The case for the occurence of algorithmic vote flipping

[RonRules]

Note: this was written in 2008, in an attempt to pursue election fraud against Dr. Paul. Author: C. Ingram, RE: an indivdual named David Terr:

Are you referring to the book "Rigged"?

The Stealing of American Electionsand Who is Responsible

by Dr. Cass Ingram

http://www.scribd.com/doc/85563626/Rigged

 

[row333au]

note: 3rd Party option should only be brought in after the nomination, and not at this stage of the caucus and primaries, since it becomes counter-productive against Ron Paul with those unaware and not clear about conservative, libertarian, republican and establishment differences (and how its best to play the political game system without corrupting oneself).

Best at the moment is to keep winning more delegations than anyone of the other candidates and turn GOP into Ron Paul movement. What all of the Ron Paul movement should do right now is put their weight and pressure on with case action People vs. GOP 'Election Fraud: results, ruling and tampering'; and should demand against GOP for new re-election on all suspected precincts and caucuses, as well as going back to paper/box/open public voting method, ..... this will force a more honest election and influence the national presidential election later on. This way will expose the wrong doing, preoccupy, counter and prevent GOP from doing any fraudulent, nasties and double crossing against Ron Paul supporters. Remember this is about electing a public official for a public office with almost unlimited access to power, influence, wealth and resources of the nation own by the public 'the people'.

A public office and official gives the people the right and demand for open transparent accountable presidential election and voting, as GOP or any other political house or party make this decision exclusive to their private agenda for their own cronyism, corporatism, fascism, nepotism, theocraticsm, oligarchysm, globalism, monopolysm, lobbyist, etch.... .

 

[drummergirl]

Best at the moment is to keep winning more delegations than anyone of the other candidates and turn GOP into Ron Paul movement. What all of the Ron Paul movement should do right now is put their weight and pressure on with case action People vs. GOP 'Election Fraud: results, ruling and tampering'; and should demand against GOP for new re-election on all suspected precincts and caucuses, as well as going back to paper/box/open public voting method, ..... this will force a more honest election and influence the national presidential election later on. This way will expose the wrong doing, preoccupy, counter and prevent GOP from doing any fraudulent, nasties and double crossing against Ron Paul supporters. Remember this is about electing a public official for a public office with almost unlimited access to power, influence, wealth and resources of the nation own by the public 'the people'.

+ rep!

 

[drummergirl]

Here is the first draft of the Extended Technical summary. It's 48 pages, but there are lots of graphs, so it's really a quick read. I'd appreciate your feedback.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EokVx9tDsrjAJ-7H9XoPv3KmZYDvVjSFJ4cuxJTo1iE/edit

 

[Liberty1789]

The (mighty) Canadian Slope Debunk

We are looking at the official Canadian data published here on their 41st General Election in 2011:

http://www.elections.ca/scripts/resval/ovr_41ge.asp?ddlEDRes_prov=35&lang=e

More than 14 million votes, more than 70,000 precincts, more than 1,000 candidate races and therefore more than 1,000 slopes to analyze. Perfect.

Canadian slopes behave quasi-identically to the US ones.

I am now inclined to consider the broad slope anomaly argument as formally debunked.

 

[RonRules]

We are looking at the official Canadian data published here on their 41st General Election in 2011:

http://www.elections.ca/scripts/resval/ovr_41ge.asp?ddlEDRes_prov=35&lang=e

More than 14 million votes, more than 70,000 precincts, more than 1,000 candidate races and therefore more than 1,000 slopes to analyze. Perfect.

Canadian slopes behave quasi-identically to the US ones.

I am now inclined to consider the broad slope anomaly argument as formally debunked.

Does your US and (specifically Louisiana) data include Romney 2012, Robertson 88, Duke 92, Buchanan 92,96, Bush Sr. 92, Dole 96, McCain 2008?

If so, I believe your charts will be unreliable.

"broad slope anomaly argument" Not sure what you mean by that.

Also, please expand the names on the chart axes. I've been catching a lot of flack for your charts from people I send them too. In the above charts the X-Axis "bin" and X-Axis "frequency" is really not enough.

Suggestion for X-Axis: "Deviation from final vote result expressed in Standard Deviations grouped in 7 bins."

We have to make this stuff extremely clear.

Salesman dictum: "A confused mind always says no"

You've been doing a lot a work, the last little bit at the end will help most people understand your work.

