Anomaly West Virginia Primary-RP loses hundreds of votes

[Carole]

Sorry to post this here, but I had asked for and not recieved a West Virginia primary thread on this board.

I took screen shots of the results last night and this jumped out at me. I tried to post last night but cable tv booted me offline and I was too tired to follow up at the time.

If someone knows how to post the pictures online, I can email it to you, as I do not know how to get my pictures online.

I sent along to meetup group also.

Raleigh County, W. Va. anomaly in results

Raleigh County 79% reporting:

McInSane 60% 2187 votes
Ron Paul 27% 983 votes
Huckabee 10% 357 votes


Raleigh County 100% reporting:

McInSane 79% 2774 votes
Huckabee 13% 462 votes
Ron Paul 3% 116 votes


983-116=867 votes lost by Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!!!! :eek:

[Phantom]

Hi Carole

Upload the images to photobucket (http://photobucket.com/)

[LittleLightShining]

:confused: :rolleyes: :mad:

[Carole]

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm33/Quiltskate/Raleigh79RP27.jpg[IMG]http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm33/Quiltskate/Raleigh-RPlostseveralhundredvotes10.jpg[/IMG

[IMG][IMG]http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm33/Quiltskate/Raleigh-RPlostseveralhundredvotes10.jpg

Hope this works.

It looks as though the machine accidentally allowed the "real" vote result to get online before it "rearranged" the result for public viewing. :D

They use scanners here with a "paper" trail in the computer. No paper receipt for the voter, just the inaccessible receipt in the computer.

McInSane was not doing so well, then suddenly he was doing great!!

[pendragon]

Carole - on what site did you see Raleigh County with 79% reporting?

[Phantom]

That looks like a blatant scam of votes from Ron Paul.

I just added a link to this post on the Daily Paul (http://www.dailypaul.com/node/49044)

[Carole]

CNN Election results.

I also went to politico but they did not show any Republican results on maps, only the Dems.

[mwhitlock]

So let's see, the vote tallies for McCain and Huckabee increased 26.8% and 29.4%, respectively-- about what would be expected from the final 25% of precincts reporting in. But the vote tally for Ron Paul decreased 88.2%. WTF!

I'm sure when they're called on this, it will be passed off as an error in human transcription of the numbers from one sheet to another, but come on! It's not even like Ron Paul was threatening to win the county. They just couldn't stand to see him beat Huckleberry so thoroughly.

[Carole]

These are machines. Why would they need human transcription?

Just hit the print button sounds easier. :)

In the very early days, when voting machines were still newish, they used the modem method of changing the vote count. There is a long-winded story about this happening in Kanawha County, West Virginia some years back. There was a big lawsuit, but the PTB survived.

[tonyr1988]

This happens quite frequently, actually.

Does anyone remember when this happened in Iowa? Giuliani had a huge surge of votes, where he was beating Paul by a decent margin. Then he lost hundreds (if not thousands) of votes, dropping below Paul again.

Why weren't we crying fraud then? It was even bigger than this.

[mwhitlock]

These are machines. Why would they need human transcription?
The machines in each precinct tally the votes and print out the counts on a slip of paper. Then the poll worker(s) call the counts in. Even if the machine has not been tampered with, the person calling in the count could lie. And even if the person calling in doesn't lie, the person being called and recording the counts on the master sheet could write down the wrong numbers. There are plenty of places for fraud in the system besides inside the voting machines.

[mdmarino]

And even if the person calling in doesn't lie, the person being called and recording the counts on the master sheet could write down the wrong numbers. There are plenty of places for fraud in the system besides inside the voting machines.

Very true. I've worked at the AP (from whence outfits like CNN get their election results) on election nights, and the room for human error is considerable. A stringer out in the field will call in to an AP field office to report the results. Another person will type the numbers reported by the stringer into a computer database. It's likely that the # at the 10:04pm time was simply typed into the computer incorrectly (98 votes would've made more sense given the total of the final voting population). If it was, in fact, supposed to have been 98 votes (instead of 983) for RP, and the others for McCain and Huck were right, then that total (2642) does add up to about 79% of the recorded "final" total of 3352 (if you count it up on http://www.wvvotes5.com/results-county.php?county=Raleigh&doCounty=View). (Sorry if that didn't make sense...it did in my head)

What we can't be sure of is the total ACTUAL number of votes from that county - only what we can see on these sites (WVvotes and CNN).

