The case for the occurence of algorithmic vote flipping

[dsw]

Romney tended to do better in the larger precincts- for argument's sake OK. BUT that's ALREADY been accounted for in the delegate totals. The X Axis IS the delegate total or the "Zero" path. The graph represents the DIFFERENCE of Votes minus delegates cumulative.

I appreciate the polite reply, but I'm not sure how this is responding to the point about idiot voters.

Here's what I'm saying: *if* there was some percentage (average) of idiot voters, and some percentage (average) of Romney voters who voted for his delegates correctly, then the more votes Romney got the larger the difference will tend to be between Romney's candidate vote and his delegate vote.

Suppose there are 10 idiot voters in a precinct of 100 (assume for simplicity that none of them are Romney supporters), and half of the actual Romney supporters vote for his delegate #N, and the other half don't bother. Just round numbers to illustrate the point. Let's suppose it's a precinct where Romney had 20 votes out of the 100 total. Half of those (10) voted for the delegate, plus the 10 idiots, for 20 in all. The difference between the candidate vote and delegate vote is zero. But suppose it's a precinct where Romney got 40 votes. The delegate got votes from half of those (20), plus the 10 idiots, for 30 in all. But now the difference is no longer zero, it's 10. If Romney got 60 votes, the delegate got 30+10=40, and now the difference is 20.

As the percentage of votes for Romney goes up, so does the difference between the number of votes for the candidate and the number for the delegate, assuming that there is a non-zero percentage of idiot voters. When you graph it in a way that correlates with Romney's percentage of the vote, the line will slope upward as you go to the right.

That's why I think one of the obvious questions is: to what extent is the slope of the line in the graph the result of idiot voters, plus the fact that the data are being graphed with precincts sorted so that has Romney's percentage of the vote tends to increase from left to right? Because when you put both of those things together then to some extent you should expect to get a line sloping upward.

 

[Liberty1789]

Suppose there are 10 idiot voters in a precinct of 100

Those imagined idiot voters would carry on voting at least partially into Santorum's favor. They would have voted for Paul's delegates. That would create some correlation between the presidente/delegate vote differences of Romney and Santorum. The R[SUP]2[/SUP] between Romney's last delegate error and Santorum's first delegate error is 5 10[SUP]-5[/SUP]. Between Paul's last and Romney's first? R[SUP]2[/SUP] = 0.0076. Theory does not fit data. Theory should be abandoned.

 

[RonRules]

Has anybody contacted the Secretary of State in Alabama? At this point, We've proven Alabama beyond a reasonable doubt. We're now well into the unreasonable doubt and only one poster (DSW) is unreasonable.

Time to act. Anybody here in Alabama?

 

[drummergirl]

Here's what I'm saying:

Once again, you are just rehashing arguments already disposed of in another thread. Time to go back under the bridge da.

 

[dsw]

Has anybody contacted the Secretary of State in Alabama? At this point, We've proven Alabama beyond a reasonable doubt. We're now well into the unreasonable doubt and only one poster (DSW) is unreasonable.

Time to act. Anybody here in Alabama?

http://www.stopvoterfraudnow.com/

MONTGOMERY - Secretary of State Beth Chapman has announced a new Voter Fraud Unit within the Secretary of State’s office dedicated to dealing with reports of voter fraud. With claims of voter fraud continuing to come in, Secretary Chapman has appointed members of her legal and elections staff to be trained to speak with those individuals who have such reports. “It is important for the citizens of Alabama who have reports of voter fraud to know that someone is here to listen and to gather the information in a manner which complies with the law. It is also important for these individuals to know that appropriate action is being taken with their complaint” Chapman stated. Secretary Chapman emphasized that all reports will be kept confidential.

In conjunction with the new Voter Fraud Unit, Secretary of State Beth Chapman has also announced her office’s new website and toll free number for citizens to report incidents of voter fraud. The site will provide a report/complaint form that will be collected and reviewed by the Secretary of State and the Voter Fraud Unit and forwarded to the Attorney General for further review.

