Ben Swann wants data related to the algorithmic vote flipping!!

[Tyler_Durden]

He just tweeted:



"I have been reading these google docs on algorithmic vote flipping. Is this one person who has put all of this together? I know you all have ways of getting the word out... please have the originator of these charts contact via email bswann@fox19.com"

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

The people who have discovered the potential algorithmic vote flipping to contact him immediately @ bswann@fox19.com

He just posted this on his FB profile.

http://www.facebook.com/BenSwannRealityCheck

[sailingaway]

I hope people only send information that is supportable at least in a 'how do you explain this curiosity' sense. We've had some outright guesses and we don't want to just throw that around.

I truly don't understand the issue enough to judge it myself.

[PolicyReader]

I think whatever information we have we should give to him. We need to be very specific about how the conclusions were reached and how certain the information is and isn't as well as why. Ben is a high class reporter and he'll be able to get word out about factual contexts but we need to be sure we give him as much raw data (sans bias for or against there being vote flipping) as we have. I'm sure he has resources and fact checkers of his own, it's acid test time.

One of the reasons I respect Ben Swann so much is that he sticks to the facts and points out when something is conjecture/opinion vs tangible.
Let's give him the chance to do that here.

[oddtodd]

based on his other reporting im sure he will very thoroughly exam the data and make sure he agrees with the findings before he made a story out of it.

[Mark37snj]

Our purpose is and always has been to get this information into the hands of people who can take this investigation to the next level. Reporters, political activists, statisticians, PAC's, etc who can conduct/fund a proper, thorough, and unbiased investigation in a professional setting.


Plz download your own copy.

Significant Evidence of Algorithmic Vote Flipping in the 2012 GOP Primary

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJAC-sfXwumdkE4d0Y2eWtURTZ2eDM5RmlLc3ZhQQ/edit

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJAC-sfXwumRG01cl9hdlNReHFobWMyYXdLV2ZyUQ/edit

Evidence of Algorithmic Vote Flipping in GOP Primary Elections Layman's Executive Summary

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJAC-sfXwumZzI2bVlON2VTMnFyYVZZSnpDYnNyQQ/edit

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJAC-sfXwumc2NSLXJab0pRWXFiYnEwbnpKMEZUUQ/edit

Original South Carolina Google docs

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_wWkfsJPShUMWQxMTc2NzgtM2MzYy00ZGJhLWI1MmYtMWU2Z GU1OWZkZjhk/edit

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_wWkfsJPShUOGRmYjdlN2YtZDY5Zi00YjkwLTg3NDUtNDIwN jYwZjkyY2Iw/edit

[lurpol]

So who did put that document together? That's who Swann wants to talk to. Has anyone tried to get in contact with Nassim Taleb yet to see if he might go over the data now that he has endorsed Ron Paul? Maybe he'd do it if Ben Swann asked him about it..

[da32130]

THERE IS NO FRAUD, BEN PLEASE CONSIDER THE BELOW


Demographic Link - Part 3 - Virginia Beach City (VBC), VA 2012

background (includes links to parts 1 and 2)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?363915-We-NEED-more-hands-on-deck.-Significant-evidence-of-Algorithmic-vote-flipping.&p=4274995#post4274995

background on part 3

This analysis is in reply to affa's analysis of VBC and his response about my Part 1 on Arlington, VA.

Graphs

standard analysis (ordered by increasing precinct total vote)
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/6950/totalvote.jpg
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/6950/totalvote.jpg

obama analysis (ordered by decreasing Obama% vs McCain in 2008)
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/8600/obamary.jpg
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/8600/obamary.jpg

libertarian analysis - includes Barr (libertarian candidate) and also Baldwin (who Paul endorsed) (ordered by decreasing libertarian % vs McCain in 2008)
http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/7465/barrbaldwin.jpg
http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/7465/barrbaldwin.jpg

The t-stat for Obama on total vote is -7 (highly negatively correlated, tstats less than -2 or above 2 are usually meaningful). T-stat for libertarians on total vote is -4 (again highly negatively correlated)

Weighing each by their t-stat (obama 7 weight, libertarians 4 weight) the analysis is done again:
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/5920/obamabarrbald.jpg
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/5920/obamabarrbald.jpg

In essense the demographics explain virtually everything. In fact, explain more than looking at total vote based on the smoothness of the last curve.

