88 votes

Interesting numbers coming out of Alabama

Interesting numbers coming out of Alabama... Just for comparison Ron Paul vs. Mitt Romney's Popular vote vs Delegate Votes
Source: http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/AL/38312/75663/en/su...

//Popular Vote
Ron Paul: 5.0% 30,494

//Delegate Votes
Ron's delegates Place 1: 75,385
Ron's delegates Place 2: 71,069
Ron's delegates Place 3: 67,953
Ron's delegates Place 4: 68,630

Why would someone not vote for Ron Paul in the popular vote, but vote for his delegates? Or, was the popular vote manipulated and the delegate vote not? Who knows, but something is not right here. From the looks of it, Ron Paul probably received around 75,000+ votes rather than the 30,000 reported.

//Popular Vote
Mitt Romney: 29.0% 178,601

//Delegate Votes
Romney's delegates Place 1: 162,265
Romney's delegates Place 2: 144,302
Romney's delegates Place 3: 142,862
Romney's delegates Place 4: 141,725

Look at Romney's delegates, pretty close to his total number of popular votes.

Oh, and all the delegate votes still haven't been counted.

Here's the Alabama Ballot: http://alabamavotes.gov/downloads/election/2012/primary/samp...

In the ballot it clearly states:

"Votes for delegate candidates pledged to someone other than the voter's choice for President ARE NOT ALLOWED UNDER REPUBLICAN PARTY RULES."

Ron Paul only has received around 30,000 of the popular votes, yet has around 70,000-75,000 votes for his delegate candidates... (and on the ballot you only vote for one delegate per place)

So this leaves three scenarios in my mind:

  1. The popular vote is rigged
  2. Voters didn't read the rules and filled out their ballots in entire - problems with this:
    • Wouldn't the other candidates have similar gains in their delegate votes?
    • The ballot reader should not have accepted the ballot
  3. The ballot machine did not validate ballots



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Here's the deal.

Voters where allowed to vote for delegates under other candidates which resulted in RP delegates getting more votes than dr Paul. This should not been allowed but secretary of state's contractor could not figure out how to kick back those votes. They also didnt send out ballots to military in time and ate under court order to accept ballots until march 30th. They have a few days after that to certify results. Total delegates are not yet known because there are enough ballots outstanding to change results in some delegate races. Bottom line is that it will be a while before results are in.

Maybe...

Santorum's numbers are actually... Ron Paul's numbers. Wouldn't it be easier to just move the candidates around instead of the votes? Just a thought...

Are they Stalling?

This sure is taking a long time to have these votes reported. On purpose maybe?
I'm on page 2 of this thread and tracking the updates as Alabama posts them.
Alabama still has 19.40% of the votes to post on their site.
Difference between Pauls total and 1st delegates position is currently standing at 52696 votes.
In other words...Pauls vote total is missing at least 52696 votes to make that many delegate votes possible. And more to come which are still unreported as of yet!

What is the verdict?

is there one ?

This has been around for a week and I have not heard anymore about it. Are we letting it die ? Was there an explanation ?

They tried to bury us, they didn't know we were seeds. -mexican proverb

BUMP!

BUMP!

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

Now this is huge intel!

Now this is huge intel!

In A Way, This Is Good News

It means that the negative opinions that people have had drilled into their brains about Ron Paul (by the MSM and Radio hosts) do not translate to his supporters.

So lets put this fact to work. We need to start running for office at all levels (county/state/federal). The MSM cannot tear down every single one of us.

any idea why

the official results site for Alabama still shows 12 counties as
not reporting (and six reporting reporting only partially)?

http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/AL/38312/75743/en/pr...

also - please check my "even if" comment below

Campaign

Anyone addressing this obvious election fraud?

I also just left a note on Tom Woods blog today.

Anyone hear back from Ben Swan or any other news?

I know many people sent this.

*May the only ones to touch your junk, be the ones you want to touch your junk.*

Hmmm...

