I think there are discrepancies in the results that Maine GOP released:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euESvujmh-E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euESvujmh-E
Vote Fraud in Maine's Released Results
- Thread starter fpearson
- Start date
There's not just discrepancies in the Maine results with the numbers of watchdog groups. The entire list of released results from the MaineGOP site is basically void within itself. Please look for yourself it will take just one second.
Here is the link to the MaineGOP results: http://www.mainegop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/me_gop_caucus_results.pdf
Scroll down to the 3rd page, Cumberland-Gorham. Add up the results horizontally to see if they add up to the total. They don't. 24+23+8+4+0= 59. The listed total of this row is 56. The listed totals number is understated by 3, or there is a candidate or candidates that got 3 more votes than they were supposed to.
On the same page find Cumberland-South Portland. The results sheet lists the total for the row as 81. Now again sum the row to see if it is correct, 29+28+19+9+0= 85. The discrepancy here is 4.
Just from these two precincts, or towns, or whatever it is they happen to be, there are 7 more votes counted towards the candidates than there are reported totals. If they were honest mistakes, then they would show up in some way in the final summation provided by the MaineGOP results. So let us scroll down to the very bottom where they show final totals. Due to the 2 errors I found in 3 minutes (I only looked at Cumberland) we can expect the summation of that row to be off.
Scroll down to page 13. 2190+1996+989+349+61= 5585. The totals number listed of 5585 matches the sum of the totals of the individual candidates. There is no discrepancy here. The chance of this happening is extremely rare. What it means, assuming no foul play, is that these totals randomly had to somewhere along the line experience a mistake(s) of the opposite manner of the exact same magnitude to cancel out the previous discrepancies.
So without even checking these GOP results with any watchdog results, they are highly suspect. What's more for you real conspiracy theorists if you look at those 2 towns in Cumberland I pointed out with the incorrect numbers, in both of those cases Romney happens to beat Paul by 1 vote. 24-23 and 29-28.
Here is the link to the MaineGOP results: http://www.mainegop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/me_gop_caucus_results.pdf
Scroll down to the 3rd page, Cumberland-Gorham. Add up the results horizontally to see if they add up to the total. They don't. 24+23+8+4+0= 59. The listed total of this row is 56. The listed totals number is understated by 3, or there is a candidate or candidates that got 3 more votes than they were supposed to.
On the same page find Cumberland-South Portland. The results sheet lists the total for the row as 81. Now again sum the row to see if it is correct, 29+28+19+9+0= 85. The discrepancy here is 4.
Just from these two precincts, or towns, or whatever it is they happen to be, there are 7 more votes counted towards the candidates than there are reported totals. If they were honest mistakes, then they would show up in some way in the final summation provided by the MaineGOP results. So let us scroll down to the very bottom where they show final totals. Due to the 2 errors I found in 3 minutes (I only looked at Cumberland) we can expect the summation of that row to be off.
Scroll down to page 13. 2190+1996+989+349+61= 5585. The totals number listed of 5585 matches the sum of the totals of the individual candidates. There is no discrepancy here. The chance of this happening is extremely rare. What it means, assuming no foul play, is that these totals randomly had to somewhere along the line experience a mistake(s) of the opposite manner of the exact same magnitude to cancel out the previous discrepancies.
So without even checking these GOP results with any watchdog results, they are highly suspect. What's more for you real conspiracy theorists if you look at those 2 towns in Cumberland I pointed out with the incorrect numbers, in both of those cases Romney happens to beat Paul by 1 vote. 24-23 and 29-28.
I've been playing with the numbers a little.
I found Knox-Camden 19+6+2+5+0=32, not 28; and Knox-Friendship 2+2+4+1+0=8, not 7.
Then I came to Penobscot County. Alton (3 votes) and Bangor (77 votes) show totals of 0. Dixmont has 1+0+1+0+1=3, not 4 (this is the only one I see that has less than the reported total). Newport has 9+6+6+1+0=22, not 21.
At this point I got sick of counting towns and wanted to see where the totals don't add up. I got 5493 rather than 5585. The difference is 92 which is the same difference between actual votes and reported totals in the towns Aurave and I found. So what does this say? Both Romney's and Paul's columns add to their official totals (2190 and 1996 respectively). So they probably added up each column and then added those numbers to get 5585. So these could all be honest mistakes.
Either way, I would really like to see the correct results for these towns.
Yes, it would be an honest mistake if the totals written down by the MainGOP for each precinct were not calculated but only reported by the precincts themselves, while the one doing the summation ignored those and only took the candidate numbers and added them. If so, why even record the self reported "totals" number from each precinct if you can't take the 2 seconds to double check and sum those totals to check for discrepancies? Of course the 2 precincts with discrepancies in the pdf that Ron won showed zero as their total. This should prove that the totals number for each precinct is reported but ignored, as I don't think anyone can mistakenly add numbers and get zero without noticing it. For those 2 precincts, they just didn't report their totals.
