43 votes

[HUGE] Delegate Vote Anomaly In Alabama VERIFIED!

[HUGE] Delegate Vote Anomaly In Alabama VERIFIED!

As pointed out by dsw in the Daily Paul's post below, a really strange gap is visible between Paul's popular vote in Alabama's primary and the vote count in favor of his delegates, as it all happens on the same day through the same ballot. If you are not familiar with the enigma addressed here, I can only encourage you to read the post linked below first.

http://www.dailypaul.com/223002/voti...about-this-one

I think that it is worthwhile separating the discussion of this one in its own thread as the mathematical analysis and speculative interpretations are quite different from the other issues raised elsewhere.

As per Republican Party Rules, you could only vote for 1 candidate, and then only for the delegates of that candidates. For each of your candidate's delegate proposed, you had to choose between a Mr Jones or a Mr Smith to get the job. A rather complicated affair as illustrated by the typical ballot:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?370110



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Bump!!

!!!!

Anybody know if LFRP is on this...

...yet?

This is one of the best cases we have that COULD result in Romney being arrested, and declared ineligible.

"Truth is an absolute defense to the charge of paranoia."

Again...

...this needs to be part of the post-Convention complaint process!

"Truth is an absolute defense to the charge of paranoia."

Do they just cheat everywhere?

Major election fraud. Especially when they 404 block you.

Anybody know...

If the Lawyers for Ron Paul have checked this Alabama situation out?

"Truth is an absolute defense to the charge of paranoia."

Tick, tock, tick, tock....

Not much time left to win the nomination, boys and girls.

What are they waiting for???

"Truth is an absolute defense to the charge of paranoia."

404

First link is 404

To arms! To arms! The Redcoats are coming!

Hmmm... that's odd.

Emalvini: Any idea why?

"Truth is an absolute defense to the charge of paranoia."

No, I have no idea why you got a 404..

no clue here..

We've got the goods...and yet NO ACTION

...to challenge this on the part of the paid staff. There is NO MORE OBVIOUS PROOF (besides maybe Rand's 5-minute Romney infomercial on Fox, 5/25/12) that we are not really in this thing to win it.

So sad.

"Truth is an absolute defense to the charge of paranoia."

Not good...

that the official campaign has never (to my knowledge) said one word
publicly about this.

OTOH - you also have to wonder why there is (apparently) no outcry from
Alabamans generally, local politicians, the local press.

Even if the irregularities are the not the result of fraud, that the
system failed big time in *some* way is blatantly obvious - why
is nobody demanding accountability from the AL Secretary of State
and the (SOE/Scytli/Goldman Sachs) contractor that was actually
running the system??

I guess accountability is just for the peasants, not the rulers.

We are being quiet b/c we are

We are being quiet b/c we are being stealth...

:)

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. - Matthew 10:16

Really?

Please email me about that: MEpatriot@juno.com

"Truth is an absolute defense to the charge of paranoia."

Well put!

"I guess accountability is just for the peasants, not the rulers."

BINGO!

"Truth is an absolute defense to the charge of paranoia."

.

.

"Truth is an absolute defense to the charge of paranoia."

I am an Alabamian (transplant)

The ballot in Montgomery County was not explained or easy to understand. I believe that I was certainly better prepared than most when entering the ballot precinct and yet after receiving my ballot I was surprised at the complexity.

You first had to select your preference for the nominee and then move to a different section to select the delegates. It would have been better to provide a ballot where you selected your preference and them immediately following your choice would be the delegate options.

Additionally, the delegate choices were arbitrary in that in each place there were two (or more) options for the delegate seat. This means that the total vote for each seat was potentially split 50/50 between the two choices which had to muddy the waters a bit.

I am not sure how to explain the anomaly identified in the story. To say that the Republican Party of Montgomery did a bad job of explaining the process would be an understatement. However, it is likely that this too was intentional.