The website www.StopVoterFraudNow.com is up and running today and available for reports or confidential meetings to be scheduled to report such abuse.

“My staff and I are proud to provide these tools for people to use to report voter fraud,” Chapman said. “We will continue to rattle the swords of democracy until voter fraud is stopped in Alabama.”

Contact Us

Email:
[email protected]

Toll Free:
1-800-274-VOTE (8683)

Fax:
334-242-4993

Mailing Address:
Secretary of State Beth Chapman
Voter Fraud Unit
P.O. Box 5616
Montgomery, Alabama 36103-5616

EDIT: I don't see why it would have to be an Alabama resident reporting the fraud, but if you want to find someone from Alabama because they would be more likely to get some attention, why not do even better than that and get someone whose name was actually on the ballot? The Ron Paul delegates were *personally* affected by the outcome, if fraud kept Ron Paul from getting delegates he should have gotten. Several are members here: http://alabamac4l.ning.com/ and there's a link for the facebook page there too, and I see several other Alabama facebook pages for Ron Paul supporters. One of the delegates is the state director for the campaign, and has an email address and phone number that you can find via http://www.ronpaul2012.com/ . If you can make a case that convinces one of them, then they'd be an ideal person to take the case to the sec of state.

 

[RonRules]

Well little fishies, I've got something that bound to interest the GOP leaders. And it won't help party unity!

I've been analyzing the 2008 Primaries in California in order to PREVENT the problem here. I'll be doing all 58 counties and see what brand of central tabulators they used in 2008, if any.

I wonder how McCain will react when he eventually sees this?

Let's not forget about her:

PS: Data is available here: http://swdb.berkeley.edu/d00/s08.html

 

[RonRules]

Missed it by that much:

 

[RonRules]

Here's San Bernardino county, just north of Riverside. Another good flipper:

I've also checked a couple of propositions. In CA we get to vote on things that our Reps won't touch with a 10 foot pole. The're flatlining, but not perfectly.

Prop 8 was the Gay Marriage thing that failed. The Mormons spent a lot of money opposing that, which landed them with a fine from the Election Commission.

 

[drummergirl]

That's some hardcore flapjack flipping there. Somebody REALLY wants a president Romney and they have for about 5-6 years now... which is another puzzle piece! The Flipper has been on Romney's bandwagon since at least 2007.

Missed it by that much:

 

[drummergirl]

Has anyone checked the Romney's Massachusetts gubernatorial races for flipping?

I say that because a working assumption for me has been that Romney has the support of the upper echelons of the GOP. Perhaps the con runs a bit deeper?

 

[The Man]

I spoke with the Jefferson County Alabama supervisor of elections today. After explaining to him the many precincts in Jefferson County where Romney had hundreds more candidate votes than delegate votes, he couldn't think of an obvious explanation. He offered to send to me the link to a .PDF file that contains the data from EACH voting machine, which can be found at ftp://ftp.jeffcointouch.com/elections/Archives/Year%202012/Presidential%20%20Preference%20-%20Primary%20March%2013,%202012/PrecinctReport_031312un.pdf. This document is almost 4000 pages and each voting machine has its own detailed data, just like we're accustomed to seeing the precinct data.

 

[drummergirl]

Could be just me, but the ftp site isn't working for me. Not sure why. I'll have to look at it tomorrow after coffee

 

[The Man]

Could be just me, but the ftp site isn't working for me. Not sure why. I'll have to look at it tomorrow after coffee

It's working fine for me. Try again.

 

[RonRules]

I spoke with the Jefferson County Alabama supervisor of elections today. After explaining to him the many precincts in Jefferson County where Romney had hundreds more candidate votes than delegate votes, he couldn't think of an obvious explanation. He offered to send to me the link to a .PDF file that contains the data from EACH voting machine, which can be found at ftp://ftp.jeffcointouch.com/elections/Archives/Year%202012/Presidential%20%20Preference%20-%20Primary%20March%2013,%202012/PrecinctReport_031312un.pdf. This document is almost 4000 pages and each voting machine has its own detailed data, just like we're accustomed to seeing the precinct data.

