The case for the occurence of algorithmic vote flipping

[dr.k.research]

I'll believe it when I see the data.

Coming, soon (like in the movies!!).

 

[drummergirl]

I'll believe it when I see the data.

No, you won't. You never do. Why would more data persuade you of the truth when the mountains of data already analyzed have not affected you?

I can hardly wait to read the tome with which you'll reply.

 

[Carson]

When you think about it, we've known about illegal immigration and nothing has ever been done about it.

With the corrupt system of fiat currency we have, some inside AND outside of our country can print up whatever it takes to dictate their way.

I've quit holding my breath on this also.



Time for a commercial break:

Check out Matt McDonald at about 3:08 or so.

 

[dsw]

No, you won't. You never do. Why would more data persuade you of the truth when the mountains of data already analyzed have not affected you?

Mountains of data! It does sometimes seem like flippers think that sheer volume of data can overcome bogosity of arguments, in much the same way that I was recently told that mathematical theorems that require random selection can be applied under non-random selection so long you increase the sample size.

 

[drummergirl]

Be still my heart, a brief dsw post!

But alas, 'tis still just half truth and fluff.

Mountains of data! It does sometimes seem like flippers think that sheer volume of data can overcome bogosity of arguments, in much the same way that I was recently told that mathematical theorems that require random selection can be applied under non-random selection so long you increase the sample size.

 

[RonRules]

Oh hai Turzai's!

Why are you looking worried?

Could it be because of this?:

Oh hai Lidia!

Can you explain these numbers in column 8?

Hey Lidia, one more thing, Google your name on Google Images; scroll down a bit and you'll see pictures of Dolphins, Jim Belushi and Sue! Too funny.

There's also a picture of Newt.

I thought you were a Romney Delegate? Double dipping?

Check it out!
https://www.google.com/search?q=lid...ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1152&bih=763

 

[dsw]

If I didn't know how to use a map, couldn't look up the area that Turzai currently represents, and didn't understand that ordering precincts by votes cast doesn't necessarily approximate random selection, I'd say you've found a definite flipper!

Oh hai Turzai's!

Why are you looking worried?

Could it be because of this?:

Oh hai Lidia!

Can you explain these numbers in column 8?

Hey Lidia, one more thing, Google your name on Google Images; scroll down a bit and you'll see pictures of Dolphins, Jim Belushi and Sue! Too funny.

There's also a picture of Newt.

I thought you were a Romney Delegate? Double dipping?

Check it out!
https://www.google.com/search?q=lid...ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1152&bih=763

 

[dr.k.research]

Why are you looking worried?

Because we're about to prove that the whole rotten system is a categorical fraud. Great work, here!!

 

[jct74]

posts deleted, keep out with the non-productive inflammatory comments please. read the note in OP again.

 

[dsw]

Because we're about to prove that the whole rotten system is a categorical fraud. Great work, here!!

How long do we have to wait to see those 143 precincts in Iowa with verifiable evidence of manipulation by the central tabulator? The public, manual counting done in Iowa creates exactly the right conditions for detecting and proving systematic fraud (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9049) so if you've got what you say you've got, you really could bring down the whole rotten system. Are you going to break the story to one of the major news shows, or just publish it quietly and let it build into a viral video tsunami?

 

[The Man]

Did I hear someone doubting the massive vote-rigging evidence that has been accumulated the past 3 months? DSW you've yet to explain how this could be caused by anything other than election fraud. I have posted your graph from the Alabama thread below.
People, this graph plots "reported votes minus reported delegates" in each precinct of Alabama. Look what happens to Romney's (reported vote totals minus his reported delegate totals) after the 300k vote mark. Understand, up until this graph, ALL vote "flipping" was based on the fact that Romney receives a much higher percentage of votes in the largest vote total precincts than in the small ones. NOW we see, totally independent from the small-large precinct comparison, an increase in Romney's vote receiving percentage which CANNOT be explained by his very own voters in Alabama. This is simply as concete proof of election rigging as you will get in this farce called the GOP Primary.

Each line represents a different Romney Delegate position. All of them show the same glaringly obvious pickup of unexplained votes by Romney.
If you are reading this, copy this graph onto your computer harddrive. IMO, this is simply not reasonably debateable from the "no flipper" POV.

 

[The Man]

Duplicate post

 

[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

What are you sweating about, Mr. Rothschild? Thought I told you it is like the movies, "to be announced," "coming, soon," or whatever.

