What is the Mathematical Probability of zero deviation MN caucus?

Don't get me wrong people, I am gratful for Ron Paul 2nd place in MN. However, why is there strange patterns forming when Ron Paul has a strong showing in caucus states?

From 2% reporting throughout next day at 95% total, Ron Paul got 27% of the vote. From at least 24% on each candidate kept the same percentages as follows with virtually no devation:

Santorum 45%
Ron Paul 27%
Romney 17%
Gingrinch 11%

What is the Mathematical Probability of virtually zero deviation MN caucus night?

Next add in the fact that there are 87 counties throughout the state reporting numbers simutaniously with a handful of counties reporting a full 100% of the tally leaving the remainder in the state to report an even flow of votes throughout the night.

How can the pattern in MN be exact over the course of the night with differnet counties in differnet areas of the state, vote the exact same way with virtually no deviation?

How does the media know to call MN for Santorium at 42% with no exit/ enter polls last night?

How does MN have 15,000 less voters than 2008 when CO only has 5,000 votes less than 2008 where Romney won in both states in 2008?

How does the media know to hold off on predicting CO for Santorium when he is up 11% over Romney with around 40% of the total vote in? They must be

It would be easy to assume that the actual fraud taking place is by shaving off Ron Paul votes in large voting counties. Maybe Santorium won in a state that he did not spend a dime in, but he should have one by 3% of the vote or less over Ron Paul. If we could look at the ratios of voters per county from 2008 and 2012, we can determine where votes may have been discarded and focus the attention to these counties. What is the holdup from 95% to the 99% reporting from CO and MO?

We need Jesse "the body" V to crack open some neo-con skulls in the good state of MN!

What influence do we have to warrant an investigation of fraud in Iowa, NV, and now MN?

Regards,

ME4RP