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

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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


thx Johannes

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα


We need as many brave thinking people as possible to do this kind of analysis and facts finding!

Do we have any upper level chairs in SC?

They need to see this.
Plus, someone needs to get a flash drive onto one of the larger districts deibold's, now !
If the machines have been tampered with to produce the results you show, then there will be a " footprint" still in these machines, go get one and get solid evidence, p,ease.
Great work +1 bump!

Drew, by the very grace of GOD through the blood of Christ Jesus.
"there shall come after us men whom shall garner great wealth using our system, and having done so shall seek to slam the door of prosperity behind them." George Washington

That's very interesting...

...statistics is not my area of expertise, so maybe I'm missing something, but what I'm seeing is pretty convincing. It's odd for the projections to be that far off, and then, of all the infinite number of ways it could have been off, it's really odd that it happened to be off by almost perfectly flipping Paul and Romney.

I hope somebody runs this analysis on all the counties for all the States. See what you see. If this is happening frequently, then it either means that it's some kind of natural phenomenon that we're failing to understand, or it's evidence of manipulation - but a pattern would rule out the possibility of a fluke.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Have you noticed that when

Have you noticed that when Romney is leading with 1%-5% of the vote in, the media announces him as the winner? And, have you also noticed that when Ron Paul is leading when 30%-40% of the vote in, the media doesn't call him as the projected winner?
And then, suddenly the lead changes, and RP's votes start falling off? Just another little puzzle piece that fits the mitt, pun intended.

RON PAUL 2012 * Restore America * Bring The Troops Home

What about

Ben Swann?

Oh come on, not everything is

Oh come on, not everything is vote fraud.

Every candidate, especially in smaller counties can dominate in one and then come in last in the other - especially the guy at the bottom. Go and check Gingrich's vote total using the same method in Iowa. He won some counties and then came in toward the bottom in the rest. It's not fraud, it's just how it works. We don't need fake cries of fraud when we've got REAL ONES to deal with.

I'm not ready to claim fraud

I'm not ready to claim fraud either... But if you look at the Gingrich #'s in Iowa. Did all of his lost votes go to a single candidate? Or did all of his gained votes come from a single candidate.
I'd like to see this tried in other counties and other states.
I'd also like to compare it to exit polling data.

Yeah, but......

A smaller precinct doesn't necessarily mean it lies in a rural area. In this case, it wouldn't have been. It just means that this particular precinct had less registered Republicans than other one throughout town.

Well, I DID take statistics and use it every day in my job

and what he is showing is outrageous fraud. I think they should bring in statisticians from other countries/neutral and look at this. If they were to really investigate this, I think that the way we vote as we know it will be finished. Maybe it WOULD be best to stamp our thumbs purple.

As Mark Twain said.

There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

I do think the variance is strange considering the relative accuracy of the other two candidate projections. Statistics are useful, but human beings are not always predictable.



I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.

What does that video have to

What does that video have to do with the South Carolina 2012 GOP primary?

It has plenty to do with it

as it demonstrates the use of computer programs to rig elections in electronic devices. The SC election was done 100% on electronic machines, notably iVotronic touch screen devices made by ES & S, partly owned by a Rothschild holding company, with majority stock held by Robert Ahmanson.


It's as good as one digital dollar.

I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.

Possible Addition?

I think another compelling trend, in terms of visual graphics, would be to see the 2008 votes for Paul plotted the same way along with the increased numbers in 2012. It would be interesting to see if they were parallel across populations.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

yes! Absolutely. For the same


Absolutely. For the same county in the same manner. THAT would be telling. The precinct level data for 2008 should still be available.

Where do we get the data?

I can crunch the numbers but I have no idea where to get the data. I'm tempted, if we can get precinct level data from a number of elections, to do historical data on this effect as well. It is quite possible that this is completely natural given the arrangement of population etc. but I have enough doubts that I want to do enough data mining to get a reasonable conclusion one way or the other.

Bump for Investigation


Needs to be done for all SC Counties to prove it


Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools, that don't have brains enough to be honest. - Ben Franklin

I'm at a loss of words...

I'm at a loss of words... (mouth agape)

Great job, SC! Keep up the

Great job, SC! Keep up the good work!

This should be sent to Rachel Maddow at MSNBC

Because she seems to be the only MSM voice talking about election fraud. She appears to be in position to make a name for herself by breaking the election fraud story in Maine.

I hope she will also investigate all the previous states and roport her findings. We may have to spoon feed her but who better than us?

"A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to keep things the same", Buckminster Fuller..
A choice for liberty is always a choice for liberty.

great job!

great job!

You know, I always questioned that because

when the votes came in, it hardly showed any votes for Paul in the heavily populated counties with active duty military personnel. Exit polls did not even mention them. There are about 9 active duty sites in S.C. and it disappointed me that they wouldn't come out and vote. They probably arranged for them all to go TDY some place else!

Baffling indeed. The

Baffling indeed. The military comes out for things like voting, and they heavily favor Ron Paul. They are generally tight with each other within large groups, and so are the wives. Voting is something taken seriously. The outcomes affect them directly.

RON PAUL 2012 * Restore America * Bring The Troops Home


If you don't truly understand that graph, let me elaborate, and shed some light on the subject as an engineer and someone who deals with data plotting often.

The graph is set up to show the number of votes received by each candidate vs. the number of votes cast (i.e. in a precint of 1000, this is how many Ron Paul got, how many Newt got, etc).

The relationship at any given precinct is identical... that is to say that the ratio of votes cast to votes received for a particular candidate, is IDENTICAL at ANY given x value (votes cast). And furthermore, the "best fit equation" for every single candidate is y=mx. A perfect line, differing only by their slopes.

Let me tell you, folks, this NEVER happens when plotting data, even in the most sophisticated systems. I am used to best fit equations being something like y=mx + ax^2 - b/x where m, a, and b are some random, irrational constants. But to see a straight up, no kidding line is INSANE. It's as if someone just told the diebold machines "plot a line. Gingrich has slope 0.5, Paul has slope 0.25, etc...)

If anyone has studied natural systems (population growth, socio-economics, etc), you know that this type of organization doesn't happen. It just DOES NOT HAPPEN. If I got these results from a mechanical system I was analyzing, I would IMMEDIATELY reanalyze my data, because these results are near perfect. Not to say I'm a bad engineer :)

This is obscene!

I went to college for engineering as well. Let me tell ya, you are right about this. Although statistics was never my strong point, I have plotted many graphs of various datas. A graph of this sort of data with an almost perfectly straight line is definitly not right.
This will, with no doubt, call the results into question.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

Economics here

I agree entirely, I study economics and we mainly are analysis, basically we study graphs. This isn't possible in real life, this is something I called an unreal graph, meaning while the information looks as though it is real, the information is way to precise. I looked at the graphs at first without reading information (force of habit) and immediately thought it was fake results. This can't happen even in the most precise modeling software.

Bugs in the machine's picture



By claiming there is no conspiracy, you prove to those who believe in the conspiracy that you are part of the conspiracy.