Here in 'Bama the establishment Republicans are unparalleled in their party loyalty. Personal liberty and Constitutionally limited government means little to nothing to these people. They never met a big government program they didn't like. As long as the party establishment is behind it, they'll vote for it...

Also an Alabamian.

Also an Alabamian. War Eagle!

I think the fraud w/ machines would have occurred at a higher level than precinct / county. The poll workers I talked to said they only count the ballots that are NOT cast, and they do not access the ballots cast into the machine. They also said the machines are there when they arrive at 6:00 am and are not picked up until after they leave. They did not know where the machines come from and go to after polls close.

The campaign locals asked for emails from everyone a/b fraud but nothing ever happened that I'm aware of.

They did address the delegate issue w/ Election officials & this is all I remember of what happened:
The ballot stated something like "if you vote for delegates, they must match the vote for president or the ballot would be rejected" by the machine. But they discovered a week before that the machines were not set up that way & did not reject those mismatched votes. And that is all I know.

A Poll worker in another county (not Montgomery county) was not aware of the programming issue & was told to stop instructing voters to match the delegate vote to the presidential vote (as stated on the ballot). She had some good stories but the state campaign never called her.

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. - Matthew 10:16

One approach might have been

One approach might have been to find someone forced to vote for a presidential candidate they did not support just to make sure their delegate vote counted (for example Aunt Susie didn't want to vote for Romney but had to per instructions on the ballot in order to vote for Junior)? Or vice versa.

Another question is, if the machines were not programmed to reject the mismatched ballots, then what else was incorrect about the programming?

It's a stretch but easier than algorithms.

If anyone knows any good attorneys willing to look into all of this post here.

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. - Matthew 10:16

Do we have two important totals available?:

1. total popular vote count for all candidates.
2. total delegate votes cast for all candidates.

According to the "no fraud" side of the argument, 2 must exceed 1 by 10%, right? (or some massaged permutation of that basic insinuation?)

"Truth is an absolute defense to the charge of paranoia."

Doing a comparison

for those two would give a much higher total for
delegate votes because there are multiple delegate
slots for each candidate.

The more meaningful comparison is between the
total votes for (just) the top delegate slots of all the candidates
and the total popular vote for them. I think that's available
somewhere online, I can't tell you where just at the moment.

I tried applying the "10 percent" solution to a couple counties,
but will have to wait to tomorrow to post the results.

Forum member woodstock has come up with a solution...

...see the other thread on this topic.

Basically, the anomaly is a result of 10% of all voters failing to understand the instructions and voting for EVERY candidate's delegates - not too hard to believe LOL.

This increases the ratio of delegate-votes to candidate-votes for EVERY candidate, BUT it disproportionately increases the ratio for candidates with fewer candidate votes - hence Ron Paul (fewest candidate votes) got the biggest bump, and had his ratio pushed up to about 3.

Romney: 29% +10%, ratio should be 39:29 = 1.34

Gingrich: 29.3% + 10%, ratio should be 39.4:29 = 1.34

Santorum: 34.5% + 10%, ratio should be 44.5:34.5 = 1.29

Paul: 5% + 10%, ratio should be 15:5 = 3

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

An appeal

to Alabamans, in particular.

Please do *not* just let this go. The integrity of the voting system
ought to be the ultimate beyond partisan issue. Even if there was
no fraud in this case (which I don't think can be determined without
a physical review of a decent sample of the paper ballots), there was
clearly a widespread system failure. And since the same company
that is handling most aspects of the voting is also working in
over half the states this election, this is something that affects
everyone.

I think TJefferson2012 was correct in pointing out that, whatever
else may have happened,

"Individual slots for delegates should never be more than the votes for president paul

It could only be:

Paul votes for pres > First slot delegate slot votes
or
Paul Votes for pres = First slot delegate slot votes

NOT Paul votes for pres < First delegate slot votes"

had the balloting conformed to its own rules.

There should have been *no* surplus of delegate
votes for first place delegate slots, but there is
a big surplus in nearly all counties.

