238 votes

DP Peer Review: Evidence of Algorithm Vote Flipping in GOP Primary Elections Layman's Executive Summary

Comment viewing options

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

Bad Link

Full Version - Please repost

If my need to be RIGHT is greater than my desire for TRUTH, then I will not recognize it when it arrives ~ Libertybelle

Works for me.

Works for me.

"For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God."
(1 Peter 2:15-16)

How Can We Get This To The Military Marching On The GOP?

I think the military, Ron Paul's and the Constitution's military, should have copies of this passed out amongst the troops before they march on the GOP convention. I would like to see a company size group take the to RNC headquarters. The GOP Leaders need to begin fantasizing how all this might end for them personally, if they don't stop with these nasty moves.

If you or someone you know will be in that march, get this to them.>>>>> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJAC-sfXwumdkE4d0Y2eWtURTZ2...

Here's the guys I'm talking about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRtPAIo2uz8&feature=share

Now it's about the Constitution and the fight to defend it.

An interesting thought early into the full document...

I don't recall who, but someone mapped out the likely crude algorithm that was based on a basic x+.5X or something similar.

They tried to use this to find "breakpoints" or "hinges"

They had trouble though finding all of them, and they noticed something special around 18-19.5k votes.

Looking at the numbers, I noticed a few were prime. Not odd in itself, but did this person or anyone else try to set the hinges at prime numbers and see what turns up?

It might be something like an altered prime sequence that is causing the curve ball.

Just curious.

Don't worry about the algorithm

I will bet good money it is just party shepards looking at reported numbers on their television (or exit polls,or ballots that did not go through the ballot machine that need to be counted by hand) after the polls close and then getting out their $5 pocket calculator and using a little creative math to goose the numbers for their man.
Of course if you enjoy math as a hobby or avocation you could eventually find an equation that will fit the data nicely but not likely what is happening in real time over an election day.

There are many graphs where they are claiming "straight" lines

that don't look at ALL straight to me.

Of course, proof is in the numbers. That's the whole point.

But I see several counties where the claim is "normal" yet there is clearly a flipping going on between two or more candidates, just not as pronounced as some of the others.

And then there are counties that are held up as evidence of flipping and they don't look all that widely variant from some that are claimed to be normal.

I don't get that. Maybe the threshold for what constituted flipping should be reduced?

I haven't finished the long document yet, but it's very

intriguing.

I do have some thoughts though. Perhaps they get cleared up later on in the document, but here goes:

I think the idea of using "Republican-ness" of a precinct based on 2008 General Election results is a roundabout, indirect method at best, and is thus likely flawed. (best thing absent actual registration data though) What I don't get is that registration data should be available (if they have partisan registration in that State) by party per county and even precinct. Having this data will settle the question of if party strength is a factor in apparent election day turnout. THEN once you know the number of eligible voters, not just total voters, you can get a REAL turnout percent and try to correlate THAT.

This would be very interesting to see.

Such data does exist in some states, for free. See: http://geauxvote.com. Click on the Voter Statistics link on the left, drill down and you can get a statewide chart, or a parish level chart which breaks down to any district there is, including precinct level. It includes party affiliation (sadly only D, R and Other) sex and race cross-tabs within each party and as a whole.

If the legend/key isn't contained within, I'm sure it's on the SoS's site right there. (I'm not looking at it at the moment)

In fact, I'd ask whomever is doing this analysis (FortyTwo I think the name is) to please go grab the latest statistics right now for Louisiana. We vote on the 24th. The books are closed, and there should be a Feb 2012 file up there by now or will be soon. This will give the data you need to see true "Republican-ness" not only by historical voting, but by registration as well.

Next, there was the general issue of small vs. large precincts and does this correlate in anyway to urban/rural demographics.

The only way to know is to map them out. (Some states have precinct maps available for free also) Color the ones below a threshold, and vice-versa and see where they fall.

I'd bet there is an equal chance that a "large" precinct lies in a rural area, but takes up more land area, as much as one would be located in a small, but highly populated urban or suburban area. This is because some states require precincts to be as close in size uniformly as possible. The reason for this is manpower and machinery are based on number of voters needing to be served. Thus if avoidable, you don't want to have really large and really big precincts. There may be some unavoidable variances, especially if the mapers have to take into account proximity and traveling time to the polling place. (very likely) So there might be some "average" that is used as the absolute smallest a precinct can be and then resources are planned based off of that, with more machines and people being added to larger by necessity precincts based on that.

The whole point, is size of precinct doesn't mean urban or rural until you see them on a map.