Not saying that fraud ISN'T possible, but the most likely explanation is human error. I know - it's noisy in those rooms and the phone connections with the stringers aren't always great. It's easy to make an entry error and then notice later that it's wrong.

[spacehabitats]

This happens quite frequently, actually.

Does anyone remember when this happened in Iowa? Giuliani had a huge surge of votes, where he was beating Paul by a decent margin. Then he lost hundreds (if not thousands) of votes, dropping below Paul again.

Why weren't we crying fraud then? It was even bigger than this.

And maybe it is because there has not been a systematic and relentless pattern of media bias against Ron Paul throughout this campaign WHICH GIULIANI NEVER SUFFERED.

Just pointing out the obvious.

[JulioForPaul]

This happens a lot. With Guiliani they added an extra digit to his totals on accident. Very likely the same happened here with Paul. Instead of having ~900 votes he really probably had ~90 votes in this county.

[devil21]

I can't count the number of times Ive observed RP lose votes during the online update like that. But of course, everytime I point it out someone calls me a conspiracy theorist and that I imagined it. Good to see someone got evidence of what Ive seen in a bunch of states throughout this entire election.

[kigol]

:(

[rathskeller]

Sorry, but you would have to be in a coma the last 3 months to think that Ron Paul had 27% of the votes with 79% reporting.

I know everyone wants ot beleive that throughout the entire primary season that Ron Paul has been getting 30% of the votes in every state and winnning some, but that simply is not the case. Harping on that just makes you look crazy.

Andhere is some food for thought...all these conpsiracies that you bring up...you ever notice htat YOU ar complaining, but Ron Paul isn't? That maybe...just MAYBE could be due to the fact that this is not his first election process like it is for so many of you. He knows of these normal occurrences and knows that they are not fraud or anything.

He had the most to lose, and therefore hte most to gain to call attention to it if there was anything to it. the fact that he didn't should be enough for you. Umless you are online today calling Ron Paul an idiot. So tell me...is that what you are doing? If so...HOW DARE YOU! You are going to hell!

[tomveil]

Sorry, but you would have to be in a coma the last 3 months to think that Ron Paul had 27% of the votes with 79% reporting.



Why? We've had counties that high. Raliegh is a college town. Seems reasonable to me.

[devil21]

Sorry, but you would have to be in a coma the last 3 months to think that Ron Paul had 27% of the votes with 79% reporting.

I know everyone wants ot beleive that throughout the entire primary season that Ron Paul has been getting 30% of hte votes in every state and winnning some, but that simply is not the case. Harping on that just makes you look crazy.

Thanks for proving my point with the "crazy" comment. This has happened over and over again and it only happens to RON PAUL. Why? Who said anything about 30% in every state? Many of us have had a hard time believing "5%" is his support in state after state when those numbers rarely match what's observed on the ground. You can get a big swing in numbers by simply taking away a vote for Paul and applying it to someone else's total. Do that enough and Paul's 10% becomes 5% while the other guy's 15% becomes 20%. A 15% swing just from moving half of one person's total to another's total! It's not hard to manipulate. And it's been observed too many times by too many people.

[mdmarino]

This has happened over and over again and it only happens to RON PAUL.

Someone just mentioned that this same thing happened to Giuliani in Iowa. I don't remember this, but of course, I wasn't LOOKING for discrepancies in Giuliani's count. I think we might be seeing discrepancies in Paul's vote because we're all paying particular attention to his results. That's a form of observer bias. I bet if we had been paying closer attention, we'd find this happens for the other candidates as well.