Even then, there are mistakes at the precinct level in the other with their reported numbers that need to be investigated. We don't know if they simply added the numbers incorrectly or incorrectly gave a candidate extra votes at the precinct level. But the mistake is there.
So I finally decided to export the pdf file to excel and look at it. There are 10 total discrepancies at the precinct level not counting the 2 precincts that didn't report their totals. Of these 10 precincts, Romney won 8 and the other 2 were either won by Santorum or Gingrich. Paul carried none of the mistaken precincts. It could all be chance, but it is still unlikely for all the random mistakes to happen in precincts that went in Romney's favor. He only slightly edged out Paul on number of precincts won, random honest discrepancies should include precincts at least some that Paul won. The chances of events happening as they did is analogous to winning the lotto, or all the mistakes happening in a single county. If that were the case, there would obviously be suspicion of extreme incompetence or corruption in that county.
Even then, there are mistakes at the precinct level in the other with their reported numbers that need to be investigated. We don't know if they simply added the numbers incorrectly or incorrectly gave a candidate extra votes at the precinct level. But the mistake is there.
So I finally decided to export the pdf file to excel and look at it. There are 10 total discrepancies at the precinct level not counting the 2 precincts that didn't report their totals. Of these 10 precincts, Romney won 8 and the other 2 were either won by Santorum or Gingrich. Paul carried none of the mistaken precincts. It could all be chance, but it is still unlikely for all the random mistakes to happen in precincts that went in Romney's favor. He only slightly edged out Paul on number of precincts won, random honest discrepancies should include precincts at least some that Paul won. The chances of events happening as they did is analogous to winning the lotto, or all the mistakes happening in a single county. If that were the case, there would obviously be suspicion of extreme incompetence or corruption in that county.
I call those "total" anomalies. Where the sum of the votes of each of the candidates does not equal the total in the right hand column.
There are "total" anomalies in Bangor, Augusta, Camden. To me, those "total" anomalies could be the result of shenanagans. Not necessarily, but I'd like to hear why those numbers are the way they are.
Your Friendship numbers are wrong.
Friendship was 3,2,2,1 which adds to 8, not the 7 they have. 3,2,2,1 is accurate.
Here's what South Portland really was, apparently
29 Romney, 28 Paul, 19 Santorum, 5 Gingrich, and 1 other write in.
Paypal Address for Washington County, Maine boots on the ground
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...r-Washington-County-Maine-boots-on-the-ground
*********************
Washington County Maine needs MONEY. This person (Valerie Page) has been working on the ground in Maine. I suggested we sent money to someone who can spend it.
Here's what I got back from her on Facebook.
*******************
I set up a paypal James. My email address is [email protected]. I would like to get a crew in place to 1: start calling the district, I will call Eric and get a list from him and 2: to head north for the caucus. Maybe we will have enough donations to cram a few of us into a hotel room, who knows?
Thank you for your help in all of this. We will be heard!!
*********************
Valerie Page is taking an organizational role, for those who are sending money, those who are planning on going to Wash Co., etc - see her email there.
By the way - she's trying to register here at Ron Paul Forums and is unable to.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...r-Washington-County-Maine-boots-on-the-ground
*********************
Washington County Maine needs MONEY. This person (Valerie Page) has been working on the ground in Maine. I suggested we sent money to someone who can spend it.
Here's what I got back from her on Facebook.
*******************
I set up a paypal James. My email address is [email protected]. I would like to get a crew in place to 1: start calling the district, I will call Eric and get a list from him and 2: to head north for the caucus. Maybe we will have enough donations to cram a few of us into a hotel room, who knows?
Thank you for your help in all of this. We will be heard!!
*********************
Valerie Page is taking an organizational role, for those who are sending money, those who are planning on going to Wash Co., etc - see her email there.
By the way - she's trying to register here at Ron Paul Forums and is unable to.
Oh, that is a "total" anomaly. I have no idea why it says 7. 3,2,2,1 is correct though.
The point isn't
1) the total anomaly is a proof of fraud or malfeasance
the point is
2) the total anomaly is proof of a sloppy, half-assed job. It's clearly an error. Add that error to the other errors.
The real South Portland number for Gingrich was 5 (Five), not 9 (Nine). The anomalies, which sometimes point the way to actual errors in the count
for certain candidates just show that Charlie Webster does not do a very good job. We need these numbers to be right. They have to redo this.
swiftfoxmark2
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2011
- Messages
- 107
The mess in the row totals add up in absolute numbers to exactly 100 votes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKUckGRMviU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKUckGRMviU
absolute difference. Votes were added to the totals in some places and subtracted from totals in others.. exactly 100 votes. In Excel it is =ABS(field)
google doc
google doc
Last edited:
Similar threads
