Evidence Against Algorithmic Vote Flipping (no fraud) [Archive]

da32130

03-28-2012, 04:08 PM

This thread is created to bring this to grassroots central with new Parts added. Since the other pro flipping posters have created a new thread.

------------------------------------

post without data at bottom

Part 5: How to prove flipping

There has been some confusion about what our demographic graphs mean. And why we feel they are so damaging to the fipping case. I will provide an alternate analysis that hopefully will clear up that confusion. Data is located at bottom

SUmmary: no fraud

The demographic data we have eliminates the vote flipping in the areas it should. We have no reason to believe the same won't be true in other areas when the relevant demographic data is available.

How to prove fraud

In order to show there exists vote flipping you need:
1) total precinct vote to be meaningful on voting results (can be shown in graph or regression form)
2) it needs to remain meaningful even adjusting for demographics (demographics predict total precinct vote, so we would expect total precinct vote to predict voting results in candidates where demographics matter, so unadjusted data doesn't say much)

What do current results tell us

At the county level in SC (nice demographic data) and NH (just indie/dem turnout and libertarian turnout to explain Paul,Huntsman,Romney) step 2) eliminates the value from total precinct vote. So no fraud evidence at the county level.

At the precinct level in SC we have no demographic data to explain Romney and Gingrich. So step 2) can't even take place.

At the precinct level in NH and VA we have indie/dem turnout and libertarian turnout to explain Paul,Huntsman,Romney. This should capture a lot, but isn't a complete demographic analysis. What it misses is exactly what is needed in SC: Income,Age,etc info to separate highly republican areas from eachother. These areas have the greatest turnout and are typically located at the far right in graphs. Based on exit polling we would expect Romney to due unusually well in the highest turnout of the republican areas because they have wealthy older voters who are likely to vote.

How to adjust total precinct vote.

regression:
1) regress demographics and total precinct vote on Romney%, etc

graph:
1) regress demographics on total precinct vote
2) take total precinct vote and subtract the regression result to get the errors
3) do the standard graph but replace total precinct vote with the errors from above

If romney is correlated with the errors it means 1) vote flipping or 2) missing demographics

What are the results for NH and VBC?

Given the insufficient demographic data it isn't a surprise that regression analysis still gives total precinct vote some value. Below we have graphs that show what that value is.

VBC
standard:
http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/2003/vbctv.jpg
http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/2003/vbctv.jpg

total precinct vote excluding impact from available demographic factors (in theory even more would make this chart flatter)
http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/5892/vbcexdem.jpg
http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/5892/vbcexdem.jpg

NH
standard:
http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/9431/nhtv.jpg
http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/9431/nhtv.jpg

total precinct vote excluding impact from available demographic factors (in theory even more would make this chart flatter)
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/7772/nhexdem.jpg
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/7772/nhexdem.jpg

So essentially the limited demographic data we have eliminates the value in 85-90% of precincts and in the exact areas we would expect.

Conclusion: no fraud

The demographic data we have eliminates the vote flipping in the areas it should. We have no reason to believe the same won't be true in other areas when the relevant demographic data is available.

------------- review of what data tells us right now:

At the county level in SC (nice demographic data) and NH (just indie/dem turnout and libertarian turnout to explain Paul,Huntsman,Romney) step 2) eliminates the value from total precinct vote. So no fraud evidence at the county level.

At the precinct level in SC we have no demographic data to explain Romney and Gingrich. So step 2) can't even take place.

At the precinct level in NH and VA we have indie/dem turnout and libertarian turnout to explain Paul,Huntsman,Romney. This should capture a lot, but isn't a complete demographic analysis. What it misses is exactly what is needed in SC: Income,Age,etc info to separate highly republican areas from eachother. These areas have the greatest turnout and are typically located at the far right in graphs. Based on exit polling we would expect Romney to due unusually well in the highest turnout of the republican areas because they have wealthy older voters who are likely to vote.

da32130

03-28-2012, 04:10 PM

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.

Summary: 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 (The initial vote flipper theory cited the downward slope as the primary evidence for fraud). Only if it contradicts the demographics is there a potential for fraud.

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.

da32130

03-28-2012, 04:11 PM

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.

da32130

03-28-2012, 04:12 PM

Demographic Links - Part 2
New Hampshire

Standard Analysis
http://i.imgur.com/NO2Al.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/NO2Al.jpg

Obama % (hurts huntsman)
http://i.imgur.com/we76k.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/we76k.jpg

Paul not hurt using Obama, maybe due to huntsman. An alternative the relative performance of Barr (libertarians) in 2008 vs McCain. While in a general election libertarians are only a few percent the data should pick up demographic information that would enhance Paul's turnout. The following graph includes that in the standard analysis.

Libertarian vs McCain full
http://i.imgur.com/PEWMh.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/PEWMh.jpg

There is a lot of noise in the first half. Using just the second half brings out some clear trends. Barr and McCain (normalized for vote %) exhibit the same behavior as Paul and Romney.

Lib (barr) vs McCain last half
http://i.imgur.com/AJpDd.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/AJpDd.jpg

Combining both Obama and Libertarian turnout explains the 2nd half fall of Paul and Huntsman. The 1st half is muddier but there are no clear indications of fraud.

Conclusion NH: no fraud

I welcome feedback. The conclusion is just based on this analysis. Although, I believe it is likely future analysis will back this up in other states, etc.

da32130

03-28-2012, 04:13 PM

Demographic Link Found

The first graph is the standard analysis with downward sloping ending vote totals for Paul:
http://i.imgur.com/shYwJ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/shYwJ.jpg

This second graph is the cumulative vote total for Paul but starting with the precincts with the highest Obama percentage vs McCain in 2008.
http://i.imgur.com/7Cw11.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/7Cw11.jpg

The reason why they are so close is that Obama 2008 % is negatively correlated with republican turnout in VA for 2012.

The t-stat on Obama 2008 % as a forecast for total Republican votes in VA for 2012 is -3.51.

The t-stat for Paul 2012 % is -3.72.

If you look at the turnout % of the primary vs the general the Obama 2008 % t-stat is -8.9, while for Paul 2012 % it is -3.47.

So when Obama does well in an area you can imply that Republican turnout is lower and Paul should better in that area. Creating the anomaly of the downward slope to Paul vote % as turnout is higher.

I would encourage others to replicate my analysis on the most damning evidence of fraud. Alternatively, I may be willing to do so as well.

Conclusion: No fraud. Just low turnout in Obama and Paul friendly areas.

da32130

03-28-2012, 04:13 PM

umm... I just see "no fraud" bolded everywhere, but no real explanation... I'm also pretty sure we weren't exactly looking for FRAUD, since fraud is a very broad word for what is possible to view through statistics. I'm sorry I couldn't go through every post of the last 10 pages, can we just have a clean discussion about each side of the argument?

soulcyon,

I've tried to give a beginner's summary of what is going on.

Background

As precinct (one step smaller than a county, each county has many precincts, each state has many counties) vote totals rises Paul's cumulative percentage falls in many places. Essentially he does better in precincts where there are less total votes. While getting crushed where precinct vote totals are the largest.

The candidate who typically gains from this is Romney. Whos cumulative percentage rises as precincts get larger.

This could be fraud if votes are flipped from Paul to Romney once turnout is high enough.

Why it matters

If there isn't a demographic link for the total vote percentage different then it would be a case were in states like NH, Iowa, SC, and VA Paul would have lost 5,10,15% + relative to Romney. In some cases deciding the election.

Demographic Link

I think it has been agreed upon that if there is no demographic link to explain varying total votes in precincts then fraud is highly likely.

