268 votes

Guess What? SC Primary Results in Question!

I received an e-mail from our meet-up which I'm editing but for to include this statement:

I have some significant information that I need to share with all of you regarding vote fraud in the SCGOP Primary. I have met with SCGOP Chairman already and am meeting again next Wednesday in Columbia. You will want to hear what I have discovered.

I've have uploaded the SCGOP Primary Vote Analysis to Google Docs: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B_wWkfsJPShUMWQxMTc2NzgtM2M...

and would like commentary any of you analytical gurus might like to add here or additional insights. This is very important to us in South Carolina! Thanks!

****Analyst Adds Update****

Hey guys. I just want you all to know that I have graphed in detail all of the counties in NH, SC and Fla that have the precinct information available on the Election Commissions' website. I have amassed a couple of hundred graphs probably. The most difficult part of this is getting this information into a form that is brief but easy to understand. Please appreciate this.

There are surely exceptions to the following observations, but here are some generalities:

1. In any county where Ron Paul has more votes than Mitt Romney using the low vote total precincts, you get a ridiculous- looking curve like the one in Anderson County. (Anderson, Greenville, Spartanburg, and Oconee Counties). Mitt ends up at a vote total that could have been Paul's projected total and Paul crashes to the ground.

2. In the counties where Romney has more votes than Paul in the low vote total precincts, There is no ridiculous anomaly like the one in Anderson County.

3. In any race where Newt is ahead of Romney and Romney is anywhere close to Gingrich in vote total, Newt gets flipped by Romney (Richland, Charleston, and Beaufort Counties in SC) much like the maneuver in Anderson County where Mitt flips Paul. It appears to me that Newt actually won these counties as well as Polk and Duval Counties in Florida.

4. As I have laid out in my brief, fluctuations should occur in honest elections; however, these "flips" look to me like one candidate is suddenly losing his slope (established vote percentage) and another (Romney) is gaining at precisely the same percentage. My personal constitution screams to me "this phenomenon is not a normal occurrence!"

5. In almost all Counties, Mitt Romney gains hundreds- even more than a thousand- in the very largest precinct(s). Many instances this tail end gain appears to serve the purpose of draining Ron Paul just enough to be last place. (example: Charleston County SC). I'm not saying there isn't an honest explanation, but I want to hear one... that makes sense. Maybe in every single county Romney supporters turned out in "droves" at the very largest precinct(s)?

6. Most graphs follow a disturbing trend: Mitt Romney's vote percentage "line" looks more like a parabola curving upward and the other 3 candidates' lines like a parabola curving in the negative. This might could be explained in some honest way, but it looks like algorithms in voting machines to me. I invite intelligent discussion.

7. Yes- demographics can play a part, of course. I am NOT a Demographics expert. I do like math though.

8. I will release a procedure that will show all of you math analysts how to do this on your own. You will see the same anomalies as I see.

****Analyst Adds Greenville County Results****

The 2012 SC GOP Primary- Greenville

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This Looks To Me Like

you hit the nail on the head. I applaud your efforts!

If I were you, I'd try and get this out to the media as soon as possible. If someone like Rachel Maddow runs with it, before Super Tuesday, maybe they'll think twice about pulling this sh*t again knowing everyone is watching and Dr. Paul can get an honest vote.


could be caused from a number of things other than voter manipulation...maybe romney focused on areas with larger populations, rather than waste his time/money on smaller ones...but it is somewhat interesting and it would be interesting to see other states layed out in a similar fashion...if this is something that occurs over and over in other states and the difference always lies with Paul and Romney (and santorum and gingrich always seem to correlate with their projected)....it would raise an eyebrow or two.

You are being over cautious.

Usually it is good to wait for more evidence but this analysis is excellent and incontrovertible. Add to this the problems in the other States and we have a pattern that is undeniable.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

I agree

it does raise eyebrows...and i think everyone here knows how Ron is being screwed over in this election...but i don't think it's anywhere near incontrovertible if you presented it somewhere...this wouldn't hold up in the court of law....if this pattern is repeated over and over in a bunch of other states I would say you have statistically significant reasoning for claiming some sort of voter manipulation.

Analysis seems good,

Analysis seems good, especially if, as indicated, the pattern is consistent across more than one county.

The only question I have is whether it is simply a case of Romney and Paul having a demographic that is reflected in count size that Santorum and Gingrich don't - i.e that the straight lines produced for Santorum and Gingrich are a matter of demographic chance.

Is the original data this was based upon available?

Before anyone gets carried away

This is evidence of correlation only.
It could be election fraud. Or a demographic difference between participants in small and large caucuses. Or maybe the Romney campaign blasted high-value targets with large caucuses with extra advertising... and maybe Paul volunteers focused on smaller caucuses. Or any other such plausible thing.
In order to establish a statistical hypothesies you must show, with high (>95%) confidence, its validity over any other alternative.
With respect to the author, this is not statistical analysis, it's curious speculation.

you are wrong

In a caucus it is correlation, and strong suspicion, but in an electronic machine voting environment such as what the primary states have this is 100% algorithmic which is very direct fraud.


No no, the data the author presented only shows a nonlinear relation between caucus size and votes cast. He does not establish that this nonlinearity is most likely caused by some kind of fraud.

There is no evidence from the author's analysis that this is fishy. He hypothesized fraud, but has shown that voting percentages skew based on precinct size. The link between skew and fraud has not been established.

It was a primary with electronic voting...

not a caucus.

First of all....

