Comment: The percent may be wrong, that was my point on the time.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You're looking into the (see in situ)

The percent may be wrong, that was my point on the time.

Yes, no matter how you slice the time, the vote is whacked.

But the time issue just exposes another problem.

Not only is the vote whacked no matter what, but the way it was updated, shows that there was vote manipulation.

If you only look at 6:33 (aka 64%) vs. 100% there isn't much to get fussy about.

It's the 9:21 (aka 43%) that's the problem. It doesn't jive with EITHER the 6:33 (64%) or the 100% numbers for ANY candidate.

As it stands on the images, CNN reported a 64% at 6:33pm ET

Some hours later, they reported a DECREASE in the vote down to 43%. This panned out as a decrease for everyone but Paul who saw a massive increase.

Then at 9:46 the final results show very large increase for everyone but Paul who saw only a massive decrease.

None of that is possible.

You can't have 64% reporting at 6:33pm and then have 43% reporting in the same county at 9:21pm.

You also can't have less votes for any one candidate (much less all 4 at some point) from one report to the next. You certainly can't have less votes overall.

You can't count votes down, only up over time. That's why the time IS important.

It either shows the time stamps were wrong, (not likely) or the data is wrong. (very probable)

It's the time stamps that prove it is manipulation. Without that fact, one could simply ignore the Map graphic results and only compare the 64% and 100% numbers.

The discrepancy on the map graphic time stamp proves something is definitely not right.