Thank you for getting this report. What bothers me from this is that although it claims to be from the individual voting machines, it is clearly generated from the evil Central Tabulator software. Remember Alabama has the slick SOS software, which makes their job real easy, including putting together the final webpage for display.

We need the "Poll Tapes" that come out directly out of each machine. Not the centrally generated report. My guess is that report will produce exactly the same numbers as on the website.

BTW, we have not seen a single Poll Tape for all the 2012 elections. That's what we need.

Also the format of the above report sucks for us to analyze.

 

[RonRules]

Also VERY interesting, was Hillary Clinton a Flipper?

This is Orange County, California:

PS: I've got a local Democratic Party executive doing Java charts!

 

[RonRules]

Here's something that we, flippers already knew but will be informative for newcomers. The flipping occurs in larger precincts.

Here's California 2008 San Bernardino again:

I separated the smallest precincts 0-40% in this chart: (Note no flipping for Romney)

Now the largest 40% (60% to 100%) of the precincts : Note how much steeper the slope is:

 

[dr.k.research]

How long do we have to wait to see those 143 precincts in Iowa with verifiable evidence of manipulation by the central tabulator?

Tsk, tsk, Mr. dsw. You really should learn to be more patient. And, yes, the terminally corrupt GOP was caught in the act in a number of instances, not once, as you so vociferously claim. Here is one notable example, as found on Google Docs:

Original results
4010, Appanoose-Union
Number of voters: 40
votes for Paul: 2
vote count for Gingrich: 3
vote count for Santorum: 32
vote count for Romney: 0
vote count for Perry: 3

“Updated” results (as of January 6/2012)
4010, Appanoose-Union
vote for Paul: 2
vote count for Gingrich: 3
vote count for Santorum: 3
vote count for Romney: 0
vote count for Perry: 3

Note that Appanoose-Union has a total population, today, of 150. Now, there is no way that 40 people from such a township would show up at a caucus. Plus, of course, there are other people of that population who are of non-voting age such as infants, children, and teens. What is a realistic voter number in the township--perhaps 100-max? Thus, just as in the town of Moulton in Appanoose-Union the ballot was stuffed in Santorum’s favor. This was by adding 29 votes, in Mouton 20 votes. 49 votes in a mere two precincts. Such a trend is sufficient to fabricate a win for Santorum, largely at Paul’s expense. By the way for those who might insinuate otherwise, there is only one Appanoose-Union, #4010.

A smaller but still significant issue is in Coralville-04, where eyewitness counters listed 65 votes but according to the GOP, as downloaded directly from the site, the count was 72. If no more than an average of 2 or 3 votes are added—or stolen—from each precinct, ballot stuffed to another candidate, the winner is cheated and the loser granted the win.

So, don't keep trying to convince us there was no fraud:

In spite of a lot of people looking for discrepancies, the only one that turned up was the one reported by Edward True.

Of all the independent reports of the manual, public counts, only one turned out to differ from the central tabulator numbers.

Time for you to go clean up your posts. A bit embarassing, isn't it?

Copy of the original link here by an Iowa activist: http://blog.shawnhyde.com/post/2012...vorites-Election-Fraud-and-Fixed-Numbers.aspx

 

[drummergirl]

We need the "Poll Tapes" that come out directly out of each machine. Not the centrally generated report. My guess is that report will produce exactly the same numbers as on the website.

They may not have poll tapes other than the zero at the beginning of the day and the number of voters at the end. They probably just pull the card from the machine and put it directly into the central tabulator. I'm finding that a lot of jurisdictions do that.

 

[dsw]

Let's see if this helps more. I'll write down what I know about, then you fill in the gap between that, and what you claim to have.

There were eight precincts not certified, allegedly because they were missing the "form E." IIRC about 250 votes not counted.

