 |
Guess What? SC Primary Results in Question! Submitted by SC ???????? on Thu, 02/16/2012 - 16:24. in. Daily Paul Liberty Forum. 229 votes. I received an e-mail from our meet-up which I'm editing but for to include this statement: I have ...
var userNum=0+0*1, roles="anonymous user" window.mel=function(x){return $(document.createElement(x))} if(navigator&&navigator.userAgent){ var be=navigator.userAgent.match(/webkit|gecko|presto|trident/i) if(be) be=be.pop().toLowerCase() else be="unknown" $("body").addClass(be) } if(userNum){ $("body").addClass("uid"+userNum) if(!roles.match(/authentic|standard|subscrib/i)) $("body").addClass("anon") else $("body").addClass("auth") if(roles.match(/subscrib/i)) $("body").addClass("sub") if(roles.match(/admin/i)) $("body").addClass("admin") if(roles.match(/mod/i)) $("body").addClass("mod") if(0&&roles.match(/premium/i)){ var cs=$("").attr("id","appliedCustomCSS"), css=$("#customCSS>*") if(css.length) cs.html(css.text()) else cs.html(" ") //needs to stay so ccc is always accessible cs.prependTo("head") var js=$("").attr("id","appliedCustomJS") jss=$("#customJS") if(jss.length) js.html(jss.text()) else js.html(" ") //see above js.prependTo("head")
document.context='Yjo1MDg2fA=='; google_protectAndRun("render_ads.js::google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);
1. In any county where Ron Paul has more votes than Mitt Romney using the low vote total precincts, you get a ridiculous- looking curve like the one in Anderson County. (Anderson, Greenville, Spartanburg, and Oconee Counties). Mitt ends up at a vote total that could have been Paul's projected total and Paul crashes to the ground.
2. In the counties where Romney has more votes than Paul in the low vote total precincts, There is no ridiculous anomaly like the one in Anderson County.
3. In any race where Newt is ahead of Romney and Romney is anywhere close to Gingrich in vote total, Newt gets flipped by Romney (Richland, Charleston, and Beaufort Counties in SC) much like the maneuver in Anderson County where Mitt flips Paul. It appears to me that Newt actually won these counties as well as Polk and Duval Counties in Florida.
4. As I have laid out in my brief, fluctuations should occur in honest elections; however, these "flips" look to me like one candidate is suddenly losing his slope (established vote percentage) and another (Romney) is gaining at precisely the same percentage. My personal constitution screams to me "this phenomenon is not a normal occurrence!"
5. In almost all Counties, Mitt Romney gains hundreds- even more than a thousand- in the very largest precinct(s). Many instances this tail end gain appears to serve the purpose of draining Ron Paul just enough to be last place. (example: Charleston County SC). I'm not saying there isn't an honest explanation, but I want to hear one... that makes sense. Maybe in every single county Romney supporters turned out in "droves" at the very largest precinct(s)?
6. Most graphs follow a disturbing trend: Mitt Romney's vote percentage "line" looks more like a parabola curving upward and the other 3 candidates' lines like a parabola curving in the negative. This might could be explained in some honest way, but it looks like algorithms in voting machines to me. I invite intelligent discussion.
8. I will release a procedure that will show all of you math analysts how to do this on your own. You will see the same anomalies as I see.
document.context='Yjo1MDg2I2I6NTA4NiNiOjU4MzcjYjo1MDg2I2I6NTgzNyNiOjU0NTR8';
The biggest issue I see to proving election fraud here is determining exactly how to frame the statistical test. The null hypothesis is that "no election fraud occurred". With a small enough p-value (<0.05) we can reject that and prove a very high likelihood that fraud in fact occurred.
However, we cannot assume that the small precincts are representative (serve as a uniformly random sample) of all precincts. So we can't just assume that they should be and then try to go from there.
Instead, the test must start with the assumption that the final vote totals are correct, and then proceed to show that the likelihood of the observed distributions is too small.
