Content on the Daily Paul is the opinion of the original poster, not necessarily of the Daily Paul, its owner, moderators or Ron Paul.

Election Fraud Documented!

Submitted by PortWashington4Paul on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 18:46

Ron Paul 2012

Please, take the time to watch this video!

http://youtu.be/OynCgwmD-HM

Probably standard error methods

Submitted by MarkDran on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 03:37. Permalink

Calculate the mean proportion of voters in a sample. i.e. you have to sample 30 people look at the percent that are voting for romney, santorum, gingrich, paul. Then keep sampling 30 people at different times and different locations. One assumes that the mean rate tends toward the true rate.
This is the law of large numbers. Probably only need 100-200 samples, but depends on the margin between the candidates and the variance between samples. The closer the race is, or the more variable the samples, the more you need. This is a simple method using the standard error of the mean. I suppose there is a known bias by counties so the actual calculus could be more complicated.

Worth the watch when you have

Submitted by TexUncensored on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 03:09. Permalink

Worth the watch when you have time.

—

RON PAUL 2012 * Restore America * Bring The Troops Home
http://www.texasuncensored.blogspot.com

great video

Submitted by poq on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 13:34. Permalink

Needs even more
bump

bump

Submitted by Tanzenkran on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 22:18. Permalink

Here is an earlier one

Submitted by Knucklehead on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 22:27. Permalink

Done back in 2010 by the same person.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf84Hwo_Umk

It's alarming at best

Submitted by dakealo on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 20:57. Permalink

and criminal at worst.

Every voter should be outraged. They should also demand that their voices be heard while insuring an honest accounting of what ought to be considered sacred and without reproach.

—

For Liberty,

dakealo

I thought there was logic...

Submitted by PortWashington4Paul on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 21:19. Permalink

I am an artist, don't think on the number side of my brain so well, but the way the guy formulated all the facts, and numbers don't lie, it seemed to gel into a consistent path of evidence based on the visuals given at the time the announcers were reporting.

I only know that I greatly appreciate anyone who takes the time and who has the ability to document any visual evidence of 'fraud' so we have VALIDATION!

I hate it when tptb make it as if your crazy for thinking something is happening(and it is and has been for generations)and they tell you, no, you are just a conspiracy nut!

The fear I have is that people will get complacent because it is overwhelming to think we can change 'the machine' so we all fall into the 'sheeple' box like good boys and girls.

As a mass consciousness, I believe we can do this, with Dr. Paul at the helm.

I am sorry but I just fail to

Submitted by aleph0 on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 20:49. Permalink

I am sorry but I just fail to see the "election fraud documented" part. They project winners based on exit-polls with a sample of about 0.4% and combine that with about 1% of the actual vote tallies. The only argument the narrator makes against this is that this is a "joke". What kind of argument is that?

OF COURSE it is possible to project results based on small samples otherwise it would be completely impossible to accurately poll anything. I expected at least a cogent argument!

I agree. And I also fail to see the motive

Submitted by Hoosieratarian on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 08:13. Permalink

If they are all rigged, why rig some for Santorum, some for Romney and one for Newt? Wouldn't they rig them all for their man. Who is their man by the way?

I certainly think there is likely some funny business going on but I just don't see it in this clip. Likely its at the more local level with stuffing ballots or counting issues.

it's about creating an illusion

Submitted by zodis on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 03:00. Permalink

the first part is to make us believe we have a choice with those other candidates when we know for a fact that to vote for anyone but Paul is to vote for the same puppet masters that manipulate Obama.

the second part of the illusion is to make us believe that we can't possibly win by minimizing our victories and maximizing perceived failures.

think about it this way:

haven't you wondered how Santorum picked up so much momentum after flopping out the way that he did during the debate where he was practically booed off stage when his showed that he had no spine?

or how Newt did the same after he flopped after his moment of honesty during an interview about Paul Ryan's plan being a form of social engineering?

why doesn't the media focus on Newt's ethics violations as hard as they did about the so called Ron Paul newsletters?

why don't they talk about how Newt left his sick wife for another woman? if he can do that to the woman he pledged to love through sickness and health, how can we possibly trust him with the keys to the kingdom? how can we trust him to care about and do right by people he has never met?

why is it so easy for these slime balls to just jump back in and have the media cover their campaigns while pretending the flop didn't happen?

how can it be so easy for people like Sarah Palin to get coverage every time she passes gas, yet Ron Paul's campaign is accomplishing amazing things and not a peep from the media about the significance of it?

go ahead and try to come up with a rational explanation that gets all these corporate giants off the hook for trying to deceive America and subvert our republic.

—

Truth, Justice and the American way.

he doesn't like representative sampling, ok. But...so?

Submitted by Joη on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 20:25. Permalink

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)

There's only so much variance in a voting group. If you sample across enough variables, you can project results and multiply proportionally. The linchpin assumption is that the sampling is representative. And often it is.

These news agencies also assume exit pollees are telling the truth; generally safe.

I honestly don't like representative sampling either. But the method can work.

The news agencies do say this is how they generate their projections, so, it's not exactly fraud. Some don't listen to the explanation, others ignore them, others still who think "IF TV THEN TRUTH", yes, they'll be shocked to know it's not real results. And media do lead people on, so that is dangerous.

I agree more independent source samplings would be good to do.

—

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it."

Very

Submitted by Ron Aldof on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 20:09. Permalink

telling! Corruption at its worst......

—

***********Ron Paul for POTUS 2012***********
*************Obama Is A Communist!************
**********Repeal the 17th Amendment**********
Double the size of the House of Representatives
$$$$$$$$$AUDIT THE FEDERAL RESERVE$$$$$$$$$$

What Exactly Did This Video Prove?

Submitted by fatlibertarian on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 20:02. Permalink

I thought CNN and the networks used the polling data to make projections as to who will win? I never saw anything in the video that proves it affected the actual results. In fact, it's better now than it used to be. Now they have to wait till the polls close to release their projections. They simply look at which areas a certain candidate will need and what not and make a projection. What's the mystery here?

I simply did not see any smoking gun in this video. I do think it's a good insight into how those exit polls work (or don't lol) and weather we'd be better off if we just stopped projecting all together.

But again, this guy seems to say - THEY PROJECT THE WINNER TO MAKE THAT PERSON THE WINNER. But what he failed to mention is that Gingrich really did win South Carolina!! My point is that these projections are largely correct because these polling geeks know what they're doing and after FLORIDA 2000 have to be right if they're going to make a projection.

Maybe I'm off in la-la land and I know this will be voted down as usual but I watched the video waiting for some kind of smoking gun and never saw it.

—

lol