Assuming precincts are all roughly the same size an urban/rural divide doesn't explain the differing percentages (although this could be looked into more).

VA

What I have found is that in places like VA the total vote in a Republican Primary is inversely proporational to how well Obama did in a precinct during the 2008 general election vs McCain. My conclusion is that the best precincts for Obama have the fewest Republicans. So in a Republican Primary those areas will have the smallest vote total.

It well known through exit polling Paul does best with Independent voters and Dems relative to the other candidate but struggles with the Republican base. So if Paul voters are more likely to turn up in Obama precincts they are likely competing against fewer Republican voters than in a more Republican precinct. Hence the vote % for Paul will decline as total vote rises.

NH

In NH both Paul and Huntsman are hurt relative to Romney as total vote rises.

Looking at exit polling Huntsman's main demographic was Indies and Dems. With almost no Repub support. So it wasn't surprising when we found his % fell dramtically as you moved into less favorable areas for Obama.

Huntsman made the impact on Paul from Obama less (although still there). However, there was also a probably more important link made between Libertarian turnout vs Republican turnout. Using 2008 General election results, we found libertarian turnout lags in the areas where Republican turnout rises based on 2012 primary results. Since Paul is highly correlated with the libertarian demographic (areas where this demographic is stronger enables Paul to do better, the Libertarian party vote is a proxy for this) it would make sense that Paul's percentages would also lag as Republican turnout rises.

In combination, both the Huntsman and Paul numbers can be explained by Demographic features.

Other States

I believe these same type of analysis should explain the other states.

Other Candidates

In SC in 2008 it has been stated that Huckabee was also hurt by McCain in the same was Paul was hurt by Romney in many states in 2012 (these same results were also found in 2008 for Paul). While I haven't looked into this in depth my theory is that Huckabee caters to lower income voters that are more prominent in Obama areas than the wealthy McCain establishment voters. Hence an Obama correlation may exist, but for different reasons than Paul.

Conclusion

Demographic reasons such as Indie and Dem turnout relative to Republican turnout explain Huntsman's and Paul's declining cumulative vote percentage as a function of total precinct votes, which are correlated strongly with Republican turnout. Libertarian (not party, but belief system) concentration and turnout is also responsible for Paul's declining cumulative vote percentage. As the libertarian turnout falls relative to Republican turnout it is expected that Paul's percentage would also fall.

Based on the above I believe there is likely no total vote turnout fraud. Other fraud may exist, but the potential total vote turnout fraud was unusual for its dramatic impact on final results.

Appendix

Part I (VA)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?363915-We-NEED-more-hands-on-deck.-Significant-evidence-of-Algorithmic-vote-flipping.&p=4269744#post4269744

Part II (NH)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?363915-We-NEED-more-hands-on-deck.-Significant-evidence-of-Algorithmic-vote-flipping.&p=4272227#post4272227

da32130

03-28-2012, 04:15 PM

FAQ

1) Are the libertarian votes in your analysis for NH (part 2) and for VA (part 3) too small to matter?

This is incorrect.

In NH there were 2748 votes over 305 precincts. The high was 75 and the low was 0. That is a range of 75 votes. Plenty for analysis. At best some of the smaller precincts are noisy, but the largers ones give a clear trend.

In VBC there were 1029 votes over 96 areas. The most was 22. And the two lowest were 0 and 2. With the rest in between. Plenty for analysis.

Just because a vote count in an area is 0,1,2,3,4,5 doesn't mean that isn't information. If the range is from 0-65 (NH), or 0-22 (VBC), falling anywhere along that range is informative. Because the best areas give 22 (or whatever the max percent is).

If you had a wealth cut off (1 million, 5 million, 10 million, or whatever works) that produced the same distribution I have with libertarians, it would give clues as to which areas wealthy people lived in.

The fact is the data works and performs exactly as expected.

2) Why not just use Barr?

In NH, Barr and Phillies are related. They are both libertarian.

In VA, Barr and Baldwin are related. Barr is a libertarian and Paul endorsed Baldwin.

They also add more data to the analysis giving us greater confidence in the results. However, the results are similar if we used just Barr.

da32130

03-28-2012, 04:31 PM

Analysis of Alabama, delegate fraud. Could be just voters note voting for correct delegates. So Candidates revert to mean. (all move closer to the average delegate vote total)

****************************
Tuscaloosa - U of A Student Rec
*************************

Gingrich
Range 38-30
Candidate Total 30

Paul
Range 29-24
Candidate Total 26

Romney
Range 48-32
Candidate Total 53

Santorum
Range 35-30
Candidate Total 34

****************************
Tuscaloosa - Green Acres Health
*************************

Gingrich
Range 4-3
Candidate Total 1

Paul
Range 5-4
Candidate Total 4

Romney
Range 4-3 (a single 4, in the middle)
Candidate Total 3

Santorum
Range 9-8
Candidate Total 10

*******************
********************
********************

I was on the "wow, Alabama Fraud" side 2 days ago, but yesterday I did a bunch of research.

Anyway.

Some things to consider.

1) The "idiot effect" will effect candidates with fewer votes more than candidates with more votes.

2) The "idiot effect" will effect candidate at the top of the ballot more than the candidate at the bottom. From most to least, that's Gingrich, Paul, Romney, Santorum.

3) The "idiot effect" will effect least the candidate with the most idiots voting for them.

You will have a hard time finding instances where Santorum has more delegate votes, than votes for him. Not saying that Santorums voters are the idiots, of course.

I don't want to pick these numbers apart in great detail. I think that there are slightly more "idiots" than we think, skewing the numbers. 12% vote for all instead of 10% maybe. And the number of people voting only for who they're supposed to is a little lower.

da32130

03-28-2012, 04:38 PM

This should apply to this thread as well. With the threads below giving further analysis about the above (along with the pro flipping threads). We would also ask the pro flippers to direct anti flippers here. Thank you.

Some negative derailing posts were deleted earlier from this thread. If anyone has criticisms of this project, please post them here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?367223-The-Case-Against-Vote-Flipping-(no-fraud)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?367176-I-See-No-HARD-PROOF-of-Vote-Flipping-Please-Prove-Me-Wrong.

This was the solution suggested by one of the administrators to the heated arguments and disruptions that were occurring in earlier threads about this topic, so this thread is to be kept free of that. It is a practice that has been adopted in the past to avoid these type of problems. I will update the OP with the link to the other threads.

da32130

03-28-2012, 04:48 PM

da32130

03-28-2012, 05:07 PM

FAQ

4) Are smaller precincts really small in a population sense?

Not necessarily. They could be large and full of Democrats.

If republicans are few it means if indies and dems favor a candidate that candidate is likely to do very well in small precincts by total vote in a republican primary.

This is what happens to Paul in areas where indies and libertarians are stronger than normal vs republicans.

The reverse of this is probably what happens in Romney strongholds of high repub turnout vs Paul and Newt, etc. In other words, the far right of the graph where people suspect vote flipping, Romney has his base and should be expected to perform strongly.

Just like on the far left of the graph Paul does strongly. Which is explained by Indies and Libertarians.

We just don't have the same data available to prove this decisively for Romney. Then again, others can't prove we are wrong either.

affa

03-28-2012, 05:14 PM

This 'debunk' has been debunked in about 5 ways so far. It's clear da32130 has no interest in addressing the many flaws in his understanding of the fraud argument, nor the many flaws in his methodology, including but not limited to 'weighting' charts based on statistically insignificant factors, ignoring that his 'proof' actually makes a case for fraud, false correlation, etc.

Not sure how I missed this thread. Probably because I assumed the 3 massive nasty existing threads were enough. Suppose not..