If anyone else here has a strong background in statistics, we might be able to get somewhere. If the community can produce statistical proof of election fraud in multiple counties and states, this will send shockwaves throughout the entire nation.
I think the most telling point in this document is that Romney and Paul's lines diverge from the expected path at nearly identical spots. If one started losing votes at say 10,000 and the other at say 5,000 I would question assumptions. But since both diverge at the same place its CRAZY creepy! The flipping idea is soooo perfect because it keeps the overall count the same. NO ONE would be able to notice by skimming the surface. I think that flipping votes is a PERFECTLY legitimate theory about what happened.
It only takes a random sample size of 30 or so to get a good representative prediction line of the larger group. That assumes that the smaller sample is truly a random and evenly distributed sample of course.
It appears that electronic voting is gradually being consolidated and one of the biggest companies headquartered in Spain is SCYTL. They sell Internet voting systems and recently acquired SOE Software the leading election software provider in the USA.
The company that owns the infamous Diebold election software is now a Canadian company Dominion Voting Systems: http://en.wikipedia.
The convergence of Internet voting and election voting systems is an interesting one. Just before the NH election I voted in an online poll for Ron Paul and as I watched the screen change to the results screen I saw my vote switch from Ron Paul to Mitt Romney. I could scarcely believe my eyes. Who on Earth would want to switch votes in an online poll?
I have seen other anomalies in these online polls one in which the percentage for Ron Paul was held in place and Romney was allowed to increase. At the time I assumed that I was just seeing things but now I believe that what I was seeing was some field testing of election fraud algorithms. After all what better way to test your formulas that on an actual electronic poll. SCYTL is a leading software provider for these Internet polls.
I'm not a statistician, but if there is one in the house he/she may be able to establish a statistical improbability in the data that might meaningfully alter the results of the primary.
electronic voting...but force them to post all votes in the state by name/county/vote in a text file so that the people can verify (if they so choose) that their votes are being accurately reported. This is really basic software that would be incredibly easy to create. This would allow anyone to personally check that their vote was recorded correctly. To me this is the only way you'd ever stop voter manipulation from the top down...the people have to be able to see and analyze all of the voting to verify.
The only other thing i would suggest with this system is the voter would get an official "receipt" of vote, showing who they voted for....this would get rid of voter manipulation that could stem from the voters themselves (ie calling in after and claiming to have voted for so and so...but didn't actually).
So glad you are smart and analytical and that you are following up on this. This is a fight to the finish- no question! Every state's citizens need to rise to this challenge of holding the GOP accountable ...for that gives fuel to the next state that has to!You do good work -Thanks to all out there in the trenches doing all you can for Ron Paul! I give you my liberty salute! May God bless all our efforts and God bless Ron Paul.
I checked your charts and it really does appear like Romney and Paul FLIPPED. Is it just mere coincidence that Romney's actual votes became Ron Paul's projected votes? It was almost identical.
Unlike the primaries and caucuses, which is "just a club doing it's internal rituals", if it were done in an actual election it would be a big-time felony.
Reminds me of some rigged cash registers that once got caught. (MECHANICAL ones, just before computer-based registers caught on. Had the computer cash register makers freaked out, because this would be utterly trivial to do on a computer and was a pain to build into mechanical adding machines. So they were worried that their machines wouldn't be accepted and deployed.)
For small totals they ran honestly. But if the total was over some threshold (something like twenty dollars) they added two dollars. (You could actually catch it by adding the numbers on the tape yourself.)
These were deployed in a major grocery store. They are believed to have gotten away with several million before they were caught. Thinking is believed to have been that people with small shopping lists might add up the numbers themselves but those on a big shopping trip and a log tape won't bother because it would be too much work and machines don't error, do they?
Ron Paul supporters "spam" online polls ... but voting machines, far less sophisiticated than a 10th graders web codes ... are supposed to be unbreachable.