I spoke with my insurance rep about renewing a policy today. He mentioned that he voted for me this week but did not vote for Dr. Paul. So it definitely didn't seem to reject ballots if candidate delegates other than for the selected candidate were marked. Even if this is the cause of the issue, this is still a very real problem as I mentioned before because some of the candidate delegate races were extremely close. I would be angry if I lost by 100 votes because people not voting for my candidate voted for the other person I was running against.

even if

the system let people violate the rule against voting for a delegate
that was for a different candidate than you voted for there is *still*
a big discrepancy because if you add up the votes that each candidate
received for their top delegate slot and compare it to the official turnout,
the number of delegate votes is (almost) always higher than the
vote for individual candidates.

I looked at the following counties' results and Greene, the smallest
in the state, I guess was the only one to have lower votes for delegate
positions than for votes for the candidates - the popular vote
was 158 and the delegate vote was 141 - but even there, Sanotrum's
percentage improves slightly - which happens in every county I've
checked (comparing the percentages for popular and delegate votes)

So, for each county I've checked, here's the popular (vote for candidate
or uncommitted), the total of votes for the top delegate slots and the
total number of "phantom" over-votes that shouldn't be there:

Greene 158 141 -17 (expected/maybe OK)
Perry 328 387 59 OV
Pickens 1243 1343 100 OV
Monroe 1730 2138 408 OV
Randolph 2287 2638 451 OV
Autauga 11091 11799 708 OV
Bibb 3334 4086 752 OV
Blount 10769 12507 1738 OV
Mobile 48721 55913 7192 OV

Jobarra, sounds like you are there, have you or anyone else
there in Alabama tried questioning state or local
election officials about this? Or getting local media
interested?

I called the local news who

I called the local news who investigated why ballots were rejecting at certain locations (badly printed ballots were causing the machines to spit out the ballots as invalid). I never heard back from them. My post about this is in this same thread.

Now that I am back at work this week I've had quite a few people tell me they voted for me but not Paul :/

Not Allowed

"Votes for delegate candidates pledged to someone other than the voter's choice for President ARE NOT ALLOWED UNDER REPUBLICAN PARTY RULES."

I'm also up to over a 52000 vote variance with only 3/4 of the precincts reported.

I doubt your one voted situation could have happened over 52000 times. It shouldn't have happened at all. The machine should have rejected the ballot...you would think???

In my county of Elmore

Paul 718 votes, votes for Paul's delegates 1,428 to 1,835.

*May the only ones to touch your junk, be the ones you want to touch your junk.*

Hahaha so Ron is getting 40K more votes for Delegates

and Mitt is getting 40K LESS,

yeah - but if you look at it

closely, it looks like it may have been intended
to flip the victory from Gingrich to Santorum
and to way understate Dr. Paul's popular vote
numbers in the process.

In any case the numbers don't seem to add up..

Alabama smoking gun?

bump

especially those more competent than me (not saying much)
at math/statistics and those in Alabama,
please check my county-level analysis in "Pattern Recognition"
comment below

Not so sure..

Not so sure what is going on here.. but here are Ron Paul's updated numbers at 71.64% reporting..

4.99% 29,408

How are his numbers going DOWN?

The Revolution Continues..

Their verifying election nite votes

Pauls number is down because they are only at 71.64% of his final total votes cast.
All four candidates numbers are lower at this point because they still have 28.36% to count in the verification.
They appear to be counting only around 7-8% a day, so this will probably take a week before we get to some final results.

Pattern Recognition? revised/edited

Someone more competent than me at this stuff please check...

Hi, all -

After looking at the numbers for Bibb County, AL I looked at the
Autauga County, AL numbers to see if there was any (to my statistically
impaired brain) pattern to the results.

Since there were at least two and occasionally three candidates
for each delegate place, I counted the total votes for the top
delegate position for each candidate and compared that to the
reported popular vote for each candidate.

Official Republican popular vote total for Autauga County is given as 11,091.