*Disclaimer* I don't think vote fraud explains this phenomenon. It's my realist bias. Thus far, however, nothing fully explains the precinct-size correlation.

da32130:

While it's good you are trying to incorporate demographics (+rep), you're making several mistakes.

1 -- this research was already done 15 days ago, with the data and analysis posted for everyone's use:

Revisited the data. This time, rolled precinct up and grouped by just the demographics and fields I wanted to test.

Fields Tested:
Median Income (County)
% White (County)
% Over 65 (County)
Precinct Size
Precinct % of County Vote
% Female (County)
People per Square Mile (County)
Precinct Turnout %

With all parameters, R^2 = .437 (explains roughly 44% of the noise)
With just the top 4, R^2 = .398 (explains 40% of the noise)
With just the top 3, R^2 = .256 (explains 26% of the noise) [--> this one excludes precinct size]

Median Income, % White, and Precinct Size have comparable significance (t ~ 15)
% Over 65 is slightly less significant (t = 9)

Romney's vote is positively correlated with Median Income, Precinct Size, and % Over 65. Interestingly, he's negatively correlated with % White.

For this type of rough analysis, an R^2 of .40 is significant. That .14 comes from Precinct Size is also significant.

From this analysis, precinct size cannot be ruled out as a significant independent variable. This suggests that something else must be driving the correlation (other demographic, campaign activity, fraud, etc).

2 -- You're assuming that if B and C are correlated with A, then B and C are correlated. That can't be assumed, it must be shown. Your analysis, as I mentioned in my PM and in the other thread, does not demonstrate that these factors are correlated with precinct size and therefore explain the phenomenon. You've shown that these factors are positively correlated with Romney vote %, but you haven't shown that they are positively correlated with precinct size! Nor, more specifically, that they fully explain the precinct-size correlation.

3 -- You're disregarding the conclusions of the analysis that was done correctly and did incorporate demographics. Precinct Size cannot be ruled out based on the demographics tested -- it's still significant in an Income/% White/% Over 65/Precinct Size multiple regression on Romney Vote %.

4 -- Because your analysis is incomplete and does not build upon prior analysis, your conclusion is misleading and hurts the efforts to understand the phenomenon. Truth is, we still can't fully explain what's driving the precinct size / Romney positive correlation

5 -- You should release your data and analysis for peer review

6 -- Your final weighted graph assumes each of your variables are independent and not correlated. However, female % and republicanism are anti-correlated. They essentially measure the same thing, and are therefore double counted. The pivot table graph in the file below lets you view this type of information easily. You'll find that there is still precinct-size correlation even when the other demographics are normalized, just as the analysis in (1) above shows.

Still, most shocking of all, is that no one else has pointed out the obvious errors with your approach (#2, #6). Then again, based on the "analysts" in the other thread, I suppose it shouldn't be too surprising.

For the 50th time, if someone wants to do some demographic analysis, do not start from scratch!! Use this file:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/63868969/RPF/SC_2012_Primary_Analysis.xlsx

Conclusion: Not debunked

Here's another way to look at the Virginia Beach City graph from da32130 above. The graph below is the same as da32130's graph #1 but zoomed in a bit. In the segment that includes the 25 precincts where da32130 could not explain Romney's gains by demographics, the R- squared value between Romney's curve and its best- fit line is .9837. In layman's terms, this means that the variation in Romney's cumulative percentage is 99.2% explained simply by the number of votes cast per precinct.. forget demographics. Put that together with my previous post, and you get Electronic Vote Manipulation... PERIOD.
BTW- when da32130 speaks of explaining the gains in "85- 90% of the precincts," he fails to point out that the remaining 10- 15% that he cannot account for represent 40% of the total vote! Hence, this is why the riggers choose these larger precincts to manipulate: more votes to gain and harder to get caught.

http://i1251.photobucket.com/albums/hh545/theman106/VirginiaBeachCity2012Primary.jpg

And finally:

The Man, if I only had Obama%, the charts would look even more like flipping. However, my argument would be that Obama% explained where I expected. So it is likely that variables such as libertarian% and republican demographic data could explain the rest if they existed.
SNIP
Fortunately, the Libertarian party exists so we can make that adjustment. Otherwise, how could I convince you that Paul would do better in libertarian areas? That would be even tougher to prove.

I have asked you repeatedly to stop using and weighting your charts by 'libertarian' results, because they are not only statistically insignificant, but highly volatile across election cycles. This is an extremely basic concept, which I have spelled out to you again and again. Yet you insist on doing it over and over, creating straight up deceitful charts by 'weighting' your own charts based on data that you have been warned is not reliable, consistent, or significant.

But fine. I'll prove it to you. In fact, I'll go one further and show you why not only is using Libertarian performance not reliable, consistent, or significant, but even using Democrat/Republican performance from 2008 as a indicator for 2012 is dangerous due to issues such as redistricting, Obamamania, and Bush fatigue, all of which make 2008 results potentially unrepresentative of normal voting habits.

http://i40.tinypic.com/2gwfjpu.jpg

If you continue to weight your charts by '2008 Libertarian Performance', or continue to fail to take into account the fallibility of 2008 results as demographic indicators of a precinct, I have no choice but to come to the conclusion you are intentionally obfuscating the facts.

Libertarian votes from 2008 can not, and should not, be used to weight 2012 results, because they are statistically insignificant, unreliable, and inconsistent across elections. It's dangerous even using 2008 Democratic and Republican results as a solid indicator of voting habits per precinct, given the massive differences seen in some precincts from 2004 to 2008.

If you want to study demographics, all I can suggest is using current demographic data.

da32130

03-28-2012, 05:21 PM

This 'debunk' has been debunked in about 5 ways so far.

Affa, I thought you were suppose to stay off of this thread?

These points have been answered. You just don't like those answers.

I will respond to them one by one for others using my prior answers. Thank you for compiling them for me.

da32130

03-28-2012, 05:26 PM

I guess this should go both ways since it was posted on a pro flipper thread:

If you have nothing positive to add to this discussion, do not post. Stop derailing the thread.

affa

03-28-2012, 05:35 PM

Affa, I thought you were suppose to stay off of this thread?

These points have been answered. You just don't like those answers.

I will respond to them one by one for others using my prior answers. Thank you for compiling them for me.

Go ahead, continue to 'weight' your charts based on data hand picked by yourself to show what you want, even though the numbers you're choosing to 'weight' by have been proven to be statistically insignificant, unreliable, and highly volatile from election to election. Have fun with your thread, sir.

soulcyon

03-28-2012, 05:37 PM

sailingaway

03-28-2012, 05:46 PM

I guess this should go both ways since it was posted on a pro flipper thread:

parallel attacks in a different thread are still attacks, and I will move this thread if they continue. The other thread isn't mocking you.

da32130

03-28-2012, 06:03 PM

da32130

03-28-2012, 06:03 PM

parallel attacks in a different thread are still attacks, and I will move this thread if they continue. The other thread isn't mocking you.

Sailing, i was being serious. The threads shouldn't spam each other.

If affa continues to post things i've already answered. Isn't that spam? Isn't that derailing the thread?

He is just using fancier words to mock and distort.

I've literally answered most of his points in my OP and FAQs. Not to mention in my prior threads.

da32130

03-28-2012, 06:09 PM

What is this, I don't even...

da32130 - these points have been debunked over and over again. If you're going to make an honest debunk, at least have the courtesy to properly address what you are debunking. You seem to be slashing and burning at generic points that you cooked up yourself and not a claim anybody has made specifically.