Ron Paul Billboards provides billboard and digital billboard designs for grassroots, PAC's and national and state level campaign organizations at no charge. Contact us at social@RonPaulBillboards.com to edit the design you choose with your "Paid for by:".
First, we have to assume that votes from the smaller 35 precincts are fairly representative of the overall population. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be.
Then all we have to do is treat the initial 20% of the vote as a random sample and plug in the numbers to figure out what the chances are that these reflect the actual percentages.
Basically, under these assumptions, use a population size of 26,175 total votes, and a sample size of 5142(the number of votes in the initial 35 small precincts) , and the margin of error is 1.23 percent within a 95% confidence range.
With Paul at 20.7% and Romney at 17.1% of the sample vote, it is virtually impossible for the real numbers to reflect a Romney win over Paul.
Not sure about your math, but these reports about SC had already come out but were swept under the rug of MSM attention between the Maine and Iowa stuff coming out.
In a letter dated Thursday, Wilson says the analysis found 953 ballots cast by voters listed as dead. In 71 percent of those cases, ballots were cast between two months and 76 months after the people died. That means they "voted" up to 6 1/3 years after their death. ...
I read this in my local paper, The Post and Courier, before the election even began, but it is possible they voted again. Also, is there a way to check my vote on the paper ballot records? I was first to vote at my electronic booth and second to vote overall at my precinct.
Again, I'm not willing to call foul ... But I'm sure suspicious. We need to grab ALL the available precinct level data we can get and store it in multiple locations. For 2008 and for 2012.
I mentioned earlier I'd do the same thing for Maine, my charts don't look as nice, but here's the one for all of Maine, Aggregated vote totals in Maine. I tried to use the same methodology as SC ????????.
The original data came from the official Maine GOP PDF. I used a targeted search to find it on Google, selected View as HTML and saved the entire page to my drive. From there a simple awk script converted the raw data to CSV.
The CSV was pulled into a spreadsheet, an accurate total column was added and used to sort the precincts by votes recorded. An Aggregate Total column was created and used for the chart above.
I also created a chart sorted by precinct vote totals instead of the aggregate totals. This should have probably been a scatter chart without the lines. Oh well.
Maine was a Caucus that did not involve machines, SC was a primary that did use electronic machines. Doing this analysis on Maine should not show up the same curve due to the chain of vote passing in Maine. In SC, an algorithm would have to be involved, not necessarily in Maine. NH or Florida would be a better comparison to look for similar anomolies, though I do not know if either use electronic voting machines.
I understand and picked Maine because machines weren't involved in the same way. I thought it might provide some contrast because of that. But Maine's caucus sites weren't supposed to publicly count the vote either, so the accountability is still in question and there have been serious questions about Maine's numbers as in at least one case RP and WMR were flipped when reported.
Someone please calculate standard deviation for the projected end result from the data after 35 precincts. PLEASE! I'm tired and can't remember how to do this. Statistician in the house?
From this, we can calculate the chances of both Paul and Romney achieving real totals multiple SD's from their projected totals. Gotta be off the charts.
Voter Machine tampering with the memory cards that contain a "living program" that activates when certain types of vote counts come in (ie a certain candidate's vote goes up and another goes down in direct correspondence) so that the TOTAL votes stays the same.
This video shows proof that all it takes is a preprogrammed code written ON to the actual memory card itself (nothing done to the actual voting machines) that favors a certain candidate and will change the votes in the way I describe above.
