ones it can get away with flipping and which ones it has to leave untouched? Or could it instead be that you don't understand what the math says about the graph needing to flatline without fraud ... oh but wait it can't be that, so it must be fraud. The question is how that central tabulator did such a good job of hiding its tracks in Iowa. Any theories?

 

[Barrex]

You are killing me. I said I will not post here again but.....

After few thousand of posts these threads are still without clearly set goal and a plan to achieve that goal.

(to be fair this is more or less a problem with entire forum and not just this thread).

 

[affa]

dsw -- if there is flipping going on, i seriously doubt they go in and program it 'per' race. it's quite possible inconsequential candidates benefit by accident in separate elections. ie, 'position 3 on the ballot', or somesuch. is this what happens? who knows. but it would easily explain why some odd choices in other seemingly unimportant elections get flipped.

personally, i'd rather we focused on presidential primaries, and other major races.

kingnothing- you've been asked by mods to leave the thread. please do.

 

[affa]

Any theories?

Absolutely. Your entire original persona was a sham, and you've now come fully out of the closet. before, you just spun everyone in circles. now you're much more obvious about your intent.

hi there. nice to meet you. always knew you were there.

 

[dsw]

Absolutely. Your entire original persona was a sham, and you've now come fully out of the closet. before, you just spun everyone in circles. now you're much more obvious about your intent.

And obviously that explains how the central tabulator in Iowa managed to flip only precincts that were not among the many precincts where the manual, public tally was reported by first-hand witnesses on youtube, facebook, twitter, blogs or local newspapers. Well played.

 

[RonRules]

only precincts that were not among the many precincts where the manual, public tally was reported

You showed us 3 out of 1775 precincts and two didn't match.

Please provide us with the remaining 1772.