They have not been debunked. They have been ignored or we have agreed to disagree. That is why I am reposting. So people know that.

However, you can't expect the anti flippers to expel the same energy as the pro flippers. By definition the anti-flippers would like to move on to more important things (to them).

sailingaway

03-28-2012, 06:11 PM

Sailing, i was being serious. The threads shouldn't spam each other.

If affa continues to post things i've already answered. Isn't that spam? Isn't that derailing the thread?

He is just using fancier words to mock and distort.

I've literally answered most of his points in my OP and FAQs. Not to mention in my prior threads.

the point of the mod comment was as much intended to stop the really unpleasant fighting in the other thread as anything. These views were linked into the other thread. Having a running fight side by side isn't a lot better than the other way, and since your rebuttal is linked in the other thread, appropriate people can find it. This thread is picking a fight, in some ways, and it may go over the line. So I flagged that, because if it does it will be moved.

sailingaway

03-28-2012, 06:12 PM

However, you can't expect the anti flippers to expel the same energy as the pro flippers. By definition the anti-flippers would like to move on to more important things (to them).

that is the sort of mocking tone I was referring to, and no one is stopping you from moving on. You seem disinclined to do that.

da32130

03-28-2012, 06:17 PM

Go ahead, continue to 'weight' your charts based on data hand picked by yourself to show what you want, even though the numbers you're choosing to 'weight' by have been proven to be statistically insignificant, unreliable, and highly volatile from election to election. Have fun with your thread, sir.

Affa, you have proved no such thing. I have already responded to the flaws in your analysis. But will try to repost it here.

da32130

03-28-2012, 06:20 PM

that is the sort of mocking tone I was referring to, and no one is stopping you from moving on. You seem disinclined to do that.

What tone is that? It is a simple fact. I would like to move on. But I also want my side heard.

From my perspective (and you can agree to disagree), if the vote flipping argument is wrong, then it hurts us if it gains widespread acceptance.

I just want the other side heard.

soulcyon

03-28-2012, 06:26 PM

However, you can't expect the anti flippers to expel the same energy as the pro flippers. By definition the anti-flippers would like to move on to more important things (to them).The continue and move on, why are you wasting time? Now you're just sounding like an attention whore.

Fine, I'll play your game - why don't you go show your side of the story to a professor or statistics analyst?

da32130

03-28-2012, 06:28 PM

the point of the mod comment was as much intended to stop the really unpleasant fighting in the other thread as anything. These views were linked into the other thread. Having a running fight side by side isn't a lot better than the other way, and since your rebuttal is linked in the other thread, appropriate people can find it. This thread is picking a fight, in some ways, and it may go over the line. So I flagged that, because if it does it will be moved.

My main point is I want both sides to be heard. I see the link you have. That may be enough. Thank you.

da32130

03-28-2012, 06:29 PM

The continue and move on, why are you wasting time? Now you're just sounding like an attention whore.

Fine, I'll play your game - why don't you go show your side of the story to a professor or statistics analyst?

1) Because I want the other side to be heard. (if the vote flippers are wrong it could damage Paul's reputation)

2) Because I am one. We just need more demographic data.

sailingaway

03-28-2012, 06:32 PM

sailingaway

03-28-2012, 06:33 PM

The continue and move on, why are you wasting time? Now you're just sounding like an attention whore.

Fine, I'll play your game - why don't you go show your side of the story to a professor or statistics analyst?

don't you come and attack either. If he does, his thread won't last long here.

soulcyon

03-28-2012, 06:39 PM

1) Because I want the other side to be heard. (if the vote flippers are wrong it could damage Paul's reputation)

2) Because I am one. We just need more demographic data.

We can never get the demographic data unless you change voting procedures. And Paul's reputation is in Paul's hands, not ours - we're not a cult.

jjockers

03-28-2012, 06:53 PM

da32130

03-28-2012, 06:56 PM

MY view is that the fights make us look worse than either particular opinion.

I agree. The fighting isn't good.

However, as the daily paul front page post show and the responses in facebook to Ben Swann's inquiry show, the theory could grow substantially based on the dramatic results.

So I am weighing the fighting vs that future potential of widespread belief.

sailingaway

03-28-2012, 07:06 PM

I agree. The fighting isn't good.

However, as the daily paul front page post show and the responses in facebook to Ben Swann's inquiry show, the theory could grow substantially based on the dramatic results.

So I am weighing the fighting vs that future potential of widespread belief.

regardless, you are not the last word on weighting that.

da32130

03-28-2012, 07:11 PM

I appreciate da32130's research. Actually, his analysis is better than just about everyone else's work in the other threads. He's at least approaching the phenomenon from an (initially) unbiased, analytic problem-solving perspective (scientific method was emotion). I wish there was more of this perspective in these threads.

The primary flaws in da's analysis are:

(1) the analysis is done at the county level and therefore tries to explain a county-size::Romney vote % correlation. However, this correlation doesn't exist, so using other factors such as demographics to explain a non-existent correlation is a flawed premise

You are just talking about SC.

Read my part 5 in the OP. It explains this:

The county level analysis for SC and NH shows no vote flipping.

We can agree to disagree whether that analysis transfers to the precinct level.

I believe your precinct level regression on SC doesn't work because you only have county level demographics.

However, we have precinct level data in other states using Obama% and Libertarian%. Those work. We just need the income, age, data for the hard core republican areas.

My analysis predicts those will work based on the prior work at the precinct and state level.

(2) the analysis weighs each of the other factors together as if they were mutually independent. A proper approach would be to perform a multiple regression with (and without) precinct size and the other factors as independent variables on Romney non-cumulative vote %. This analysis was done for SC and the results indicated that other factors can explain 2/3 of the phenomenon, but precinct size is necessary to explain the remaining 1/3. da has postulated that the remaining 1/3 can likely be explained by improving our demographic data. This may be true, but it's just conjecture until we can show otherwise.

I have done this regression. And many others.

Your precinct level regression on SC doesn't work because you only have county level demographics. No reason to expect those to explain precinct level differentials.

da performs county-size analysis because we don't have demographics at the precinct level. This would be the ideal way if the phenomenon held at the county level (if county-size and Romney vote % were correlated). These variables are, however, not significantly correlated.

I have done the analysis at the precinct level in other states.

Also, the correlation does exist at the county level. So you could believe flipping exist at that level. However, demographics explains it.

My analysis from .. a month ago? .. assumes that precinct demographics are similar to their respective county demographics. This is an approximation and certainly less than ideal, but it's the only method we have available due to data limitation. When da says we agree to disagree, he's referring to our assumption differences in this and the last paragraph.

That assumption is way off to me. We can agree to disagree. Your analysis (to me) should not be expected to explain precinct level data. So it is no surprise it doesn't.

My assumption is that the summation of precincts should show the same slopes at the county level. It does. And the demographics explain it.

Conclusion: Demographics can explain 2/3 of the precinct size::Romney vote % correlation in SC, but precinct size is currently necessary to explain the remaining 1/3.

This is based on 1 state (SC) using an analysis that couldn't even be expected to work at the precinct level (only capture county level differences).

My analysis is based on 3 states, 2 at the county and 2 at the pricinct level. One (NH) a full state precinct level analysis.

KingNothing

03-28-2012, 07:19 PM

I agree. The fighting isn't good.

However, as the daily paul front page post show and the responses in facebook to Ben Swann's inquiry show, the theory could grow substantially based on the dramatic results.

So I am weighing the fighting vs that future potential of widespread belief.

And thank you for that. We have a hard enough time battling the establishment's insults when we go after ACTUAL deceit and corruption. We don't need any more poison pills.

da32130

03-28-2012, 07:45 PM

regardless, you are not the last word on weighting that.

understood.

jjockers

03-28-2012, 07:48 PM

You are just talking about SC.