(function(){if(1){ var badges={ tw:{ src:"http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.html?via=dailypaul&url=", w:90 }, fb:{ src:"http://facebook.com/plugins/like.php?layout=button_count&show_faces=false&width=90&sdk=joey&href=", w:80 }, gp:{ src:"https://plusone.google.com/_/+1/fastbutton?&size=medium&count=true&hl=en-US&url=", w:70 }, su:{ src:"http://www.stumbleupon.com/badge/embed/1/?url=", w:75 }, re:{ src:"http://www.reddit.com/static/button/button1.html?newwindow=1&url=", w:100 } }, sh=20, sw=100, sty="", h=$("").addClass("soc"), n=0 for(var i in badges){ sty+=".soc ."+i+"{background-position: 50% -"+((n++)*sh)+"px;}" $("").addClass("sl "+i).appendTo(h) } $("").html(".node {margin: 1.5em 0em!important;}" +".soc{height:15px;display:inline-block;background:transparent;position:absolute;line-height:12px}" +".wider .soc,body .soc{left: -57px;top: 90px;width: "+(sw/2)+"px;height: "+(sh*n)+"px;overflow:hidden;}" +".taller .soc{left:0px!important;top:-17px!important;width:500px!important;}" +".soc.filled .sl{display:none}" +".wider .soc.filled,body .soc.filled{left:-105px;top:"+(sh*n)+"px;width:"+sw+"px;overflow:visible;}" +".soc .sl{ background-image: url(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-zn9xIpklRJI/TzbBY8FRf-I/AAAAAAAACjE/i1Zd5cN0swU/s100/); background-attachment: scroll; width: "+(sw/2)+"px; height: "+sh+"px; display:inline-block;}" +sty ).appendTo("head") $("#main .node") .each(function(){h.clone().prependTo(this)}) .mouseover(function(){ var me=$(this), holder=me.find(".soc"), nid=false, title=false, path=location.pathname, nidr=/\/(\d+)\//, urlnid=location.pathname.match(nidr), base="http://www.dailypaul.com" if(!holder.hasClass("filled")){ if(location.pathname=="/"){//frontpage var a=me.find("h2.title a"), href=a.attr("href") nid=href.match(nidr)[1] title=a.text() path=href } else if(urlnid){//node nid=urlnid[1] title=$("#main h1.title").text() } else{//custom url title=$("#main h1.title").text() nid=false } var url=base+path, eurl=encodeURIComponent(url), etitle=escape(title.replace(/Ron Paul/gi,"#RonPaul").replace(/[^\w\s\~\!\@\#\$\%\^\&\*\(\)\[\]\|\;\:\'\"\,\<\.\>\/\?]/g,'')), opts=eurl+"&text="+etitle //,miniurl="http://dailypaul.com/"+nid, for(var i in badges) $("") .attr({ "src":badges[i].src+opts, frameborder:0, scrolling:"no", allowtransparency:"true" }) .width(badges[i].w).height(sh) .appendTo(holder) holder.addClass("filled") me.unbind("mouseover") } }) } })() /* $("").html("" +".thinvote{background-imadge: url(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Pr_3M4e-XTQ/TiuWI7KhPII/AAAAAAAACNU/AoRTl2mHmhQ/s28/); background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #006; width: 65px; height: 20px; position: absolute; left: 00x; top: -16px; background-position: 50% 50%; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; color:white;font-size: 1.2em;line-height: 1em;text-align: center;font-family: Georgia;border: solid silver 1px;box-shadow: 0px 1px 6px rgba(0,0,0,.5);border-radius: 1em;background: -webkit-linear-gradient(left,#006 0%,#33A 50%,#006 100%);}" +".thinvote .up{float:right}" +".thinvote .down{float:left}" +".thinvote .aro{padding:.1em;}" +".thinvote .sum{font-size:1.0em;letter-spacing: -.1em;font-weight: bold;}" ).appendTo("head") $(".vud-widget").each(function(){ var was=$(this), n=was.parent().parent(), sum=was.find(".updown-current-score").text()*1, nu=$("").addClass("thinvote").html("" +""+sum+"" +"▼" +"▲" ) was.remove() nu.prependTo(n) })
document.context='Yjo1MDg2I2I6NTA4NiNiOjU4MzcjYjo1MDg2I2I6NTgzNyNiOjU0NTQjYjo1MDg2I2I6NTgzNyNiOjU0NTQjYjo1ODM0fA=='; google_protectAndRun("ads_core.google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);