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.

its both! 1+1

I bet the algorythm was in alabama working too but they flipped it only for the popular vote and not for the delegates.


This definitely needs a second look.


We were harassed and toward the end of our harassment told it was because of who we were campaigning for. It's blatantly obvious that the machine will do anything they can to Ron Paul, his supporters, and to make sure he looks like he isn't the factor that he is. Below is a link of the coverage of our story, check it out and vote it up.


Bibb County AL

Note that this (although it says it is a service of the Secretary of State of Alabama,
the software is SOE, owned by the Spanish company Scytl/SOE Software which is
has as its chief investor Balrderton Capital (UK) which - purely a coincidence -
has as senior partners former top level execs from your old friends at Goldman Sachs..

Anyway, I went here:


to see what some county level results looked like.

It seems pretty strange. What I did was take the popular vote totals
four each of the four remaining candidates and the number of votes
that were cast for the delegate slot that got the most votes in total
for a particular candidate.

For example: Santorum popular vote 1290
highest number of votes cast for one of his delegate slots:
for Place 1
Wiliam King 317
Tom Parker 817
total 1188
ratio of popular to delegate vote 1.14:1

Gingrich popular 1011

for Place 2
J Bonner 719
Stacy George 263
Dale Peterson 308
total 1290

ratio of popular to delegate vote .78:1

Romney popular 748

for Place 1
Ivey 764
Pruett 205
total 969

ratio of popular to delegate vote .77:1

Paul popular 160

for Place 1

Doug Miller 564
Marcelo Munoz 75
total 639

ratio of popular to delegate vote .25:1

I'm getting sleepy here - but if you kept the delegate
totals and then adjusted the Paul and Santorum popular
numbers so that the popular:delegate ratio is the same as that
for Newt and Romney, what does that do to the popular count?

Looks like flipping could have been between Paul and Santorum?

Wake me up when someone figures it out.

Someone needs to answer this...

Ben Swann?

It's time! Rand Paul 2016!

"Truth, Justice, and the American Way!"

That means a likely popular vote of about 12%.

TPTB are getting very sloppy in their vote fraud.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.


I was of the opinion that they didn't start screwing with Paul's numbers until he exceeded 15%, but this seems to be evidence that they're stealing at least half of Paul's votes regardless.

This means that Paul is probably in the 20% to 25% range overall in the nation, and has actually won a half-dozen states or so - I'm thinking Iowa, Nevada, Maine at the very least were actually won by Paul, and perhaps North Dakota, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Vermont, and even Virginia.

This, combined with the other statistical data being posted here today, means we are winning, and we have the proof needed to blow these corrupt blowhards out of the water.

Let's do this, people!

Yeah, I found it VERY odd

that Bachmann got 1,700, HUNTSMAN got 1,044, and Perry got 1,865. That means there are over 4,000 people in Alabama who either think those people are still in the race, or their votes were intended elsewhere. (The 9,242 Uncommitted votes I can understand.)

It means the machines

If this is accurate, this means the machines were manipulated with before they dropped out of the race.
Looks very fishy.
Why did so many people vote for someone that's not in the race?

Be very careful what you say...

I have seen MANY people say they will vote Ron Paul even if they have to write him in(I'm probably right there with them unless the man himself again asks us to vote for a third party candidate like in 2008). While you and I(trust me, I have no idea how people could be passionate about Bachmann or Hunter) may not understand it, there probably are people JUST as passionate about those candidates that have 'suspended' their campaigns. Let's try to figure out the FACTS of what's going on. Throwing around useless speculation does not help anything.

Yeah, I've been doing stats

Yeah, I've been doing stats on Maine votes, and all kinds of other things looking for proof, but it really seems like this is the most blatant proof yet.

Could it be that people didn't understand the rules? If so, why didn't Romney's numbers also go up? Doesn't make sense.

I can't help but ask, why the

I can't help but ask, why the hell would they even bother with the algorithm in Alabama, when RP didn't have a fat chance in hell of coming in even 2nd? He polled in the single digits. Isn't the whole idea of the algorithm to keep him from edging out the chosen "front runner?"

The goal is to make Ron Paul

The goal is to make Ron Paul and his supporters seem like a minuscule insignificant minority.