What does the above look like at the precinct level. I'll give two extreme examples.

The top weighted area for Paul:

Precinct 93 (Newton)

Obama 1092 (Obama crushes McCain)
McCain 116
Barr+Baldwin 5 (almost 5% of the McCain vote, way above normal)

and this translates into

Paul 22 (an absolute drubbing of Romney)
Romney 1

Total Votes 23 (2nd lowest)

The bottom weighted area for Paul:

Precinct 10 (Great Neck)

Obama 647 (Obama gets crushed by McCain)
McCain 1563
Barr+Baldwin 7 (roughly .5% of McCain, 1/10 of where it was in Paul's best area)

and this translates into

Paul 98 (Yes, almost Paul's worst performance)
Romney 238

total votes 336 (the 4th highest vote total)

Everything in between is just a noisy variation on those extremes.

here is the data, look for yourself:
primary 2012
https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virginia.gov/election/DATA/2012/A64F1220-CC02-4DED-AB71-09E34ED36339/unofficial/00_p_810_A5DCD6FA-6694-4931-BBDB-D87E4356EC47.shtml

general 2008
https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virginia.gov/election/DATA/2008/07261AFC-9ED3-410F-B07D-84D014AB2C6B/Official/00_p_810_89BE12EC-7BBF-479C-935A-9B8C51DD3524.shtml

What about the late surge for Romney and decline for Paul in the total vote graph?

Notice how before this happens the data is flat. Why can't the surge just be a catch up for the flat period. It is a return to trend.

How about a demographic reason for the extreme shift? Here are the demographics for the 4 precincts right before the shift:

Obama 0.418421053
Libertarian 0.012242518

Here are the 4 right after the shift:
Obama 0.413868117
Libertarian 0.00691085

What happened? Obama was slightly less. But you had a libertarian collapse. So you would expect a surge from Romney.

Just to make this more clear. Here are the average and median libertarian percentage accross all precincts:
average 0.011127577
median 0.010805226

The the split marks where we went from above average to well below average libertarian areas. The declining Obama percentage only made it worse.

What about Arlington?

In Paul's best 5 areas here are the stats:

Paul 0.480692111
Obama 0.715668332
Libertarians 0.026650163
2012 turnout 117.6

In Paul's worst 5 areas:
Paul 0.234412571
Obama 0.603117985
Libertarian 0.015883676
2012 Turnout 216

Exactly as you would expect based on what I've told you.

Flaws in your Arlington analysis

Your whole analysis is dealing with absolute vote counts. Liberty's and RonRules graphs have always been about Paul's % declining, not absolute vote numbers declining.

The reason why Paul does best in Obama areas isn't because Paul's absolute number is higher, but because Romney's number plummets even more. So Paul's percentage is higher. This is right in line with Obama being inversely related to turnout

Conclusion: No Fraud. (affa, I don't mind if you do this either. I think it gives a good quick read for people.)

In both Arlington and Virginia Beach Paul's numbers are explained by demographics. Total precinct vote is actually a worse measure than demographics. Why? because the demographics are the driver. The total vote numbers are just correlated with the demographics.

[PolicyReader]

IMO all information and data crunching both pro and con should go to Ben, with the raw info included not just the conclusions. Good to have an independent set of eyes on it.

2c

[Esoteric]

NO BEN! Don't do it!! Seriously, there is NOTHING TO THIS beyond the fact that the more densely populated an area, the more likely it is to go toward Romney. This is a well established reality, and suggesting otherwise will make us sound like conspiratorial crackpots.

[da32130]

NO BEN! Don't do it!! Seriously, there is NOTHING TO THIS beyond the fact that the more densely populated an area, the more likely it is to go toward Romney. This is a well established reality, and suggesting otherwise will make us sound like conspiratorial crackpots.

Paul won the urban vote in VA. Dense population doesn't explain it. It is "not fraud" due to a voter turnout answer. Please see my above post.

