238 votes

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

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Chill out jabowery

I was going by post #378, but you're right I should have said % turnout rather than just turnout.

Still not convinced by the quote but will check it out some more.

I suggest though that you cool your jets. If there is vote fraud, it has to be analyzed and presented in a cool and deliberate fashion. You only make it easier for others to discount you and your arguments as paranoid.

It is a direct 1 to 1 correlation

If you look at the correlation from Iowa, it is a direct 1 to 1. If you wanted to explain that by saying Romney's larger % of the vote in bigger precincts came from different demographics in those precincts, the correlation wouldn't be that close to 1. Even if your theory were true, there would have to be random large precincts where the demographics didn't favor Romney more than other smaller precincts, unless you think it is possible for almost every large precinct to give Romney a higher % of the vote compared to the rest of the state based on natural "demographics." I would argue that the odds of that occurring are literally 1 in 1 trillion.

I would also argue that there is no explanation for such a direct, 1 to 1 correlation other than an algorhythm changing naturally collected data.

High republican turnout may be bad for Paul

Paul has dedicated voters that will vote no matter what. If disaffected republican, like in the affluent precincts, decide to get off their butts, they will most likely vote Romney.
Therefore, the precincts with a high turnout have higher vote tally and may swing Romney.

Is this the explanation? Probably not. It's just one of many suppositions that have to be explored before claiming voter fraud.

I agree

If I were going to try to throw an election one of the things I would try to do is make sure the number of votes given to my candidate is equal to the sum of the numbers I have taken from other candidates. Who knows, someone may actually be counting the number of voters that went into my polling place and voted.


I keep wondering how far and deep this fraud keeps going, looks like it opens even more questions and concerns going back to the 90's, maybe that's why they are getting desperate, if we expose them on this who knows how far it will go, who knows how much damage they've done, this whole scheme was definitely planned long time ago

Are there any commonalities

to the voting process in each of the districts? Like the same voting machines?

Excellent question.

If there is a correlation between discrepancy and machine, it either means the machines code is flawed, or it has been hacked. If it has been hacked, then there is certainly a security flaw on that particular machine, but it also can lead you to who dun it.

Who ever did this is a

Who ever did this is a genious!

Full not working

What I noticed just from brief observation. if you look at the graphs pre-algorithm no 2 lines looked alike. almost every graph in 2012 has an exact mirror of the romney / paul lines. odd.

This is great evidence!

This is great evidence!

here they demonstrate it

Ariel feldman
Alex Halderman
Edward Felten

Really this video is BS

The things explained in this video Are total Bull S h t
First if you pull a memory card out in the middle of an election. the whole machine has to be reset which can not be done in a a polling location
Secondly if you put a card into the machine that isnt the one assigned to it it will crash the machine and has to be reset which cant be done in the middle of an election.
WOW you guys need to stop believing this Propaganda BS it is only ment to scare you into using the paper ballot. Where they can just lose your paper ballot and say we counted your vote just like they do at cacusas

My name is Billy Bob. I just

My name is Billy Bob. I just joined yesterday but I'm already way smarterder than the people at Princeton University even though I still can't spell all that well, or punctuate.

Hello :)

Being new has nothing to do

Being new has nothing to do with being smart, but the fact that he is new and his focus has so far been totally on support of the machines does make him appear suspicious. See my comment about his assertions right below your comment.

You may be right, but all I

You may be right, but all I see in your comment is assertions without any backup. Do you have a demonstration from an independent investigator that can backup what you say? I know that as a computer programmer for 30 years that any system can be bypassed.

Does this testimony from a Diebold witness give you confidence? I know it is from 2007 and they must have made everything perfect and unhackable now, so maybe you are still confident.


Has the witness in the clip below been proven to be giving invalid or incomplete information?


I will await your response before I start making accusations about your motives.

An important point raised in

An important point raised in that demonstration is that the virus is totally removed when the election process is ended, leaving no trace what-so-ever of any fraud.

Thank you

Posted on Twitter.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Voting machines is the tool?

If they were apprehended, then they couldn't be used.

what about the media who calls who won the state

maybe it corrolates with the sudden upswings..
they should have at least recognized what happens as they get the raw data and analize it to call the winner..

cant get the full version working.. anyone?

I said this two months ago

a) you are a hobbyist trying to do statistics
b) you have not considered at all demographics of RP support or lack there of.
c) you have not considered the demographics of each preinct or county.
d) you have cherry picked your results (at least on the short report).

Your primary error is in assuming that RP support is uniform across voting district size. Your secondary error is assuming that the demographics of the voters are also uniform across each district.

Further, in small districts just one additional vote can have a meaninful % effect (ie, 1/20=5%). This effect of course can be magnified if the candidate is likely to have more support in rural/smaller precincts.

Indeed, if you ran your totals in order largest to smallest, RP share would grow not decline. Are votes being 'flipped' in smaller districts to favor RP?

What about counties which RP won? If the effect does not show up there too than you have a serious issue with your theory

In fact, Buchanan is an adequate surrogate for RP as show in NH in 1996 and specifically your Nillsborough graph. Like RP, Buchanan's support was not uniform.

Finally - and the largest hole of them all in your theory. Who is doing the flipping, how and when? Are you accusing poll workers of altering results? Are you saying the poll workers have called in the correct totals but someone at the board of elections have modified them (even though there is evidence to the contrary lower down in the system?) Are you saying that some how all different types of voting equipment (paper ballots, scanned ballots, electronic, manual old style machine) have all been hacked to produce just this same result?

gedankenexperiment.dk views on finance, politics and science

You seem to not understand what this says.