 

[dsw]

What are you sweating about, Mr. Rothschild? Thought I told you it is like the movies, "to be announced," "coming, soon," or whatever.

You claim to have evidence of 143 precincts in Iowa having verifiable manual counts that differ from the official results. So send it to Doug Wead, Ben Swann, bradblog, black box, Maddow, everyone who has shown any interest in election fraud.

How does delaying help anyone but Romney? Why wasn't this evidence released back in January, when it could have made a real difference in all of the caucuses and primaries that have happened since then? What are you waiting for?

 

[dsw]

Do you want to make a case that will convince people who aren't in the inner circle of flippers? If not, then skip the rest of this. If so ...

First, that graph sorts the precincts by total votes cast, and a handful of high population-density counties dominate the precincts being counted on the right side of the graph, but contribute a small percentage on the left side of the graph. To people who don't think that a larger biased sample is a good-enough substitute for random sampling that's going to raise red flags. But for what you're trying to show, it should be easy to demonstrate the pattern in a much more standard fashion that won't raise those red flags. Again, ignore this if you don't care about convincing anyone who isn't already in the flipper camp.

Second, what are you assuming about "idiot voters" who voted in every delegate race? Because of the way the precincts are sorted, *if* there were idiot voters then you'd *expect* the lines to increase toward the right, because Romney tended to do better in the precincts on the right. I'm not saying this explains all the data -- don't try to lump me in with parocks here. I'm just pointing out that this is a possible factor that would *tend* to cause those lines to increase to the right, so to make a case that will convince those who are not already in the flipper camp, it needs to be addressed and shown not to be a contributing factor.

Finally, if you think flipping can explain it, then suggest a flipping algorithm, with whatever assumption you want to make about "idiot voters," and I'll write a program that applies it to the data and show you the result. Something like "for precincts of size greater than X take Y percent of Paul's votes and give them to Romney" or whatever you think it is. I have reasons for thinking that's not going to work but couldn't get anyone interested in anything but cumulative graphs. If you think flipping can explain this and have a testable hypothesis for what the flipping algorithm would have been doing, let's give it a try and see if it explains the data.

Again, if you're convinced and only care about convincing people who are in the flipper camp already, then you can ignore all of this. If you want to convince the sort of people who don't think that a larger biased sample lets you apply mathematical theorems that assume sampling without bias, etc., then please consider these suggestions for strengthening the argument for that audience.

Did I hear someone doubting the massive vote-rigging evidence that has been accumulated the past 3 months? DSW you've yet to explain how this could be caused by anything other than election fraud. I have posted your graph from the Alabama thread below.
People, this graph plots "reported votes minus reported delegates" in each precinct of Alabama. Look what happens to Romney's (reported vote totals minus his reported delegate totals) after the 300k vote mark. Understand, up until this graph, ALL vote "flipping" was based on the fact that Romney receives a much higher percentage of votes in the largest vote total precincts than in the small ones. NOW we see, totally independent from the small-large precinct comparison, an increase in Romney's vote receiving percentage which CANNOT be explained by his very own voters in Alabama. This is simply as concete proof of election rigging as you will get in this farce called the GOP Primary.

Each line represents a different Romney Delegate position. All of them show the same glaringly obvious pickup of unexplained votes by Romney.
If you are reading this, copy this graph onto your computer harddrive. IMO, this is simply not reasonably debateable from the "no flipper" POV.

 

[drummergirl]

I suppose you have nothing else to do in life but watch this thread, but some people have to balance their political activities with other obligations (you know, work, family, that sort of thing). So I expect it will be done as soon as they can get it done. Quit getting your panties in a knot.

You claim to have evidence of 143 precincts in Iowa having verifiable manual counts that differ from the official results. So send it to Doug Wead, Ben Swann, bradblog, black box, Maddow, everyone who has shown any interest in election fraud.

How does delaying help anyone but Romney? Why wasn't this evidence released back in January, when it could have made a real difference in all of the caucuses and primaries that have happened since then? What are you waiting for?

 

[drummergirl]

Do you want to make a case that will convince people who aren't in the inner circle of flippers? If not, then skip the rest of this. If so ...

Why oh why do you have such a need to say the same debunked things over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again? Repeatedly.

Rhetorical question because the answer is obvious. You and your counter persona, da32130, never post anywhere on the forums but the flipping threads. You use all the usual tactics of trolls; distraction, obfuscation, confusion, misdirection, and assorted logical fallacies. You toss out mathematical terms as though you understand them, but repeatedly use them incorrectly.