There were several alleged "typos" corrected before the results were certified. Fayette county, two precincts; after the correction Mitt lost 105 votes, Santorum gained two. Appanoose, three precincts (including True's, and Union); after the correction Mitt lost 20 and Santorum lost 28. Buena Vista, two precincts; after the correction Santorum gained 12 and Romney gained 6.
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.c...r-exclusive-2012-gop-caucus-count-unresolved/

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong but AFAIK the only one of those changes that weren't made "voluntarily" was the one that Edward True filed the affidavit about. They had to be forced to admit that the one he discovered was an error, and if it weren't for his independent record of it they probably wouldn't have changed it. That took 20 votes away from Romney (not Santorum, as you say below) that he otherwise would have had. You've also now mentioned Coralville-04, where eyewitnesses reported a total of 65, but the official result shows 72.

Unfortunately none of these "typos" caught the flipper in action.

Does that bring us up to date?

Now: if you have evidence of 120+ *other* discrepancies between the central tabulator results and the manual counts, as you were claiming, the chances are very, very high that at least a few of them will be "flipper" precincts. I don't care why that evidence hasn't come out before. If you really do have it, please post it. I'm skeptical, but if you have it I'll admit I'm wrong ... but why do you care so much about that? If you have what you claim then making it public will help Ron Paul. If Romney was the beneficiary of the flipping then no matter how much he claims he didn't know (even if he really didn't know) he would be *out*.

So I'm hoping you have what you say you have. But don't do it to prove that my skepticism is unfounded. Do it for Ron Paul.

Tsk, tsk, Mr. dsw. You really should learn to be more patient. And, yes, the terminally corrupt GOP was caught in the act in a number of instances, not once, as you so vociferously claim. Here is one notable example, as found on Google Docs:

Original results
4010, Appanoose-Union
Number of voters: 40
votes for Paul: 2
vote count for Gingrich: 3
vote count for Santorum: 32
vote count for Romney: 0
vote count for Perry: 3

“Updated” results (as of January 6/2012)
4010, Appanoose-Union
vote for Paul: 2
vote count for Gingrich: 3
vote count for Santorum: 3
vote count for Romney: 0
vote count for Perry: 3

Note that Appanoose-Union has a total population, today, of 150. Now, there is no way that 40 people from such a township would show up at a caucus. Plus, of course, there are other people of that population who are of non-voting age such as infants, children, and teens. What is a realistic voter number in the township--perhaps 100-max? Thus, just as in the town of Moulton in Appanoose-Union the ballot was stuffed in Santorum’s favor. This was by adding 29 votes, in Mouton 20 votes. 49 votes in a mere two precincts. Such a trend is sufficient to fabricate a win for Santorum, largely at Paul’s expense. By the way for those who might insinuate otherwise, there is only one Appanoose-Union, #4010.

A smaller but still significant issue is in Coralville-04, where eyewitness counters listed 65 votes but according to the GOP, as downloaded directly from the site, the count was 72. If no more than an average of 2 or 3 votes are added—or stolen—from each precinct, ballot stuffed to another candidate, the winner is cheated and the loser granted the win.

So, don't keep trying to convince us there was no fraud:





Time for you to go clean up your posts. A bit embarassing, isn't it?

Copy of the original link here by an Iowa activist: http://blog.shawnhyde.com/post/2012...vorites-Election-Fraud-and-Fixed-Numbers.aspx

 

[The Man]

Actually, the entire state of Alabama uses ES&S machines AND the tabulation is performed BY each county locally- according to the official. He said emphatically that NO tabulation is performed in Spain, like was incorrectly published on the internet. I did NOT learn HOW the tabulation is accomplished though.

Now please look at this chart below. Precincts with abnormally high Romney votes minus delegates AND with two EVM's that have substantially different totals were examined to see IF Romney receives a higher % in a EVM with a higher total when compared to his % in the lower vote total machine. This could potentially reveal IF this algorithm is implemented in the EVM firmware and needs more study. If you have a way to grab the data from the PDF more efficiently than I, please have at it.