Correct. That's the state where we have the most demographic information (at least among early states)

We can agree to disagree whether that analysis transfers to the precinct level. Also, the correlation does exist at the county level. So you could believe flipping exist at that level. However, demographics explains it. My assumption is that the summation of precincts should show the same slopes at the county level. It does. And the demographics explain it.

No, there is no county-size Romney vote correlation. The graphs below show Romney vote % vs increasing precinct size and county size, respectively.

Note that the x-scale corresponds to bucketing percentage (on precinct size, 1 --> bottom 10%, 2 --> bottom 20%, etc | on county size, 1 --> bottom 20%, 2 --> bottom 40%, etc)

http://s7.postimage.org/rqvbha1gb/SCPRECINCTSIZE.png

http://s15.postimage.org/6u6uoycgr/SCCOUNTYSIZE.png

I should have known better than to ask you to 'take my word for it' :). Look at those graphs. There is only 1 conclusion to draw: this phenomenon does not exist at the county level, so your primary assumption is completely incorrect (as opposed to a rough approximation).

I believe your precinct level regression on SC doesn't work because you only have county level demographics. Your precinct level regression on SC doesn't work because you only have county level demographics. No reason to expect those to explain precinct level differentials. That assumption is way off to me. We can agree to disagree. Your analysis (to me) should not be expected to explain precinct level data. So it is no surprise it doesn't.

All conjecture, though I agree to an extent. This assumption is unfortunately necessary to perform any demographics analysis on SC. While demographics for small precincts within a county may differ from the county overall, larger precincts are likely to reflect overall county demographics. The assumption is not ideal. It's a necessary approximation.

However, we have precinct level data in other states using Obama% and Libertarian%. Those work. We just need the income, age, data for the hard core republican areas.

I included this factor (McCain vs Obama 08) as an explanation item and it did not significantly reduce the precinct-size 1/3 explanation power. The file linked by Affa on page 2 has everything you need for SC analysis.

*Edited to add that even precinct demographics would be an approximation, because what we'd really need is actual voter demographics*

affa

03-28-2012, 07:52 PM

The county level analysis for SC and NH shows no vote flipping.

You do realize that nobody is disputing this, correct? The anomaly only is present when evaluating at the precinct level. That's the point. You're examining the wrong thing, and have been from the start.

However, we have precinct level data in other states using Obama% and Libertarian%. Those work.

And I have shown you that libertarian data is statistically insignificant, highly volatile from election to election, and as a result completely unreliable. Generally averaging around .03 to .04 percent of total votes, precincts show wild fluctuation from election to election.

Additionally, I have also shown you that even Obama/McCain precinct results are not particularly reliable. Republican strongholds in 2004 were won handily by Obama in 2008. This means you'd be weighting them as 'democratic' precincts, when looking back in history this may not be so. This may be attributed to a number of factors, including but not limited to: redistricting, Obamamania, and Bush fatigue. Regardless of what caused it, relying soley on 2008 election data for demographic information is flawed.

I wish we had current, 2012 precinct level demographics so you could better do your study. I really do. But your insistence on using data like libertarian results from 2008 to weight your charts when they have been shown to be completely unreliable from election to election invalidates your work.

I have provided you with many examples.

Here's one:

London Bridge, VBC:
1984 - Reagan won with 76% of the vote.
1988 - Bush Sr. won with 70% of the vote.
1992 - Bush Sr. won with 49% of the vote (Clinton 30, Perot 20)
1996 - Dole won with 49% of the vote (Perot took 9%)
2000 - Bush won with 56%
2004 - Bush won with 59%

and...
2008 - OBAMA won with 52% of the vote.

Republican voters absolutely abandoned McCain - around 500 less votes than normal (a loss of about 1/3). Other precincts show either similar Republican abandonment, or, in some cases, massive Obamamania.

In 2009, by the way, the Republican running for Governor (McDonnell) won with 63%, so it's still 'Republican'.
In 2010, Rigell (Republican) won with 55% for the House of Representives.

There are many, many precincts like this.

I realize you're stuck because 2008 precinct level election data seems like it should be indicative of the voting population. However, it just isn't. 2008 was an odd election, and turnout was not normal. Using 2008 data to identify 'Democratic' precincts for use as demographics is flawed. 2008 is not necessarily a good indicator.

da32130

03-28-2012, 08:32 PM

Correct. That's the state where we have the most demographic information (at least among early states)

No, there is no county-size Romney vote correlation. The graphs below show Romney vote % vs increasing precinct size and county size, respectively.

Note that the x-scale corresponds to bucketing percentage (on precinct size, 1 --> bottom 10%, 2 --> bottom 20%, etc | on county size, 1 --> bottom 20%, 2 --> bottom 40%, etc)

http://s7.postimage.org/rqvbha1gb/SCPRECINCTSIZE.png

http://s15.postimage.org/6u6uoycgr/SCCOUNTYSIZE.png

I should have known better than to ask you to 'take my word for it' :). Look at those graphs. There is only 1 conclusion to draw: this phenomenon does not exist at the county level, so your primary assumption is completely incorrect (as opposed to a rough approximation).

All conjecture, though I agree to an extent. This assumption is unfortunately necessary to perform any demographics analysis on SC. While demographics for small precincts within a county may differ from the county overall, larger precincts are likely to reflect overall county demographics. The assumption is not ideal. It's a necessary approximation.

I included this factor (McCain vs Obama 08) as an explanation item and it did not significantly reduce the precinct-size 1/3 explanation power. The file linked by Affa on page 2 has everything you need for SC analysis.

*Edited to add that even precinct demographics would be an approximation, because what we'd really need is actual voter demographics*

Here is the standard chart per my 2nd post in this thread, analysis part 4.

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

What you notice is that Newt falls and Romney rises in the 2nd half of that graph. Newt falls in the whole graph.

My question is this (to Affa as well): why isn't that evidence of flipping?

In SC (hard core repub state in non democrat areas (last 2/3-1/2 of graph) and NH, VA (hard core repub in last 10-15% of graph) you need demographics. The indie and libertarian vote only matter in the other areas.

While using county income and precinct obama% demographics are all that is available in SC, I wouldn't expect either to add much value to the above problem in SC. So a precinct level regression doesn't move the ball forward for me. In that case the assumption is fatal for me.

Also, for Affa, I believe Obama% and Lib% do capture what they are suppose to capture. The data is enough. I'll try to provide that analysis later.

jjockers

03-28-2012, 09:08 PM

Here is the standard chart per my 2nd post in this thread, analysis part 4.

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

What you notice is that Newt falls and Romney rises in the 2nd half of that graph. Newt falls in the whole graph.

My question is this (to Affa as well): why isn't that evidence of flipping?

Newt falls and the other three rise slightly. I can't say why conclusively or if that's a recurring phenomenon, as we haven't researched any county-size correlations. It is interesting, and should give the flippers pause when assuming the precinct-size phenomenon is fraud. Your analysis suggests the county-size graph can be explained via demographics. I agree. Romney's blip up at the end is due to Beaufort, Richland, and Charleston (higher median income), and Gingrich does better in the counties with low % white. This can be seen easily with the file Affa linked on page 2.