[Hook]

Well, Ben needs to run the data past some professional PhD level statisticians to make sure that the conclusions are correct and not some idle theorizing. It is one thing to speculate on an Internet board, quite another to put your journalism reputation on the line by jumping to conclusions.

Make sure that he understands that he needs an independent expert that has no dog in this race look over the evidence.

[da32130]

Well, Ben needs to run the data past some professional PhD level statisticians to make sure that the conclusions are correct and not some idle theorizing. It is one thing to speculate on an Internet board, quite another to put your journalism reputation on the line by jumping to conclusions.

Make sure that he understands that he needs an independent expert that has no dog in this race look over the evidence.

Yes. Please do this.

[PolicyReader]

NO BEN! Don't do it!! Seriously, there is NOTHING TO THIS beyond the fact that the more densely populated an area, the more likely it is to go toward Romney. This is a well established reality, and suggesting otherwise will make us sound like conspiratorial crackpots.
If it's a well established reality then why doubt Ben would be able to discern that for himself and respond appropriately?

Hasn't he already proven his journalistic ability and clarity? I certainly think he has. Part of being a good reporter is looking at the information to reach a conclusion which would make your advice "not to do it" unsound as all he is trying to do at this point is look at the information.
That's his job as a reporter, he absolutely should do it. Just as he should only report what he finds to be factually accurate and supportable.

[jcannon98188]

Notice, he didn't ask for people to send him data. He has the data. He is asking for the originator of the data to contact him. That is all.

[affa]

I see the thread derailleurs from the main thread are already here.

Esoteric STILL doesn't even understand the issue has long been proved to have nothing whatsoever to do with density, but never actually reads, just posts. And da32130's debunk has been debunked, he's using ridiculous outliers and statistically insignificant factors (like Barr's averaging 6 votes a precinct) to define areas.

Is there fraud? Maybe. Sure looks like it. But read the thread for yourself, and at least try to understand the concepts being discussed before posting 'your theory'. We've been working for weeks on this, and have been vetting not only multiple states across multiple years, but even international elections. We've studied dense vs sparse, urban vs. rural, and McCain vs. Obama. So far, no debunk addresses the anomaly, but merely screams 'it's demographics', despite this repeatedly being shown not to be the case.

It's certainly possible this isn't fraud. But it's also quite likely we're onto something massive.

[da32130]

I see the thread derailleurs from the main thread are already here.

Esoteric STILL doesn't even understand the issue has long been proved to have nothing whatsoever to do with density, but never actually reads, just posts. And da32130's debunk has been debunked, he's using ridiculous outliers and statistically insignificant factors (like Barr's averaging 6 votes a precinct) to define areas.

Is there fraud? Maybe. Sure looks like it. But read the thread for yourself, and at least try to understand the concepts being discussed before posting 'your theory'. We've been working for weeks on this, and have been vetting not only multiple states across multiple years, but even international elections. We've studied dense vs sparse, urban vs. rural, and McCain vs. Obama. So far, no debunk addresses the anomaly, but merely screams 'it's demographics', despite this repeatedly being shown not to be the case.

It's certainly possible this isn't fraud. But it's also quite likely we're onto something massive.

Obviously, I disagree. I only ask that Ben sees both sides.

If only my case had been debunked.

Regarding Barr, if you believe a poll of a few hundred people can give an idea of what the beliefs are of an entire state, then maybe you also believe 1000 people in a county might give a demographic marker for how libertarian leaning the precincts within that county are. I believe they do.

Edit: It should be noted that if 22 people in one area vote one way and only 2 in another do so, the lack of votes IS information. The potential was there for a much higher vote total but it didn't happen. Why not? All else equal, probably because the demographics were different. There may be exceptions but over close to 100 precincts on average that should be reliable.

[EndTheFed]

Also let him know about the Alabama Candidate/Delegate discrepancy...

[1836]

http://0.tqn.com/d/specialchildren/1/0/B/e/87848221.jpg


A summary of my thoughts on the issue.

[phil4truth]

This is all above my head but you guys that have worked on this deserve a lot of credit if even just for your time and dedication. How can we ever lose with dedication like this and people like REVPAC doing such a fantastic job!