 

[affa]

Here is the first draft of the Extended Technical summary. It's 48 pages, but there are lots of graphs, so it's really a quick read. I'd appreciate your feedback.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EokVx9tDsrjAJ-7H9XoPv3KmZYDvVjSFJ4cuxJTo1iE/edit

looks great. will eventually need some 'tightening up' (perhaps all in a single voice) to be more presentable. but maybe not.

i think an important addition would be a FAQ section, preferably one that hits all common kneejerk debunks. Such as:
1) Doesn't a small precinct just mean 'rural' and a large precinct mean 'urban'? Doesn't it make sense for a candidate to do better/worse in rural urban environments? At which point, you can drop in the various charts of cities (Aden did some great work on this) showing that this phenomenon exists within entirely urban environments. As well as absentee votes precincts too, now that i think about it.

 

[dsw]

Here is the first draft of the Extended Technical summary. It's 48 pages, but there are lots of graphs, so it's really a quick read. I'd appreciate your feedback.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EokVx9tDsrjAJ-7H9XoPv3KmZYDvVjSFJ4cuxJTo1iE/edit

It's probably stupid to bring this up again but: "Basic statistics told the pollsters that if they polled 1200 likely voters, they would have a margin of error of +-3%" is not quite true.

Basic statistics told the pollsters that if they polled 1200 randomly selected likely voters, they would have a margin of error of +-3%. Basic statistics doesn't say anything at all about the margin of error if you select those 1200 likely voters in a way that might have some correlation with the thing you're trying to measure.

 

[The Man]

It's probably stupid to bring this up again but: "Basic statistics told the pollsters that if they polled 1200 likely voters, they would have a margin of error of +-3%" is not quite true.

Basic statistics told the pollsters that if they polled 1200 randomly selected likely voters, they would have a margin of error of +-3%. Basic statistics doesn't say anything at all about the margin of error if you select those 1200 likely voters in a way that might have some correlation with the thing you're trying to measure.

I received this email reply from an exit polling company when asked how accurate an exit poll would be that used only the smallest precincts as polling subjects:
"the z value or standard deviation would be larger which would mean that instead of a 5 percent margin of error, you would have a 7 or maybe 8 percent MoE. In any exit poll a good number is around 400. When a national poll is taken most agencies use around 1000 as the base number. Even though 1000 is a fraction of the population, the data is considered representative of the group statistically. But do not be fooled by numbers. A 5% margin of error in no way means that the final number will be five percent higher or lower. What the MoE really states is that if another poll was taken that 95% of the time the results would be withing 3 standard deviations of the original. The large polling agencies will never explain this to the public, just as we probably will never explain it to the public, because it is confusing and takes years of study to truly understand how to create a survey and questions with validity and reliability.
In South Carolina, I have heard reports that our numbers - the ones we feel were manipulated- are actually pretty close to another firms findings."

 

[drummergirl]

It's probably stupid to bring this up again but: "Basic statistics told the pollsters that if they polled 1200 likely voters, they would have a margin of error of +-3%" is not quite true.

Basic statistics told the pollsters that if they polled 1200 randomly selected likely voters, they would have a margin of error of +-3%. Basic statistics doesn't say anything at all about the margin of error if you select those 1200 likely voters in a way that might have some correlation with the thing you're trying to measure.

thank you!

 

[drummergirl]

I received this email reply from an exit polling company when asked how accurate an exit poll would be that used only the smallest precincts as polling subjects:
"the z value or standard deviation would be larger which would mean that instead of a 5 percent margin of error, you would have a 7 or maybe 8 percent MoE. In any exit poll a good number is around 400. When a national poll is taken most agencies use around 1000 as the base number. Even though 1000 is a fraction of the population, the data is considered representative of the group statistically. But do not be fooled by numbers. A 5% margin of error in no way means that the final number will be five percent higher or lower. What the MoE really states is that if another poll was taken that 95% of the time the results would be withing 3 standard deviations of the original. The large polling agencies will never explain this to the public, just as we probably will never explain it to the public, because it is confusing and takes years of study to truly understand how to create a survey and questions with validity and reliability.
In South Carolina, I have heard reports that our numbers - the ones we feel were manipulated- are actually pretty close to another firms findings."

yes, standard deviation and margin of error are 2 different things; they get mixed up a lot because both are normally stated as +-X.

 

[Carson]

thank you!

The last time I remember a news agency reporting exit polls they had them broke down into categories. Categories of groups of people that seemed to me that would give them the results they wanted to shout out and drown out the truth with.

Not just one exit poll mind you. Several bastardized groups.

 

[dr.k.research]

No, this was written by the author but not included in the book. It was extra material, unpublished.

 

[RonRules]

No, this was written by the author but not included in the book. It was extra material, unpublished.

The problem is the link you provided requires a password.

 

[program4liberty]

I updated the program to v1.4 - Now it outputs the data it did before, in a folder labelled bytotalcounted, but also outputs charts and statistics for a candidate's vote % in a precinct vs. the precinct's size. http://sourceforge.net/projects/voteanalyze/

I'm at the point now where I'm trying to draw a conclusion from all of this data, and will put together a concise and to the point document to include with the program and data. I'm not sure either way yet what I will conclude.