The same goes for the idea of median income or other economic factors. We already know exit polling shows Romney smashing it with the over 200k a year crowd and handily though not as badly taking the 100k a year crowd. Is this due solely to money or is that because the computers are skewing votes there to make it believable? Are such precincts thus "easy targets" to hide in plain sight? Once again, you'd have to map them out and see where they actually are, AND compare them to actual registration numbers and real turnout.

Perhaps all of this has been addressed a few pages down. (I'm on page 80)

But just in case, I'd thought I'd share it.

I'm now going to introduce a new (at least to me, maybe they do it on page 100 or so) idea of looking at other factors. Particularly, what do these charts look like when looking at other districts besides precincts? Is there a correlation by say, House district, the last Senate vote? The last House vote? The last local election vote or the last Gubernatorial/state-wide vote? What about correlation to other local districts?

The point there is multi-fold. Perhaps the McCain data on "Republican-ness" doesn't quite explain things, but a look at House or Senate or local data might. One would have to know the state and area well though not to make erroneous assumptions. They'd have to know how people normally vote there.

Looking at other local districts, other than just precinct vote size, might tell you something as well. Of course, the more important thing is to MAP all of the anomalies geographically as noted before. You might see lots more info there. Particularly, are the anomalous precincts all physically clustered together? Who is in charge of those precincts? Those districts that contain those precincts? What can we find out about those individuals? I think there is enough evidence of anomalous voting. The issue is why is it occurring? Seeing these other connections, might give us the clue. More than likely, it IS personal. And not only will that lead to the answer, but it should finger your "persons of interest" as well. Certainly, we shouldn't go on a witch hunt, or used suspected cheaters as a filter.

The data should be mapped FIRST and then connections or patterns sought.

Looking at other districts besides precincts might give insight. The personalities at play may have connections to certain other people that would have access to the machines in a certain and knowable pattern. That pattern should give away who the culprits are. (if this is being done at the machine level)

Of course, if this is being done at the tabulator, which is entirely possible, then all of that is meaningless. And odds are, we'll never get passed the correlation and "odd" stage.

Anyway, take it for what's it's worth and I'm interested in any feedback.

There is a way to bypass the

There is a way to bypass the networks. Everyone has local news stations, usually 3 - 5 stations locally. Send this stuff to them all. In this way, we effectively get the news to local stations nationally. While not all will bite, many will.
This applies to any and all news about Ron Paul and the campaign. Become the journalists, and hammer your local news with daily RP news, whatever it is.

I did send this info to a few local Houston stations.

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

If in fact this is confirmed to be evidence

of fraud by statisticians then it means THAT THE NETWORKS ARE IN ON IT with their phoney exit polls that magically coincide with the final results...

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, an

No question

Santorum and Romney were reported to be neck and neck all day long in Iowa. That alone is statistically nearly impossible. With this evidence, there is no question.

Except they didn't

Remember CNN's exit polls before Iowa had RP winning the state

so it looks like cnn's exit polls are accurate, But

why not call it for Ron, in some states since Iowa they have called it the second the polls closed with 1% reporting??

Not sure

that its the same thing. All MSM networks get exit polls from the same company.

You could accuse the polling company.
But! Remember that exit polls showed Ron Paul first in Iowa!

Also remember that a exit poll is a exit poll and might have deviation.

Exactly

They knew how statistically improbable the reported results were, and even had exit polls. And they said noting.

Lets use this to the maximum effect.

and perhaps get the media to reconsider their blackout of Dr. Paul.. I think sending this evidence to all the stations, and anyone involved in the production of the major national news can only help our cause. Dissension among the ranks is the most important thing right now. We need them to break apart. Once they see that we have the evidence to convict criminals perhaps they will reconsider their entire strategy of complicity. Once they see that their entire illusion is about to break wide open you will see how the rats abandon ship. If the media starts to break apart, and their stranglehold on our perceptions starts to break we will gain the upper hand.

Send the new google Docu, plus send the older SC analysis to national media, and local media as well.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_wWkfsJPShUMWQxMTc2NzgtM2Mz...

sigh

wrong thread sorry!

gedankenexperiment.dk views on finance, politics and science

Error on the full report...

This redirect error is occurring on multiple browsers when clicking through to the full report:

The page isn't redirecting properly
Firefox has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this address in a way that will never complete.
This problem can sometimes be caused by disabling or refusing to accept cookies.

If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans

I don't have a phd in math

but I have a calculator

In all serious this is good stuff, I hope Ben Swann does a report on it.