That said, it's clear from both our graphs that the precinct-size:romney vote % correlation is not reproduced by county-size, so any county-size graph explanations don't explain the precinct-size phenomenon.

da32130

03-28-2012, 09:36 PM

London Bridge, VBC:
1984 - Reagan won with 76% of the vote.
1988 - Bush Sr. won with 70% of the vote.
1992 - Bush Sr. won with 49% of the vote (Clinton 30, Perot 20)
1996 - Dole won with 49% of the vote (Perot took 9%)
2000 - Bush won with 56%
2004 - Bush won with 59%

and...
2008 - OBAMA won with 52% of the vote.

Republican voters absolutely abandoned McCain - around 500 less votes than normal (a loss of about 1/3). Other precincts show either similar Republican abandonment, or, in some cases, massive Obamamania.

Your data backs me up.

The candidate that got the indie vote won. So using that candidate will be informative of the indie vote.

In 2008 that was Obama. Since he isn't repub, where he does well you would expect indies to do well.

da32130

03-29-2012, 06:05 AM

Newt falls and the other three rise slightly. I can't say why conclusively or if that's a recurring phenomenon, as we haven't researched any county-size correlations. It is interesting, and should give the flippers pause when assuming the precinct-size phenomenon is fraud. Your analysis suggests the county-size graph can be explained via demographics. I agree. Romney's blip up at the end is due to Beaufort, Richland, and Charleston (higher median income), and Gingrich does better in the counties with low % white. This can be seen easily with the file Affa linked on page 2.

That said, it's clear from both our graphs that the precinct-size:romney vote % correlation is not reproduced by county-size, so any county-size graph explanations don't explain the precinct-size phenomenon.

The flippers are big on pointing out that the Romney flipping is being done in the largest turnout areas. In other words, the right side of the graph. So just looking at the 2nd half of that graph for Romney (where he rises consistently) is right in line with the flipping case.

Assuming the flipping is in the high turnout precincts, it makes sense to me to think those are more likely in the high turnout counties. So the precinct level flipping would be expected to show up at the county level as well.

And if the county level data can be explained, then it makes sense to me to think the precinct level data can also be explained.

Oddly enough, I'm arguing for flipping evidence being even broader than others, but also that since that evidence can be explained the explanation is also broader.

da32130

03-29-2012, 07:01 AM

We can never get the demographic data unless you change voting procedures. And Paul's reputation is in Paul's hands, not ours - we're not a cult.

1) I think you are wrong (probably just cost money or a lot of man hours to gather). If you are right then we won't be able to prove vote flipping. I believe I've given enough evidence that we should be able to anticipate what the answer is. But we can agree to disagree.

2) Paul represents the movement. If the movement believes in vote flipping and vote flipping doesn't exists (in the form being discussed here) then it could hurt the movement.

I would rather the rebuttal came here than a front page New York Times story after it is widespread.

da32130

03-29-2012, 10:09 AM

FAQ

5. Is the sloping evidence of fraud in an even greater number of areas than most claim?

Oddly enough, I'm arguing for flipping evidence being even broader than others, but also that since that evidence can be explained the explanation is also broader.

The primary area is county level SC. I claim the largest areas do show flipping based on rising Romney% and falling Newt% (typically the standard flipping criteria). However, I also believe demographics explains it.

Assuming the flipping is in the high turnout precincts, it makes sense to me to think those are more likely in the high turnout counties. So the precinct level flipping would be expected to show up at the county level as well.

And if the county level data can be explained, then it makes sense to me to think the precinct level data can also be explained.

And if SC can be explained, then it makes sense to me that other states can also be explained.

And if other states can be explained, then it makes sense to me that there is no flipping going on.

TheGrinch

03-29-2012, 10:33 AM

What tone is that? It is a simple fact. I would like to move on. But I also want my side heard.

From my perspective (and you can agree to disagree), if the vote flipping argument is wrong, then it hurts us if it gains widespread acceptance.

I just want the other side heard.
You keep saying that it hurts us if it gains widespread acceptance, but you do realize that it's being given to qualified unbiased people to examine before anyone is even suggesting going public with it... So why is it such a big deal to you that some would spend their time compiling data for someone more credible and unbiased to examine that. You say you want to move past it, but why do others, until they find that it's a hopeless caus. What's the harm then, because this isn't going public before there's too much evidence compiled to ignore or explain.

I agree 100% that the divisive fighting and criticism is far more harmful than letting more experts examine to see if it sticks or not.

Moreover, (and I apologize if this is getting too close to an attack), but what disturbs me is your constant insistence of "no fraud", when really what you should have meant all along is "inconclusive without..."... To say "conclusion: no fraud" when we're dealing with unaccountable voting machines and already have a wealth of evidence of delegate fraud and caucus shenanigans, well, don't you think that it's a huge overstatement to conclude "no fraud", just because you don't see it... For all we know, yes, they could be on the wrong track, but they've never said that they've "proven" anything, just appear to have anomalies, whereas you seem to be on a crusade to act like you know for certain about something that there isn't a paper trail for.

Fine if you want to offer counterarguments, but it's hard to take it seriously when it seems you have more of an agenda than those you claim are "pro-flipper" (many of whom doubted it before examining it, so I don't think their biases are driving this nearly as much).

da32130

03-29-2012, 11:21 AM

You keep saying that it hurts us if it gains widespread acceptance, but you do realize that it's being given to qualified unbiased people to examine before anyone is even suggesting going public with it... So why is it such a big deal to you that some would spend their time compiling data for someone more credible and unbiased to examine that. You say you want to move past it, but why do others, until they find that it's a hopeless caus. What's the harm then, because this isn't going public before there's too much evidence compiled to ignore or explain.

I agree 100% that the divisive fighting and criticism is far more harmful than letting more experts examine to see if it sticks or not.

Moreover, (and I apologize if this is getting too close to an attack), but what disturbs me is your constant insistence of "no fraud", when really what you should have meant all along is "inconclusive without..."... To say "conclusion: no fraud" when we're dealing with unaccountable voting machines and already have a wealth of evidence of delegate fraud and caucus shenanigans, well, don't you think that it's a huge overstatement to conclude "no fraud", just because you don't see it... For all we know, yes, they could be on the wrong track, but they've never said that they've "proven" anything, just appear to have anomalies, whereas you seem to be on a crusade to act like you know for certain about something that there isn't a paper trail for.

Fine if you want to offer counterarguments, but it's hard to take it seriously when it seems you have more of an agenda than those you claim are "pro-flipper" (many of whom doubted it before examining it, so I don't think their biases are driving this nearly as much).

1) I have no problem getting it to "qualified unbiased people to examine" (just realize once they give an opinion then they will no longer be considered unbiased, so then the search will be for more unbiased people until one is found that is in agreement with the searcher)
2) It already has gone public. It has been on daily paul front page, ben swann facebook, and has many articles on the web
3) If the pro flipping executive summary concerning the evidence contained my analysis I wouldn't post here.
4) "no fraud" applies to just the core non flipping argument. It doesn't mean all fraud is ruled out, just within the scope and scale being discussed here.
5) using "no fraud" may push some buttons, I agree. However, it is for a quick guide of my opinion and what I think future research will uncover. It is also to show the contrast with most of the other analysis out there.
6) I started with no agenda. I even defended the flippers to do 1) above. But now that I think there is no flipping, and want others to know about it, my agenda is questioned.

affa

03-29-2012, 02:36 PM

Your data backs me up.

The candidate that got the indie vote won. So using that candidate will be informative of the indie vote.

In 2008 that was Obama. Since he isn't repub, where he does well you would expect indies to do well.

That's pure conjecture.

If you actually take the time to look at the data, you'll see McCain had 100,358 votes in VBC, vs Bush's 103,752. Over the entire county, he lost very few votes.
Obama, however, increased over 28k votes from Kerry. Likewise, there were almost 24k more registered voters in 2008. This mean's it's far more likely that Obama's surprisingly good performance was based on Obamamania - brand new voters brought into the fold, and not a 'shift' of Independent voters. But that too is conjecture - but at least it's conjecture based on looking at historical data.