[wgadget]

That O'Keefe guy that went undercover to an ACORN office a few years ago is also looking for information about voter fraud in Vermont. Just a heads up.

[PolicyReader]

That O'Keefe guy that went undercover to an ACORN office a few years ago is also looking for information about voter fraud in Vermont. Just a heads up.
I'd avoid getting him involved, he's committed voter fraud this election (attempt to prove it could be done or not I don't think it's an association we'd benefit from credibility wise)

[da32130]

LATEST ANALYSIS

Demographic Link - Part 4 - South Carolina 2012

background (includes links to parts 1 and 2)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?363915-We-NEED-more-hands-on-deck.-Significant-evidence-of-Algorithmic-vote-flipping.&p=4274995#post4274995

part 3 - Virgina Beach City, VA 2012
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?363915-We-NEED-more-hands-on-deck.-Significant-evidence-of-Algorithmic-vote-flipping.&p=4279027#post4279027

background on part 4

This analysis is in reply to requests to explain Gingrich's 2012 South Carolina numbers (and should apply to Huckabee's 2008 numbers as well). It is to show that demographics can explain more than just the Paul, Huntsman, libertarians, and Obama relationships in our prior parts.

The hypothesis for this analysis was also alluded to in the initial background link above.

Standard Chart

standard analysis (using county data because demographic data is county data)
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/6950/totalvote.jpg
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/6950/totalvote.jpg

Regression Analysis

Unlike before I'm coming with the regressions 1st.

When we regressed the available demographic data turnout on we found:

O08P -4.20636
WHITE -0.02383 (highly correlated with Obama, without Obama becomes valuable)
INCOME 4.05716
popSQMILE 3.64639 (
OVER65% 4.53922
FEMALE% -2.13215

Over 2 or less than -2 means it is valuable.

The above is saying that Repub turnout is lower in Obama, poor, rural, younger, female areas.

Now lets look at exit polling:
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/sc

Newt does slightly better with Men than Romney (positive correlation with turnout)
Newt does significantly better with younger voters than Romney (negative correlation with turnout)
Newt does worse with indies than Romney (positive correlation with turnout-based on Obama)
Newt does much better with lower income voters than Romney (negative correlation with turnout)
Newt does much better as population becomes rural vs urban than Romney (negative correlatio with turnout)

So there is a bit of a mixed bag. 3 negatives and 2 positives. However, all positives and negatives aren't created equal. Below we give graphs of each factor. We then give a weighted graph based on the t-stats above. The weighted graph is a demographic based demonstration of what causes turnout.







http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6144/sqmile.jpg
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6144/sqmile.jpg

(notice this graph is actually the opposite of what you would expect for Gingrich, this is due to Paul and Santorum being even more popular in the younger demo than Gingrich)
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/2715/over65percent.jpg
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/2715/over65percent.jpg

http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/2664/obamag.jpg
http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/2664/obamag.jpg

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/6295/incomer.jpg
http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/6295/incomer.jpg

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/8123/femaled.jpg
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/8123/femaled.jpg


-------------
This is the weighted graph:

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/6448/weighted.jpg
http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/6448/weighted.jpg

What that weighted graph shows is that the demographics that are driving turnout are also driving Newts fall as turnout rises.

There is no need for a vote flipping explanation.

Conclusion: no fraud

The demographics that are driving turnout are also driving Newts fall as turnout rises.

This shows that demographics can explain not only Paul and Huntsman, but can also explain other candidates.

We believe there is no reason to expect they can't explain other states as well.

To prove fraud one must adjust for these demographics. A downwardly or upwardly sloped graph isn't proof. Only if it contradicts the demographics is there a potential for fraud.

[Mark37snj]

The number of people viewing the Google docs has increased 2-3 times it's normal rate. :)



Plz download your own copy.