You can get a big swing in numbers by simply taking away a vote for Paul and applying it to someone else's total.
In the Raleigh County case, add up the final vote totals. The total# of votes with 79% reporting equal a higher number (3527) than the totals with 100% reporting (3352). So...unless someone just "lost" over 200 votes, those votes weren't just taken from RP and given to somebody else. If they had just been reattributed to another candidate, there should've been much more than 3352 final votes.

A typographical error is still the most likely explanation. Not making excuses, just trying to use my powers of logic and reason. I WISH RP was getting more than 5%, but that percentage is consistent with his results in most of the other primaries.

[kathy88]

Sorry, but you would have to be in a coma the last 3 months to think that Ron Paul had 27% of the votes with 79% reporting.

I know everyone wants ot beleive that throughout the entire primary season that Ron Paul has been getting 30% of the votes in every state and winnning some, but that simply is not the case. Harping on that just makes you look crazy.

Andhere is some food for thought...all these conpsiracies that you bring up...you ever notice htat YOU ar complaining, but Ron Paul isn't? That maybe...just MAYBE could be due to the fact that this is not his first election process like it is for so many of you. He knows of these normal occurrences and knows that they are not fraud or anything.

He had the most to lose, and therefore hte most to gain to call attention to it if there was anything to it. the fact that he didn't should be enough for you. Umless you are online today calling Ron Paul an idiot. So tell me...is that what you are doing? If so...HOW DARE YOU! You are going to hell!



Why are you here?

[mdh]

Raleigh county is a part of a traditionally difficult area for us, I'd be surprised if we did so shockingly much better there than in our strongholds of Monongalia, Berkeley, Jefferson, Lewis, and Calhoun counties.

[Lord Xar]

Sorry, but you would have to be in a coma the last 3 months to think that Ron Paul had 27% of the votes with 79% reporting.

I know everyone wants ot beleive that throughout the entire primary season that Ron Paul has been getting 30% of the votes in every state and winnning some, but that simply is not the case. Harping on that just makes you look crazy.

Andhere is some food for thought...all these conpsiracies that you bring up...you ever notice htat YOU ar complaining, but Ron Paul isn't? That maybe...just MAYBE could be due to the fact that this is not his first election process like it is for so many of you. He knows of these normal occurrences and knows that they are not fraud or anything.

He had the most to lose, and therefore hte most to gain to call attention to it if there was anything to it. the fact that he didn't should be enough for you. Umless you are online today calling Ron Paul an idiot. So tell me...is that what you are doing? If so...HOW DARE YOU! You are going to hell!

Hi Rath,

Look at the screenshots. What else you need, a written dispostion?

hmmmm. Uhmmm. why are you here again? Oh, yeah... you are here because of the following reasons:
1. U are a socialist and the idea of people being responsible for themselves gives you night sweats.
2. You are a fair weather republican who does not know much about being a republican, other than what the corrupt special interests hacks tell you.
3. You LOVE that we are bombing those dirty towelheads irregardless of a reason. You just want American soliders to die for a "special interest" cause.

Also, to the previous poster suggesting these things happen when "rudy" was surging then lost. One thing many of you sherlock holm types aren't getting. A VOTE is A VOTE is A VOTE. If I say you have 5 votes, then end up with 3. Its not that you surged then lost momentum. You surged AND THEN YOU WERE ROBBED>

Votes are missing. Get it?

How do GET votes, and then "magically" have "less" votes. One can have the argument that he had an early surge, then faltered - but if that is the case, he should end up with what he had, not LESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Uhmm... yeah.

[pendragon]

our numbers were and are consistent from county to county...

did anyone else besides CNN report 983 votes for RP in Raleigh County?
the wvvotes5.com/ SoS Election Results site?
the wvmetronews.com/election/ site?

I think CNN just goofed - they do that (that and other things of course)

Metro News goofed with Spike's race - for a good 30 minutes they had him winning state-wide by a very wide margin, but nobody's county by county numbers added up to their state-wide number

[MelissaWV]

Look at the screenshots. What else you need, a written dispostion?