FRONT PAGE this post!

This should stay on the front page forever!!!
This is excellent work! This IS the evidence we've been looking for. How else can one prove rampant election fraud?!

All my life, I've voted

All my life, I've voted republican. I even held my nose and voted for that worthless douche bag McCain in 2008 after backing Ron Paul. But I'm NOT DOING IT AGAIN! Especially now!

I'd love to see Dr. Paul accept the GOP's most generous and patronizing offer, should it come, to speak at the convention. And in this speech, I'd LOVE to see Dr. Paul announce his candidacy as an independent. That is the only way we're going to get justice here!

DREAMING

Wouldn't it be fun to watch that happen and when he walks out half the delegates stand up and walkout with him? Sigh...dreaming...

If my need to be RIGHT is greater than my desire for TRUTH, then I will not recognize it when it arrives ~ Libertybelle

Oh!

I like that idea!

Compare New Hampshire paper vs. machine?

If New Hampshire was affected as much as these charts indicate, has anyone compared the precincts with paper vs. computer ballots for Romney, Paul, and Huntsman to see if they add any validity to this theory?

Paper vs machine?

What dream is that? They don't do comparisons in soviet societies. Stalin has counted the vote. Life goes on and you'll have to catch up.

There are still paper ballots. The point is valid. If these

anomalies occurred in BOTH, then it would be tough to prove fraud, unless, there's no way to recount the paper. Then it could have been done in the recording/reporting stage and thus there is no way to know what the real vote was. (I think this is very likely)

Observations from google docs

I read through the long version and this is what I gather:

1) The total number of votes per precinct were highly correlated with turnout
2) When Romney turned out his vote, he won (obviously!!)
3) Ron had a distinct base of support, but also a significant pool of support in common with Romney, who voted for the latter when energized to do so, like in the high turn out precincts. Ditto for Huntsman (obviously!). The other less so.

This leads me to believe that Paul should be attacking Romney and not the others as they share a large common group of supporters.

I would be curious to see the Virginia numbers.

Why not in other years?

Your 3 points are so poorly worded that your hypothesis isn't right; its not even wrong!

Let's take this one step at a time before we bother talking on the question "Why not in other years?":

Why bother with the virtual tautology "The total number of votes per precinct were highly correlated with turnout"?

Turnout is defined as the total number of votes.

If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans

Explanation

The total number of votes per precinct could be correlated to other demographics, like the size of the precinct and have little to do with turnout, or turnout could be more or less homogeneous among precincts and therefore not a factor at all.

I just think we have to exhaust all the possibilities before we go and claim voter fraud. Paul, Mitt and Huntsman could share a base of support, i.e. the non-neocon republicans (I don't think the neocons would go for Romney because he is mormon). In that case, when Romney was able to turn out his vote (hence the high vote tally), you might get a slant towards Romney. It does seem fishy to me that Paul wouldn't have precincts in which he turns out the vote as well.

As for the historical argument, I read that the same thing happened to Huckabee in '08. Could be wrong. We're all just throwing darts into the dark.

One thing at a time, Mr. Jellyfish

So you're defining "turnout" as the percent of voters who actually vote, rather than as the total number of votes. You have to be clear on your definitions because much of the discussion defines "turnout" as the total number of votes.

Now, having nailed that tentacle of the jellyfish to the wall, I'll proceed to another tentacle, (only one of many shooting out of your obviously confused brain). This will be the last time I respond to you because despite the fact that you _claim_ to have read the longer paper, you exhibit no reading comprehension and your arguments are scatter-shot.

From RonPaulForums.com

6) Demographics are not at play, though this is the 'debunk' most often brought up by people new to the thread.

IMPORTANT:

*****This is not a case of the 'urban'/'rural' divde, which is the 'go to' explanation some new to the thread jump to.
a)We see the same algorithmic rise in Romney votes even within precincts of a single city, all urban. Furthermore, in 'unaffected' counties, all precincts within a city are flatlines for all candidates. More on this below.
b) examination of 'untouched' (no anomaly) counties shows no such divide.
c) we see the algorthymic rise when evaluating sets of precincts that are practically the same size; that is, if we look at say, Clark County, NV, we see the same rise between precincts of 60 then 65 then 70 voters, as we do in a state where precincts differ by 500 or more. There is no reason to suspect such a causal demographic difference between precincts of the same size that differ only in a handful of votes.

If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans

See Relevant Link

http://www.dailypaul.com/212315/former-cia-counter-terrorism...

*****************************************
Television: Why do you think they call it "programming"?