So:
Gingrich popular vote 3453
Top delegate place #2

Bonner 2268
George 812
Peterson 699
total 3799

Ratio of popular to delegate vote .909:1 (means more people voted for Gingrich delegates than for Gingrich))

Paul popular vote 493
Top delegate place #1

Miller 1261
Munoz 285
total 1546

Ratio of popular to delegate vote .318:1 (would indicate a lot more people voting for Paul delegates than for Paul)

Romney popular vote 2919
Top delegate place #1

Ivey 2511
Pruett 603
total 3114

Ratio of popular to delegate vote .93:1 (would indicate more people voting for Romney delegates than for Romney)

Santorum popular vote 3807
Top delegate place #7

King 1114
Parker 2226
total 3340

Ratio of popular to delegate vote 1.14:1 (Would indicate more people voting for Santorum than for Santorum delegates)

Note that this 1.14:1 ratio for Santorum is exactly the
same as for Bibb County. There, Santorum got:

popular vote 1290
top delegate place #7

King 317
Parker 817
total 1134

Popular to delegate ratio 1.138:1 (!)

Autauga County total for top delegate votes = 11,799
708 votes more than the official total for the popular vote.

Note that while the ratios for the other candidates
differ between Bibb and Autauga County, the ratio for Newt and Romney
is extremely close within each county, while Paul's and Santorums are skewed in
opposite directions. But the ratio of delegate vote to popular vote for
Santorum is exactly the same in both counties.

For Autauga County if you replace the popular vote with
the maximum cast for a delegate, the results change from

Ginrich 3453
Paul 493
Romney 2919
Santorum 3807*

to

Gingrich 3799*
Paul 1546
Romney 3114
Santorum 3340

Doing the same with the Bibb County numbers also flips it to
Gingrich, with Paul still last, but with a much higher percentage
than he is officially credited with.

-further edit/addition-

For Autauga, the total overvote (delegate vote compared to
popular vote) for Gingrich, Romney and Paul is 1594

The undervote (comparing the same thing as above) for Santorum is 533

The total vote for uncommitted and dropped out candidates is 419

So, even if *all* the people who (supposedly) voted for Santorum in the
popular but didn't vote for his delegates voted instead for Gingrich/
Paul/Romney delegates and *all* the people that voted uncommitted/
for dropped-out candidates voted for Gingrich/Paul/Romney delegates
(and none for Santorum delegates) it still adds up to only 952 votes
and leaves and leaves a discrepancy of 642 votes.

http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/AL/Autauga/38314/755...

Central Alabama Electric Coop polling location in Autauga county

There were only two votes for Ron Paul at the Central Alabama Electric Coop polling location in Autauga county.
http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/AL/Autauga/38314/755...

I wanted to see what the numbers looked like at the very lowest level, where perhaps the pattern would be more clear. This table shows the votes cast for each candidate, and then the minimum and maximum number of total votes cast in the delegate races for each candidate:

Name Votes / Delegates
Newt 24 / 16 to 26
Paul 2 / 8 to 11
Sant 21 / 19 to 21
Mitt 28 / 21 to 26

Newt had two delegate races with more votes than the rules should have allowed, but eight other delegate races at or below his vote total. Santorum and Mitt both had delegate race totals in line with their own vote total.

But for Ron Paul, who only got two votes, ALL SEVENTEEN delegate race totals were greater than two.

That's the only one I went to the trouble of collecting all the numbers for, but picking other locations at random the pattern seemed to hold up at the state, county, and precinct levels.

Clarke County, Chilton-Hopewell precinct

Only 51 votes in all, 27 of them for Santorum. Zero votes for Ron Paul. But the Ron Paul delegate races all had four to six votes total.

On the other hand I did finally find a location where this kind of discrepancy didn't happen. Gainestown precinct in Clarke county, one brave voter for Ron Paul, and one vote in the delegate races. But that's the only honest one I've found. Most are like "Springfield Meth" (their abbreviation, not mine) in that county where one person voted for Paul but ten to thirteen voted in each of the Paul delegate races.

Someone should download ALL the data from that web site before they start "correcting" it.

good one to check further

from: http://www.ronpaulgrassrootshq.com/alabama-liberty.html
-- Montgomery Area
Paul Beckman, House District 88, Autauga County
Ray Boles, State Senate 30, Autauga, Butler, Crenshaw, Elmore, Lowndes, Pike

These two may have more information.

Anyone from there? please report how many of you voted..