1. GET carried away.
That's perhaps the HARDEST part of all this.
The REST is just number crunching the data stream (real time reporting).
The FBI would be the ONLY authority that could command access.
and the ONLY authority who could HALT the 'declaration'
with a Judicial 'stay' waiting in the wings.

2. 'Proving' that the larger Precincts 'early' reporting
can show 95% statistical accuracy with the 'final' tabulations
should be EASY. That is what his analysis is ALL about.

3. Once proved to be mathematically 'reliable' (like fingerprints) it is ENOUGH to HALT the declaration upon an
'anomaly' and investigate.

4. I'm surprised that this hasn't already been imposed...
but after all
that's what WE'RE here for..


Let's not get carried away

edit: oops, lost my post TL;DR version:

This is not a statistican analysis. This establishes a nonlinear correlation between the size of a precinct and its vote percentage. Why should there be a linear correlation between the two in the first place? Answer this question with 95% confidence and you'll have some statistical weight behind that fraud claim.

As it stands, this is not evidence of fraud. It's a note on a curious correlation.

GET carried away is right but be careful of the FBI

See the article on voter fraud on www.healthfreedom2012.com/HF/bog. The FBI has been directly involved in rigging votes in the past: direct.

There IS no one else.

They (alone) would have the authority.



It is the "Peoples" authority to observe the election is fair and to watch the count and be involved in it.

Its in the Constitution. Why dont people here actually read the document!!


Fine.... the people (through their representatives)
have the responsibility to correct the 'mistakes'.
Sound familiar?
So... WE DELEGATE responsibilities
and TRANSFER authority.
The FBI receives that authority. (from US)
It's (now) their F^^^%$#$ing JOB.
Feel better?

Transferring authority to the state

I thought people here were against transfering authority the the state.

There is a document in the United States, that begins with the words "We the people".

And it is you the people, who must observe and be vigilant. After all this is the price of freedom.

All other routes lead to servitude.

The analyst

answered that objection already. The votes were obviously switched from Paul to Romney. Read the analysis again.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)


It is speculative at this stage, and I would say the primary hypothesis for cause you would have to refute is that Romney and Paul share a demographic that is size dependant.

How to start sorting that out? Look for precincts that should be the same except for size. Look at large rural vs small urban.

Alternatively, if it is as badly done as seems, derive the formula used. With a consistent pattern across sites this may be doable.

C_T_CZ's picture

It's an eyebrow raiser that's for sure

Agreed that this is very curious and it would be quite interesting to see similar information for other areas of SC. Too early to tell yet how significant this is, but it is certainly an eyebrow raiser.

Maybe we need to go back to physical paper ballots or maybe do the whole purple finger thing.

rEVOLutionary Ads: It's Better Than Sitting On Your Rump Doing Nothing™


A statistical, mathematical smoking gun.
This 'sniffer' algorithm needs to be APPLIED
and I mean NOW!!
To EVERY upcoming primary.

If they KNOW
their statistical FOOTPRINT
can now be detected REALTIME...
and demonstrate almost precisely WHEN
their 'FLIP algorithm' is applied REALTIME..
during the result reporting
It could stop them in their tracks.
Let the FBI set up the detection algorithms
and 'moniter' Realtime!!!!

I mean his chart on Anderson County is BEAUTIFUL!!
You can SEE at what point in the vote accumulation
the FLIP actually took place.

KUDOS my friend...
and take the FBI with you to your upcoming Columbia meeting!!


They could stop the vote

They could stop the vote tabulation to look for a programming change as soon as the algorithm started to skew. And, probably detect who changed it.

RON PAUL 2012 * Restore America * Bring The Troops Home

...thinking we'd like to take

...thinking we'd like to take another look at Nevada, while we're at it...

Interesting aside --

In South Carolina, 100% of election results will be redirected through a private Barcelona, Spain-owned company, Scytl/SOE Software, before being reported to the public.


Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

In South Carolina (where, as

In South Carolina (where, as you may recall, the paperless ES&S iVotronic touchscreens gave us Alvin Greene in the 2010 Democratic primary), the counting process is not only entirely concealed, but the original record -- the voters own verified ballot -- is unrecoverable, and chain of custody on the count is unascertainable. By the way, it also violate the South Carolina constitution to conceal the vote counting process from the public.

Bev Harris

Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race. -H. G. Wells

Very interesting. Please do

Very interesting. Please do another county or two. If the reults are the same then it is much harder to refute. One county is too easy to dismiss as a fluke.

I wish some one would check Iowa

Every exit poll showed Ron Paul winning .

"Give me liberty or give me death" Patrick Henry

Amazing Work

I love stats, it's the only branch of mathematics I can wrap my brain around (History Major, FTW). This is brilliant stuff. Circumstantial evidence is easy to ignore when there's very little of it, but over the past few days we've gotten a whole lot of it, and now it seems we have a new element of it: Statistical Analysis. And it's hard to ignore statistical analysis, even the layman tends to take Statisticians seriously.

Don't have any doubts about this, Chris Lawton, Veteran

and head of the grass roots S.C. campaign reported after the primary that when he went to witness the vote there were numerous anomalies. When the Paul campaign called to get the numbers, the chair slammed the phone into the receiver. Candidate Paul got a minimum of twice the votes, as reported, perhaps more. Every vote was run through master computers, thus easy to push the Paul numbers into the ground. This is such good work it should break their ugly backs.

This video

Would corroborate your findings...
Listen close at ~ 7:48 "..flip your votes..." ~ 8:03

When Fascism goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul!

Eye opening video

Thanks for posting it

Freedom is the answer !!
What's the question ?
-Jack Blood-