In fact, if you take the 3k McCain lost, and add in the massive influx of new voters, you effectively end up with Obama's rise. That 3k may very well be your 'Independent' voters, which are not what decided this election.

Looking at individual precincts, the differences are not uniform. In some precincts, McCain simply dropped like a rock (compared to 2004 and before). In others, Obama did surprisingly well. It's unclear why, exactly, but the point is, Obama's 2008 performance is way out of line with all historical records of VBC, and again, should not be used as a barometer of political leaning for a precinct because all other indicators -- from historical elections, to newer elections for Senate and House, show many precincts that went to Obama have a strong, distinct, Republican leaning both past and present. 2008 saw a rash of new voters (Obamamania), and to attribute his win to a shift in 'Independents' is a rash assumption that does not bear the weight of scrutiny. That you continue to cling to the non-existant value of libertarian turnout in 2008 is even more misguided and misleading, however.

Again, I'm all for demographic analysis. But you're using suspect data as your barometer, and jumping to false conclusions as a result.

da32130

03-29-2012, 03:42 PM

That's pure conjecture.

If you actually take the time to look at the data, you'll see McCain had 100,358 votes in VBC, vs Bush's 103,752. Over the entire county, he lost very few votes.
Obama, however, increased over 28k votes from Kerry. Likewise, there were almost 24k more registered voters in 2008. This mean's it's far more likely that Obama's surprisingly good performance was based on Obamamania - brand new voters brought into the fold, and not a 'shift' of Independent voters. But that too is conjecture - but at least it's conjecture based on looking at historical data.

In fact, if you take the 3k McCain lost, and add in the massive influx of new voters, you effectively end up with Obama's rise. That 3k may very well be your 'Independent' voters, which are not what decided this election.

Looking at individual precincts, the differences are not uniform. In some precincts, McCain simply dropped like a rock (compared to 2004 and before). In others, Obama did surprisingly well. It's unclear why, exactly, but the point is, Obama's 2008 performance is way out of line with all historical records of VBC, and again, should not be used as a barometer of political leaning for a precinct because all other indicators -- from historical elections, to newer elections for Senate and House, show many precincts that went to Obama have a strong, distinct, Republican leaning both past and present. 2008 saw a rash of new voters (Obamamania), and to attribute his win to a shift in 'Independents' is a rash assumption that does not bear the weight of scrutiny. That you continue to cling to the non-existant value of libertarian turnout in 2008 is even more misguided and misleading, however.

Again, I'm all for demographic analysis. But you're using suspect data as your barometer, and jumping to false conclusions as a result.

Affa,

Here is the issue. Obama% and Libertarian% work. They are statistically valuable when evaluating turnout, Paul%, Romney%, and even Huntsman%.

Why they are valuable is a another question.

I think it is because Obama% is picking up the non republican voter demographic. One that shows a strong correlation to Paul in VA and Huntsman in NH.

I think libertarian% is picking up more libertarian areas. Ones that show a strong correlation to Paul in VA and NH.

Saying obama% doesn't mean the above doesn't mean it isn't valuable.

Saying libertarian% changes from 2004 to 2008 doesn't mean 2008 isn't valuable (my bet is they are both valuable, but noisy).

The question is: why does Obama% and Libertarian% work so well at explaining turnout, Paul%, Romney%, and Huntsman%?

You haven't provided an alternate explanation for this.

Nor shown how they aren't tied to demographics.

You need to do both to invalidate them. And if you can't invalidate them then we have already explained 85-90% of precincts in VA and NH without even using income, age, etc that I believe explain the remaining 15-10% and SC.

affa

03-29-2012, 04:21 PM

Affa,

Here is the issue. Obama% and Libertarian% work. They are statistically valuable when evaluating turnout, Paul%, Romney%, and even Huntsman%.

As long as you continue to refer to Libertarian votes, which account for less than half a percent of the vote, and are _extremely_ volatile between elections, as 'statistically valuable' there's absolutely no point in discussing anything with you. You fundamentally don't understand the criticism being leveled at your work, and therefore it's a pointless discussion. You might as well randomly generate a number between 0 and 12 for all precincts in VBC and tell me how 'statistically valuable' it is, because that's what the history of libertarian votes per precinct looks like.

As for why they're valuable? We don't agree that they even are.

"I think libertarian% is picking up more libertarian areas. Ones that show a strong correlation to Paul in VA and NH."

And again, you're absolutely, completely, incorrect on this. And even if you were correct, the fact that per precinct Libertarian votes fluctuate wildly every 4 years means you can't assume anything about 2012 based on 2008. But since they aren't significant in the first place, that's a moot point.

Not to mention, we've seen the anomaly present in 2008 data, so using that to prove anything is also suspect.

I repeat the same thing I say every time we talk: I wish you'd use current, 2011-2012 per precinct demographic data to do your study. But if you insist on clinging to things like Libertarian%, and dismissing any and all criticism of your work with conjecture (oh, that's the independent vote) without actual research, we're done discussing this. In fact, I am done. Have fun with your pet theory.

DerailingDaTrain

03-29-2012, 04:39 PM

da32130

03-29-2012, 04:52 PM

As long as you continue to refer to Libertarian votes, which account for less than half a percent of the vote, and are _extremely_ volatile between elections, as 'statistically valuable' there's absolutely no point in discussing anything with you. You fundamentally don't understand the criticism being leveled at your work, and therefore it's a pointless discussion. You might as well randomly generate a number between 0 and 12 for all precincts in VBC and tell me how 'statistically valuable' it is, because that's what the history of libertarian votes per precinct looks like.

As for why they're valuable? We don't agree that they even are.

"I think libertarian% is picking up more libertarian areas. Ones that show a strong correlation to Paul in VA and NH."

And again, you're absolutely, completely, incorrect on this. And even if you were correct, the fact that per precinct Libertarian votes fluctuate wildly every 4 years means you can't assume anything about 2012 based on 2008. But since they aren't significant in the first place, that's a moot point.

Not to mention, we've seen the anomaly present in 2008 data, so using that to prove anything is also suspect.

I repeat the same thing I say every time we talk: I wish you'd use current, 2011-2012 per precinct demographic data to do your study. But if you insist on clinging to things like Libertarian%, and dismissing any and all criticism of your work with conjecture (oh, that's the independent vote) without actual research, we're done discussing this. In fact, I am done. Have fun with your pet theory.

Affa,

We don't have "2011-2012 per precinct demographic data". That is why other factors are being used.

A regression of Libertarian% in 2008 on turnout, Paul%, etc in 2012 works. If you want to look at the results and just dismiss it when you don't like it fine. Others may disagree.

On libertarian 2004 vs 2008:
1) all you have shown is that there are differences.
2) that is to be expected, it isn't proof of anything
3) you need to show the data is completely random, not some randomness around a strong libertarian correlation.

On your main lib and obama analysis you showed the results for McCain and Bush as evidence against a correlation. There were 13 areas. This is how I explained it:

"Cromwell: Bush's worst, McCain's worst; Glenwood: Bush's best, McCain's 3rd best. the rest should be a fuzzy range between those two points"

In other words, there is a relationship between 2004 and 2008. Even if it isn't a perfect correlation (with this type of data that is expecting way too much).

I believe the libertarian results are similar. You haven't shown differently.

parocks

03-29-2012, 05:27 PM

FAQ

3. Do you think the pro flipping downwardly sloped graphs are an anomaly and evidence of fraud?

My point is this "the graphs aren't anomalies".