Significant Evidence of Algorithmic Vote Flipping in the 2012 GOP Primary

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJAC-sfXwumdkE4d0Y2eWtURTZ2eDM5RmlLc3ZhQQ/edit

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJAC-sfXwumRG01cl9hdlNReHFobWMyYXdLV2ZyUQ/edit

Evidence of Algorithmic Vote Flipping in GOP Primary Elections Layman's Executive Summary

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJAC-sfXwumZzI2bVlON2VTMnFyYVZZSnpDYnNyQQ/edit

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJAC-sfXwumc2NSLXJab0pRWXFiYnEwbnpKMEZUUQ/edit

Original South Carolina Google docs

Part 1 - https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_wWkfsJPShUMWQxMTc2NzgtM2MzYy00ZGJhLWI1MmYtMWU2Z GU1OWZkZjhk/edit

Part 2 - https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_wWkfsJPShUOGRmYjdlN2YtZDY5Zi00YjkwLTg3NDUtNDIwN jYwZjkyY2Iw/edit

[bbwarfield]

The number of people viewing the Google docs has increased 2-3 times it's normal rate. :)



Plz download your own copy.

Significant Evidence of Algorithmic Vote Flipping in the 2012 GOP Primary

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJAC-sfXwumdkE4d0Y2eWtURTZ2eDM5RmlLc3ZhQQ/edit

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJAC-sfXwumRG01cl9hdlNReHFobWMyYXdLV2ZyUQ/edit

Evidence of Algorithmic Vote Flipping in GOP Primary Elections Layman's Executive Summary

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJAC-sfXwumZzI2bVlON2VTMnFyYVZZSnpDYnNyQQ/edit

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJAC-sfXwumc2NSLXJab0pRWXFiYnEwbnpKMEZUUQ/edit

Original South Carolina Google docs

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_wWkfsJPShUMWQxMTc2NzgtM2MzYy00ZGJhLWI1MmYtMWU2Z GU1OWZkZjhk/edit

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_wWkfsJPShUOGRmYjdlN2YtZDY5Zi00YjkwLTg3NDUtNDIwN jYwZjkyY2Iw/edit


ummm.... these are still open for editing by the general public? you should probly lock them so someone doesnt just post a ton of internet meme's on them

[Mark37snj]

ummm.... these are still open for editing by the general public? you should probly lock them so someone doesnt just post a ton of internet meme's on them

The Thread Summary and Executive Summary are open to viewing and downloading by the public but no one can alter them. I did not upload the original SC Google docs so I have no control over them.

EDIT: One of the summaries does say "This doc is read-only because there are too many people editing right now." But I think that is a glitch when traffic is high, it has happened several times before. The only people who are allowed to alter Google docs are those who have been given Editor status, which no one has, and the Owner and they are now set to only allow the Owner and the docs to alter them.

[KingNothing]

The Thread Summary and Executive Summary are open to viewing and downloading by the public but no one can alter them. I did not upload the original SC Google docs so I have no control over them.

If I weren't a prince among the nonprincely, I would just post a giant "I Want to Believe" picture over that document.

:)

[dr.k.research]

I have been reading these google docs on algorithmic vote flipping. Is this one person who has put all of this together? I know you all have ways of getting the word out... please have the originator of these charts contact via email bswann@fox19.com"


Note: just served the State of Wisconsin by process server with a 30-page document regarding the algorithmic vote flipping data, with emphasis on anomalies in Dane County, plus a complaint about being forced out of a Milwaukee polling building while doing an exit poll. Included in the complaint are reports by the Waukesha County Clerk that ballots were thrown away from the April 3rd primary, with up to a 10% loss. This is all served as of today and tomorrow. Overseas, now, but would be happy to talk to him: put me in touch, drkresearch@hotmail.com.

[kathy88]

Note: just served the State of Wisconsin by process server with a 30-page document regarding the algorithmic vote flipping data, with emphasis on anomalies in Dane County, plus a complaint about being forced out of a Milwaukee polling building while doing an exit poll. Included in the complaint are reports by the Waukesha County Clerk that ballots were thrown away from the April 3rd primary, with up to a 10% loss. This is all served as of today and tomorrow. Overseas, now, but would be happy to talk to him: put me in touch, drkresearch@hotmail.com.

My. New. Hero. Hands. Down.

[jbauer]

It can't hurt to have other eyes look at it. I hope Ben is able to do it with a clear and unbiased viewpoint. Or at the very least get it to someone who can.

I think "some" of the anomolyes can be explained by demographics but not to the extent that is be illistrated.