Ahhhhh! I know why the

Ahhhhh! I know why the difference between Ron Paul's votes and delegates. Ha! They programmed it to flip the votes but not the delegates. Does this pattern follow everywhere else? Does anyone know?

RON PAUL 2012 * Restore America * Bring The Troops Home


Follow the page down to "Delegates @ 64.18%"
I'm recording the daily results page which shows at minimum how many votes were stolen from Paul.


I've been very skeptical of the whole vote fraud thing. It's one thing in the caucuses... where there's an actual battle going on.

I'm no longer skeptical that the voting machines are rigged.


-quiet engineer


This is important

All the numbers

have changed since this thread started.

The delgate totals for Paul have gone up.

I'm looking at Paul 1 79,842
2 75,328
3 72,034
4 72,743

Don't know what's up with ALGOP.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

peluski17, can you post this

peluski17, can you post this up at Ben Swann's facebook page? It is very pertinent info, imo. It isn't the first time that the delegate votes have been way out of sinc with the Ron Paul votes.

I suspect that, as with the states researched with algorithms, Ron Paul actual votes were siphoned off to Romney.


RON PAUL 2012 * Restore America * Bring The Troops Home

I have

I have posted this on his page, and I believe someone else has too. We'll see if he gets to it!

The delegate voting is certainly suspicious but does anyone

have an explanation for Ron Paul's popular vote reducing from 30,494 to 28,991 since this thread was started?

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



ecorob's picture

keep digging, folks!

we WILL get to the bottom of it!

you guys are geniuses!!!

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

What I think the issue is...

These machines aren't quite capable of being rigged for more than one contest yet. They can't rig it against RP AND a bunch of delegates at the same time. We're seeing the weaknesses of their current algorithm.


Has a similar system and had similar results, that sends a huge red flag up.

This needs to stay at the top

This needs to stay at the top of the DP till it is figured out.

and by figured out I mean tar and feather the Alabama GOP.

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

Talked to Fox News about this…

I don't watch TV or even have cable, but I listen to XM talk radio when I'm driving. So today, Tom Sullivan was talking about the contests last night and started asking "why are Gingrich and Ron Paul even still in the race? blah blah…" Some of us that like to battle the propaganda machine started calling in, I heard someone calmly explain that the Associated Propaganda's delegate count was a wishful fantasy, etc..
So I spent like 20 minutes on the phone with a call-screener there. I explained the issues, gave links to the numbers, etc...finally he said that he was kicking it upstairs to their "brain room", and that they would get to the bottom of this - at which point I laughed! I was asked "why are you laughing"? I responded that if their "brain room" could figure out how someone who only got 30,000 popular votes out of the ~750k who voted, yet had 50,000 more votes for their delegate slots, then those people will have solved the impossible. I'm a theoretical physicist and I sure as hell can't. Even if the voters in AL did just fill in all the delegate places, the Diebold-designed-by-unbalanced-5th-grade-programmers-AccuVote-OS-ballot-scanner should have rejected it, like it did the the 3,000 Mobile County ballots found to have a "tiny white circle" printed over the barcode (http://blog.al.com/live/2012/03/mobile_county_ballot_problem...)

Remember, with regards to that Gingrich delegate's numbers being over Newt's popular vote number, there were like 13-15k votes for Bachmann, Huntsman, et al. and undecided. Those candidates obviously didn't have delegates represented on the ballot, so that might explain that situation(if those people were allowed to vote for other candidates' delegates).

Anyhow back to Faux News, I was put on hold, I waited…then he came back to the phone to tell me that the segment was up, but that their "brain room" was still looking into this, and if they can't find an answer then they will cover the story (don't hold your breath).

guy then says: "...but zsh-ninja, it doesn't make sense unless you think the country is rigging the election..."
me: "first off, not the country, but the (Goldman Sachs Demopublican) Party, and second off, yep. In fact - jeez, even Rachel Maddow from MSNBC has been reporting on this…"
lol get with it Fox-
—and damnit AL GOP, learn how to rig an election properly.


Get this to the campaign and WatchtheVote2012

The campaign needs to know and the people at WatchtheVote2012 really know election fraud. Let them look into it as well. IMO, they did an excellent job in Iowa.