Can't

get the link to work..

Just called NBC News 15

I called because Darwin Singleton got to the bottom of why the ballots were rejecting the other night and I figured they may already be looking into this. They said they had not heard of this yet and got my name and number on it. The guy who took the tip said he would talk about it in the afternoon meeting today. He said they were interested in talking about the candidate delegate process because alot of people were unfamiliar with the process. I told them I'm currently on vacation so if they needed to talk just to give me a call and I would be available. Maybe we'll see something tomorrow.

I was cordial and let them know I was running for Paul and the only reason I saw it was that I was looking up my results and saw the irregularities. I let them know even if Dr. Paul did have 50K votes missing he wouldn't have gotten any delegates, but I was curious about what would happen for example with Mitt Romney's place 2 delegates because they are almost tied for the spot. A few thousand votes can in fact change that race.

I was trying to wait until the results are "official", but it seems like it will be another 2 weeks before they are done and by that time I doubt anyone would care about the story.

This is something Ben Swann would be interested in

Wouldn't it?

slm

Wow. Alabama has really done something right this election.

The Alabamavotes.gov site is pretty awesome guys. In 2008, I could barely find the results for the votes for the Paul delegate place I was running for. The only things I ever really found on the web were individual county probate records and there are few counties that seem to have released those for 2008. The new site has SO MUCH information on it and quite frankly without it we probably would not have known about these strange anomolies. I hope they keep it running because it has alot of very useful information on it.

I was just exploring the site some more and realized there is an easier way to get all the results instead of clicking on the webpages. Click the Reports tab and download the detailed reports.

What I've found out is pretty fascinating to me. I took one county(Baldwin) that has a pretty sizable vote count and poured over the results. There were a total of 38017 ballots cast. Of those, 1019 voted for Democrat presidential candidates, 36436 voted for Republican presidential candidates, and apparently 562 didn't vote on a presidential candidate. I'm not sure if they just abstained from voting for a candidate or not. When you go to the polling place you ask for a Democratic or a Republican ballot. I think if you want an Independent/Third Party ballot, you have to ask for it. In a primary though, the only things on an Independent ballot should be constitutional amendments or local ordinances that are being voted on. Since I'm not aware of any of those being on the ballot this year, I'm guessing you could only get a Democrat or Republican ballot. This would seem to indicate that 562 people just didn't vote for a presidential candidate.

Looking further at the results, Gingrich seems to have a slightly elevated count(11K votes for about 10K actually cast for him) for all his delegates as opposed to the actual votes for him. Ron Paul's delegates have a large elevated count(5K votes to 1.8K cast for him). All the other candidates do not seem to see this elevated count(in Baldwin county anyway).

There is at least one very real problem with these results. The ballot specifically stated that voting for delegate candidates OTHER than the candidate you voted for is NOT ALLOWED. Considering that some of the delegate candidate races are actually quite close and that obviously alot of candidate delegates got more votes than even their candidate, then those races are in question. I'm not sure how you actually fix this though. You would either have to hold the primary again or you would need to handcount EVERY ballot and figure out a disqualifying measure(well, this should actually be simple since the rule is stated on the ballot) for recording the correct votes.

The results are still not official yet, but right now I don't see how they make up the difference of votes and delegate candidate votes. The counties that are not reporting are some of the least populous in the state I think.

Remember though, the Security of State of AL has created this site to give us all the information, so if you do contact anyone here about this, please remember to be cordial and they are trying to have as open an election as possible. This is MUCH better than even 4 years ago and they are obviously trying to be transparent. I will say I'm pleasantly surprised at my state about this.

Remember also that even if Dr. Paul did have 50K more votes, he still would not have received enough votes for delegates(20% is the threshold). However, these anomolies do deserve an explanation.

If you look down at the very

bottom of the pages you will probably see "Powere by SOE Software" written.

According to this video, all the state elections websites - for something
like half the States and a bunch of other local jurisdictions - are not
on really government servers but are actually all through SOE's main
servers in Florida (oh, and the money trail leads back toward Goldman
Sachs):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPi_zNB8jtY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRNORxmmVSc&feature=related