I'm doing this with a formal argument point by point, and trying to determine the truth or falsity of each premise. I'm now currently looking at the demographic explanation - I know, I know, many of you will say it is completely put to bed. However, as far as I can tell myself, the information disproving it is spread across multiple threads, and I haven't seen anything large-ish scale yet. If you have demographic information, please email it to me at [email protected]. Source data is much appreciated.

Also, I have one possible demographic explanation, though, that I haven't seen mentioned or addressed in other threads. Someone please address this. There seems to be a correlation between vote % and precinct size occurring since 2008 that almost always (if not always) is bad for paul and good for someone else.

What if the explanation was not that Romney or whomever is benefitting does better in larger precincts, but rather that Ron Paul and non-mainstream candidates generally do better in small precincts? My idea would be that in a small precinct (and these are small in turnout, remember), there are only a few politically active people. One would expect that these people are generally more active and research more about their candidate choice, and are generally more die-hard as well. Also, these people would probably tell their friends and family to vote, and to vote for their candidate, when normally they otherwise would have not bothered like the rest of the precinct. This would have a dramatic effect in a small turnout precinct. One key idea here is that in a precinct with low voter turnout, it is generally because of the precinct geographical size and/or voter apathy/republican nomination apathy.

In a large turnout precinct, one would expect that more people are voting because perhaps the schools encourage it more or the kinds of people in those larger precincts just have a slightly more "political" disposition. This would, however, probably yield high numbers of casual voters - people who just vote because they think they should, but don't take a great effort to look deep into the issues of the candidate they are supporting, and are in this way swayed more easily by the mainstream media as well. Also, the effect of the same % of ron paul supporters in a large precinct might not be as great as those in a small precinct - again, think small town where everyone knows and agrees with each other vs. a large metropolitan city where everyone only has a smallish circle of friends that they can influence.

 

[RonRules]

Using the brand new Vote Analyze Java program Version 1.4 on
Canada's 2011 elections in Quebec, Districts 24004 (Argenteuil, Papineau, Mirabel)

Data source:
http://www.elections.ca/scripts/resval/ovr_41ge.asp?ddlEDRes_prov=35&lang=e


By Precinct Vote Tally:

By Cumulative Precinct Vote Tally

 

[RonRules]

If you have demographic information, please email it to me at [email protected]. Source data is much appreciated.

California has phenomenal demographics data. I posted some in the very large second thread and someone else posted some a couple of pages back in this thread. It's huge, like 8GB when unzipped and to be used with MS Access. It looks like a pain to use because of Access size limitations.

Also, I have one possible demographic explanation, though, that I haven't seen mentioned or addressed in other threads. Someone please address this. There seems to be a correlation between vote % and precinct size occurring since 2008 that almost always (if not always) is bad for Paul and good for someone else.

What I have found that's consistent is that the establishment candidate benefits. You can see that in Louisiana 88, 92, 96, IA 2008, NH 2008, and in all of 2012 the establishment candidate gains at the detriment of others. In LA88 Pat Robertson was the flip loser, LA92 was David Duke, LA 96 was Pat Buchanan, while the establishment candidates Bush 92 and Dole 96 gained. This is very clear from Liberty1789 Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) graphs.

In 2008, Romney was benefiting until he was out and then McCain got the benefit (See Ohio)

In 2012, six different candidates got negatively flipped (Bachman, Gingrich, Huntsman, Perry, Paul, Santorum) but only Romney benefited.

So, it's not just a Ron Paul thing.

 

[affa]

What if the explanation was not that Romney or whomever is benefitting does better in larger precincts, but rather that Ron Paul and non-mainstream candidates generally do better in small precincts? My idea would be that in a small precinct (and these are small in turnout, remember), there are only a few politically active people.

Remember that 'small' is relative. In some state/counties, what we'd call 'small' precincts differ only by a handful of votes from what we'd consider 'large' precincts. In other state/counites, what we'd call 'small' precincts are larger than the largest precincts in other states. Yet we still see the anomaly, relative to size.

If you go to drummergirl's recent 'tech document', read through the addendum till you get to liberty's section comparing, if i remember correctly, Clark County NV to NH to Iowa.

 

[quizbe]

Has anyone researched the campaign donations at fec.gov? Does that contain enough information to make a chart like you guys do with votes?

 

[RonRules]

Has anyone researched the campaign donations at fec.gov? Does that contain enough information to make a chart like you guys do with votes?

That looks like a worthwhile project if you want to do it. The donors are all named, so you should be able to exactly zoom in down to the individual precincts.