In the one big county where there was no overvote
of delegates (Madison County) there is *still* a skewing
of the percentages between the delegate and popular
count.

Going delegate to popular:

Gingrich drops from 28.5% to 27.34%
Paul drops from 13.04% to 7.37%
Romney rises from 28.28% to 31.24%
Santorum rises from 29.62% to 34.05%

I don't see how the "ten percent" solution being
put forward could account for such skewing in
the absence of a big overvote for delegates.

People have been deriding Alabama's election officials
and their voting machines, etc. But bear in mind that
most of the process has been privatized and contracted
out to SOE software in Florida, which is in turn owned by
Scytl of Barcelona Spain, whose principle investor is
an outfit called Balderton Capital in the UK, whose
principle partners are former high level Goldman Sachs
people. And SOE/Scytl are handling voting in over half
of US states this time so it's important that their work
be scrutinized.

Nothing to see here? Just move along and let the professionals
do their job? Trust and don't verify??

Certified delegate totals are supposed to be released April
6th. Those totals are the ones that will be the basis of any
challenges...

.

.

"Truth is an absolute defense to the charge of paranoia."

Yeah... now i think this is the plausible explanation

After reading more of the forum post like you i agree with the 10% of voters not following rules...

The real issue that even tho its against the rules for voting for other candidates delegates other than your own candidate's delegates, the votes are still tallied

so basically the voting machines are not programmed in accordance to the rules... and this is confirmed

So the real story is that this is not evidence for fraud, But that Alabama's voting machines suck and the people running the operation are incompetent..

Have you carefully read ALL the posts on RonPaulForums on this

DSW has been outed as a Super-Troll, always trying a bit of truth with a great deal of falsehood, proven repeatedly on one-to-one posts.

No, the 10% "woodstock" assessment is another fabrication to confuse people.

The anomaly is real, and it is a 300% difference between the Dr. Paul vote and the higher number for delegates. They simply forgot to account for the delegate vote in the rigging.

See charts by TheMan and RonRules for a more definitive assessment.

After the caucus shenanigans, why would anyone doubt fraud regardless?

Ha

"...Alabama's voting machines suck and the people running the operation are incompetent..."

Just like the government!

"Well, you know it's like I always say 'it ain't government work if you don't have to do it twice.'" - Jerry Gergich

"He did not come into the world to condemn it, but to save it." - John 3:17

"Well, you know it's like I always say 'it ain't government work if you don't have to do it twice.'" - Jerry Gergich

optimystic's picture

The numbers don't work out

Romney received 176,065 votes; 176,362 delegate votes

Gingrich 177,030 votes; 204,749 delegate votes

Santorum 208,255 votes; 189,083 delegate votes

Paul 30,211 votes; 83,913 delegate votes

Not even close to your projected ratios!

using these numbers...

Romney -0.17%
Gingrich -15.66%
Santorum 9.21%
Paul -177.76%

Not following everything posted here but clearly if the other 3 have a discrepancy between 0 and 15% - How in the world can Dr. Paul have a discrepancy of 178% ???

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know Peace." - Jimi Hendrix

I don't get it....

...shouldn't the total number of votes for a candidate's delegates be several times larger than the total number of votes for the candidate, as a rule?

That is, if I vote for Ron Paul, he gets one vote. If I vote for each of his 24 delegates, that's 24 votes. If everyone who votes for Paul also votes for all of his delegates, his delegates should in total receive 24x more votes than Paul himself. Correct?

The fact that this isn't the case for any candidate tells me that most people don't even bother voting for the delegates. The fact that the votes cast for Rom/Santy/Grinch is about the same as the total votes cast for their delegates, tells me that those voters mostly didn't vote for delegates (only about 1/24 of them voted for delegates). And the fact that total votes for Paul delegates exceeded votes for Paul himself by a factor of 3, tells me that Paulites (as usual) on average know what they're doing and more of them voted for Paul delegates (about 1/8 instead of 1/24 of them).

Am I missing something?

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