I don't think you actually understand what the graphs are showing. He doesn't even need to understand demographics at all because they simply are irrelevant here.

When voters go to their precincts and vote, historically there has been absolutely no correlation between the size of the precinct and a candidates % of the vote. There shouldn't be. There will be a few outliers but when the data is run through a linear regression, ultimately the data should show Romney getting the same percentage of the vote in precincts with larger turnouts as he does in smaller precincts. So when the data collected gets large enough, Romney's percentage of the vote should get closer to some number (ex. 35% of the vote) in ALL precincts.

If Romney mysteriously shows a direct correlation between precinct size and his percentage of the vote, it cannot be explained by anything other than human interference with natural, random results. There should be absolutely no correlation between the size of a precinct and the candidate's % of the vote in that precinct. If Romney is consistently getting 30% of the vote in precincts with under 100 voters, and then somehow starts capturing 50% of the vote in precincts with over 100 voters, this 20% increase has to be due to something because it is completely against anything that would happen with randomly generated statistics. The explanation becomes very apparent when one other candidates suffers a decrease of that exact %, (ex. RP's % of the vote decreasing by 20% while Santorum and Gingrich show no correlation at all).

It basically just exposing something that will be impossible to cover-up unless the GOP has the computer randomly select precincts to tamper with, and also randomly chooses the candidate and randomly chooses the percentage of the vote to flip. If any decision they make has some sort of pattern, that pattern will show up when the data is run through a linear regression analysis. The pattern that is exposed here is someone choosing to switch votes in larger precincts and not touching results from smaller ones, and thus showing a direct 1 to 1 correlation between Romney's % of the vote and the size of the precinct.

do you?

his "history" is short and selective. As I noted, just look at the one Buchanan example to see weird stuff happening. Buchanan, like RP, was a unique candidate who did not have uniform support. I am not suprised that establishment/non-controversial candidates such as Romney, McPain, Bush, Forbes, Dole would have essentially uniform support whether in small or large districts.


What about counties which RP won? Where are the data for those? And do they show the same "effect"? Or does the "flipper" only work when Romney is winning?

gedankenexperiment.dk views on finance, politics and science

If I may jump in here, Not

If I may jump in here,

Not all caucii need to have a corrupt chairperson or someone willing to play along. Certainly the leadership knows whom they can count on to carry the ball. The the others, they leave alone and it's there you get a normal result. This isn't the only way RP is being cheated just one of many. King County in Washington State as an example, run by the notoriously crooked Sotelo (I think her name is spelled) only has to wait until all the results are in across the state (Which she did)and then add or subtract the votes needed to blow off RP.

RE the pollsters, they don't have to have any idea what's going on as the algorythm is loaded onto the card and switched in advance and the operation runs as it should even to the uploading to the central server.

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

Control data

On page 5, in his comparison between 2008 and 2012, he states: No demographics can explain the sudden appearance of a massive positive correlation betwenn Romney's results and precinct size in only 4 years. Nor can they explain Paul's. A vote flipper, switched on at 25% of the total ballot count, does.

What is your specific, data-driven, complaint against this statement?

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

He may be a hobbyist . . .

but maybe you should use your accumulated academic,professional,practical, work sourced or other experience to prove his theory wrong?

Surely you must admit vote fraud happens. The question is it happening more frequently than normal. This person has tried to apply a scientific tool to find out. At the very least it gives us hope that there is a way to independently verify what we read in the newspapers and hear on the television.

The real problem I see is getting good data to begin with.

no I do not

admit that vote fraud happens. In fact, I've been quite vocal that it has not happened. I do admit that errors of ineptitude (to caches the various errors types) happen, and happen in every election. That is why there are mandatory recounts in many states at 0.5 to 1.0% - because errors happen and they are not malicious.

Have you ever noticed that the claims of vote fraud only come in states/counties which RP loses or underperforms, never the ones he wins? Are "they" so all knowing that they can determine with such precision ahead of time exactly which districts to defraud RP voters? Likewise given how many districts are involved that everyone involved would keep their mouth shut. Maybe you haven't noticed this, but there are no secrets in politics. Everything comes out.

This is not to say there has never been vote fraud. I have already referenced Kennedy and LBJ as being likely beneficiaries of truly massive vote fraud, stuff that makes what so many on DP scream about but a blip on the radar.

gedankenexperiment.dk views on finance, politics and science

Hard data evidence of "cherry-picking" please

To be clear, you are not only hypothesizing the appearance of a massive correlation between demographics and candidate preferences (positive for Romney and negative for Paul leaving the other candidates untouched) for the same county in the course of only 4 years. You are also hypothesizing that the analysis is "cherry-picking" the counties.

What is your specific data-driven evidence that the analysis is cherry-picking the counties? It cannot merely be the fact that there is a small sample size of counties analyzed.

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

There appears to be some

There appears to be some discussion on the demographic/socioeconomic factor in the full version, for example starting at the bottom of page 63 (post #736), and in other comments as well, if someone wants to peer review it.

Unless I'm mistaken

the flipping is occurring in the electronic voting machines in districts large enough to be easily concealed, >277 voters.

Admittedly, I had to work my ass off just to 2.0 my stats classes in college, but it does seem odd that the anomalies only affect Mitt's totals in a positive way and it wasn't evident in elections prior to 2008. How do demographics explain this?

That would be when Goldman

That would be when Goldman Sachs bought into the software that runs the machines, if I remember what the article said. It could be that they bought into the diebold sale, but with certainty, Goldman Sachs is involved.

RON PAUL 2012 * Restore America * Bring The Troops Home