Go back under the bridge please.

 

[drummergirl]

Here it is; I know you've all been waiting patiently for "Flipping made Easy". Here's a two page summary for the non-math people. Please let me know what you think.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13hw9DEn11oYHRnZOw5zZhWrKJNqahdkt6Fbk4bDl0jE/edit

 

[The Man]

First, that graph sorts the precincts by total votes cast, and a handful of high population-density counties dominate the precincts being counted on the right side of the graph, but contribute a small percentage on the left side of the graph. To people who don't think that a larger biased sample is a good-enough substitute for random sampling that's going to raise red flags. But for what you're trying to show, it should be easy to demonstrate the pattern in a much more standard fashion that won't raise those red flags. Again, ignore this if you don't care about convincing anyone who isn't already in the flipper camp.

The whole point is that Romney is receiving unintended votes in the larger precincts. The graph above shows that the difference between candidate votes and delegate votes begins to increase linearly at around 350k total votes. Again, we're NOT comparing small precincts to larger precincts anymore; the SLOPE of the line represents the percentage at which Romney is receiving new votes ABOVE his delegate votes. I've read your #1 multiple times and can make zero logical sense of it. There's simply ZERO reason why you'd expect the percentage of a candidate's votes to increase above his delegates... ZERO. Population density is totally irrelevant. How else is one supposed to show that Romney is receiving unintended votes in the largest precincts if you don't group from small to large?

Second, what are you assuming about "idiot voters" who voted in every delegate race? Because of the way the precincts are sorted, *if* there were idiot voters then you'd *expect* the lines to increase toward the right, because Romney tended to do better in the precincts on the right. I'm not saying this explains all the data -- don't try to lump me in with parocks here. I'm just pointing out that this is a possible factor that would *tend* to cause those lines to increase to the right, so to make a case that will convince those who are not already in the flipper camp, it needs to be addressed and shown not to be a contributing factor.

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'm scratching my head here DSW. We have a single state where the vote tabulators screwed up and forgot to rig the delegates and their oversight 100% independently suppports the hundreds of pages of graphs and charts in these 5 threads... that Romney is receiving an artificial boost in the largest precincts, usually beginning around 50% of the cumulative vote total. Now what are the odds that this "boost" just happens to corroborate the previous work? Someone in this thread needs to list ALL of the supposed debunks that not only fell flat, but eventually ended up corroborating the vote flipping hypothesis (corruption in Lousiana, Graphing via Republicanness, DA32130's Va Beach graph, etc.). You know DSW- IF your job responsibiilty does NOT involve trolling AND you are intelligent (which you are), you are forced to admit there is NO other explanation for this... PERIOD. You will gain my respect by admitting that this evidence in Alabama is simply independently corroborative of vote manipulation.

Finally, if you think flipping can explain it, then suggest a flipping algorithm, with whatever assumption you want to make about "idiot voters," and I'll write a program that applies it to the data and show you the result. Something like "for precincts of size greater than X take Y percent of Paul's votes and give them to Romney" or whatever you think it is. I have reasons for thinking that's not going to work but couldn't get anyone interested in anything but cumulative graphs. If you think flipping can explain this and have a testable hypothesis for what the flipping algorithm would have been doing, let's give it a try and see if it explains the data.

Well, Anybody can dream up formulas that will produce these results, so I am of the opinion that this is a worthless exercise. But here you go anyway off the top of my head- I have NOT plugged these in but I remember from previous study and these are approximate:

Gingrich (reported)= Gingrich (actual) untouched start to finish
Paul (reported)= 5% start to finish- excess above 5% goes to Romney and Santorum (see below).
Romney(reported)= Romney (actual)+ 1% in precincts less than 500 votes, +3% in precincts betweeen 500 and 1000 votes, +5% above 1000 votes
Santorum (reported)= Santorum (actual)+[Paul(actual) minus 5% minus Romney's cut of Paul's votes]

All percentages are relative to the total number of cast votes in a precinct. All of Romney's unintended votes come from votes intended for Paul. The precinct individual delegate totals err widely due to true voter error. DO NOT create a strawman argument by comparing individual precinct totals; These formulas work only when looking at groups of precincts, again, due to delegate voter error. Obviously, for example in Jefferson County, there were votes being created from thin air for Romney- and it sticks out like a turd in the punch bowl- a fart in a scuba diver's helmet if you will.

 

[RonRules]

DSW and da32130: