Comment: There are several gaping

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: To be honest, this statement: (see in situ)

There are several gaping

There are several gaping holes in this analysis that need to be addressed before it should be considered credible. Here are a few:

"Possibly of very high importance to investigators, whenever a county does not make use of a “Central
Tabulator” machine, there is no Vote Flipping and the plot traces on the chart “flat-line”." -- there is no discussion in the document about the characteristics of counties that use central tabulator machines. What determines whether a county uses a central tabulator machine or not? Is it correlated with the size of the county? It seems sensible to me that larger counties would need such a machine to help them count votes. Just because a central tabulator machine is not used and there is no vote flipping does not mean that that is the reason there is vote flipping. To say otherwise is a logical fallacy.

There should be more discussion on how demographics was ruled out as a cause. The chart appears to show that this was done on a state level. However, wouldn't one be concerned about demographics on the precinct level since that is what you are studying in detail?

With regards to Table 1, simply showing that Mitt Romney got about the same number of votes doesn't prove anything, as the document implies. It simply means that Mitt Romney got the same number of votes. There was a very informative article written on Mitt Romney's GOTV operation in these primary states, and I think it might partially explain what is seen here. I can't find the link, but maybe somebody else can post it since it was pretty fascinating.

In Figure 6, the number of votes flipped (on other candidates) does not equal the number of votes flipped for Romney. Why is this? It seems like the numbers should add up. Also, expressing these numbers as a percentage of the total number of votes each candidate received in the primary would be a useful indicator as to how much this effect supposedly affected the results. My guess is not much since ~1.2m flipped votes isn't that much in the grand scheme of things (considering that many of these states were won by Romney with large margins).

How much effort was made to compare these results with exit polls? How about polling prior to election day that was conducted by reputable organizations?

With regards to the analysis in general, it would be useful to know if there was any correlation between small precincts or large precincts being in city or rural areas?