Also, to the previous poster suggesting these things happen when "rudy" was surging then lost. One thing many of you sherlock holm types aren't getting. A VOTE is A VOTE is A VOTE. If I say you have 5 votes, then end up with 3. Its not that you surged then lost momentum. You surged AND THEN YOU WERE ROBBED>

Votes are missing. Get it?

How do GET votes, and then "magically" have "less" votes. One can have the argument that he had an early surge, then faltered - but if that is the case, he should end up with what he had, not LESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Uhmm... yeah.

It's not "you have five votes and then you end up with three". What would you say if you expected to get, say, 10 votes... and then suddenly you had 90, and then oh wait you have 9. Is it completely impossible, in your mind, that someone hit "90" instead of "9" by mistake? MUST there always be a conspiracy, or can it also be the simplest answer is also the most likely?

Don't make fun of people merely for bringing up the point that it is more likely a typographical error than it is some concerted effort to deprive Dr. Paul of a few votes that (btw) don't actually even change the outcome, as this is winner take all. There have been similar fluctuations in other candidates' "in progress" reporting throughout the entirety of the election season.

[devil21]

Someone just mentioned that this same thing happened to Giuliani in Iowa. I don't remember this, but of course, I wasn't LOOKING for discrepancies in Giuliani's count. I think we might be seeing discrepancies in Paul's vote because we're all paying particular attention to his results. That's a form of observer bias. I bet if we had been paying closer attention, we'd find this happens for the other candidates as well.

I remember that. RP was showing as kicking Rudy's ass in a particular county then they just juxtaposed the numbers from RP to Rudy and vice versa. That was a case of the numbers accidentally being reversed. That was entirely different and it was obvious what happened. Regarding observer bias, I thought of that as well...BUT...I rarely watch the county by county results but rather focus on the overall state totals. It's much easier to see all the candidates results side by side and get a "big picture". Think what you want but Ive seen this happen over and over and it's only RP that ever loses votes as the precinct% goes up.

[Carole]

Rathskeller said:

"Sorry, but you would have to be in a coma the last 3 months to think that Ron Paul had 27% of the votes with 79% reporting.

I know everyone wants ot beleive that throughout the entire primary season that Ron Paul has been getting 30% of the votes in every state and winnning some, but that simply is not the case. Harping on that just makes you look crazy.

Andhere is some food for thought...all these conpsiracies that you bring up...you ever notice htat YOU ar complaining, but Ron Paul isn't? That maybe...just MAYBE could be due to the fact that this is not his first election process like it is for so many of you. He knows of these normal occurrences and knows that they are not fraud or anything.

He had the most to lose, and therefore hte most to gain to call attention to it if there was anything to it. the fact that he didn't should be enough for you. Umless you are online today calling Ron Paul an idiot. So tell me...is that what you are doing? If so...HOW DARE YOU! You are going to hell!"

Excuse me, but I merely pointed out an anomaly in one county. I did not say anything about raising a huge stink over it.

I have seen and captured other anomalies in other states as well. Yes, I do believe there have been a lot of shenanigans during this primary. One has only to follow the state conventions to see that.

However, it is not a bad thing to document anything we come across, if for no other reason than for future reference and to try to get paper ballots and/or voting receipts for future elections.

I realize Dr. Paul would not make a big deal over these anomalies. It is expensive and gains him nothing. But I refuse to simply ignore and bury them like the neocons. I have done nothing to insult him so back off.

If no one ever documents them, there is no way to ever convince an apathetic public to become more aware.

So if this offends you, I am sorry, but it is a matter of principle to me. We have become a banana republic in what should be the most free land in the world. That means something to me. This election was my first opportunity in my entire life to vote for principle. It is painful to see how corrupt the system really is from top to bottom.

I believe Dr. Paul's numbers all along were better than the results have shown, so it not totally out of the question that I point out this anomaly.

Please do not attack me for noting what we began to find in New Hampshire and other early states.

[Carole]

Iowa information:

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm33/Quiltskate/Politics/Iowa41percentprecintsin.jpg


http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm33/Quiltskate/Politics/Iowa96percentprecintsin.jpg