The anomaly would only be if they were done with a demographic analysis and there was a disparity.

I believe my graphs show the disparity can be explained by demographics (available - adjustments makes graph flat, and unavailable - adjustment should make graph flat).

When the other side presents an unadjusted sloped graph it hasn't even brought evidence to the table one way or another.

If I can pick out the precincts that Romney is going to do very well in, does that mean that I'm predicting that fraud will take place in those precincts?

Or does it just mean that I know where the Romney voters are, because I have some understanding of politics?

The "flippers" have removed any understanding that, oh, Romney doesn't typically do well in the rural areas - that's either Santorum or Paul country. Knowing all of these things, why rural voters vote one way, and upscale suburbanites vote Romney is useful information. And a substantial part of the Ron Paul Grassroots has a theory that completely ignores, denigrates, diminishes, that very important information.

Flippers are trying hard to replace good knowledge with bad. That's classic with Ron Paul Grassroots.

da32130

03-29-2012, 06:29 PM

From 2004 to 2008, precincts like:
Seatack went from 16 to 5 votes.
Ocean Lakes went from 4 to 13
Old Donation went from 6 to 16
Ocean Park went from 11 to 4
(and I can give plenty more examples)

The above is some of affa's libertarian data that affa thinks shows no correlation.

The problems with this are:
1) there are 305 (NH) and 96 (VBC) areas, the above is just 4. Hard to make anything out of that.
2) you have to take all of the 11+ areas and see what happens
3) you have to take all of the 6- areas and see what happens

For you to be right the 11+ areas should be randomly placed.

For me to be right the 11+ areas should cluster above average.

And ideally we would use %, not raw votes.

da32130

03-29-2012, 09:56 PM

Affa,

We don't have "2011-2012 per precinct demographic data". That is why other factors are being used.

A regression of Libertarian% in 2008 on turnout, Paul%, etc in 2012 works. If you want to look at the results and just dismiss it when you don't like it fine. Others may disagree.

On libertarian 2004 vs 2008:
1) all you have shown is that there are differences.
2) that is to be expected, it isn't proof of anything
3) you need to show the data is completely random, not some randomness around a strong libertarian correlation.

On your main lib and obama analysis you showed the results for McCain and Bush as evidence against a correlation. There were 13 areas. This is how I explained it:

"Cromwell: Bush's worst, McCain's worst; Glenwood: Bush's best, McCain's 3rd best. the rest should be a fuzzy range between those two points"

In other words, there is a relationship between 2004 and 2008. Even if it isn't a perfect correlation (with this type of data that is expecting way too much).

I believe the libertarian results are similar. You haven't shown differently.

//

da32130

03-30-2012, 03:27 AM

Elixir

03-30-2012, 05:42 PM

Sorry da3120 but if you believe that the elections in this country are run fairly and honestly then I have to burst your bubble.

Fraud has already been shown during this election in several areas, there are people who have found out that their votes weren't even counted, we have caucus officialsin at least one state admitting to rigging the election, we have glaring anomalies in this years and 2008's election results, and if that's not enough, we have the year 2000 Bush/Gore debacle to show that our electoral process is rigged. Paperless electronic voting, gosh, what else can I say here?

Your repeated conclusion of no fraud is quite amusing, and makes me question your motives.

Elixir

03-30-2012, 05:57 PM

[QUOTE=parocksFlippers are trying hard to replace good knowledge with bad. That's classic with Ron Paul Grassroots.[/QUOTE]

Yep, Paul wins hands down over Romney in all the rural areas... but as soon as we get to a precinct with over a certain number of people, Romney just crushes Paul, in every state, in every county. Romney is just that good eh? Sorry but this is an anomaly in itself, there is no way that this explanation accounts for Paul's stellar performance in all small precincts, and his utter failure in all cities and large precincts.

For all of Romney's surging victories in every state, do you personally know a single person or two who voted for him? I sure as hell don't. They all voted for Paul, as did most thinking people around the country. Yet we are all left wondering why Paul didn't win a single state, the two explanations are either Paul's supporters don't actually vote, or that Paul doesn't win in cities. Both lies.

RonRules

03-30-2012, 05:58 PM

//

Hey da32130, you're slacking off. You're only self-bumping your own posts every 5 hours!

KingNothing

03-30-2012, 08:02 PM

da32130 deserves a ton of credit for doing the intellectual heavy lifting around here.

Elixir

03-30-2012, 08:12 PM

http://cdn.criticalppp.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/rigged-elections-300x228.jpg

tremendoustie

04-12-2012, 02:59 PM

Excuse me, since when are users allowed to create conspiracy theory threads in grassroots central, with titles making absurd claims, then specify in the OP that no dissent is allowed?

will someone be nice enough and tell me where we are at with this vote flipping algorythm? has it been proven further? or has it been disproven?

Apparently only true believers are allowed to post here, so you can guess what kind of answer you're going to get.

affa

04-12-2012, 03:41 PM

dsw

04-12-2012, 04:15 PM

((Either my article was moved to a different thread along with several others, or I was in the wrong thread to begin with, but in when I wrote "around here" I obviously didn't mean *this* thread.))

tremendoustie

04-12-2012, 05:40 PM

Independent analysis I was given this morning. A retired industrial engineer did this for us.

He wanted to see if there was any correlation between the size of a county and Romney's success compared to Santorum.

state Romneyy Santorm
MI 0.35 -0.18 (Correlation)
MO 0.24 -0.07
Oh 0.69 -0.56
FL 0.71 -0.49
CO 0.24 -0.05
GA 0.51 -0.36
MA 0.63 -0.59
IA 0.39 -0.13
ID 0.13 -0.06
MN 0.37 -0.28
NA 0.67 -0.388
NV 0.17 -0.255
OK 0.37 -0.024
TN 0.59 -0.46
SC 0.33 0.15
VA 0.13 -0.13
VT 0.2 -0.16

I think we've got another believer:
"I estimate the odds of this happening by chance at around a billion to one. Each measure of correlation could be positive or negative.
So a simple way to estimate the odds is to treat it like flipping coins.
So odds become 2 raised to power 34 divided by 17. That's around a billion. Next step: run the same test on other candidates in other elections.
I will also go back and add calculations for all the candidates in this report."

InB4 Parocks, DSW: "Romney does better in bigger counties."

Ok, let me explain this again, without the facepalm image, and we'll see if dissent is indeed allowed here.

What you're saying is analagous to this:

"Ron Paul success in each of umpteen counties correlated positively to the percentage of people under 30. The odds of this are the odds of flipping a coin umpteen times and getting heads each time (two to the umpteenth power) -- so a multi state conspiracy to commit fraud according to an age sorting algorithm is the reasonable explanation."

You (I hope) can see how absurd this statement is. Obviously younger people in general support paul in greater numbers. There is nothing random about this.

Likewise, people in population centers are more likely to support romney, and people in more rural areas are more likely to support santorum. This is both obvious and well documented -- and the fact that romney does better in more highly populated counties is what pretty much anyone following the election would expect.

Now, here's why I care (I'm not trying to troll you, I promise):

The fact is, this site represents Ron Paul supporters, to a lot of people, and this thread (along with its many clones) appears all over google searches.

For obvious reasons, I have a strong interest in ron paul supporters not looking like conspiracy theorists who don't understand basic logic or election dynamics.

I think it's inappropriate for this thread to be in grassroots central (in fact, I thought we had an agreement on this, that it would not be in GC).

If this sort of thread is going to be here, prohibiting people from pointing out the fact that the reasoning here is completely flawed, presents an image to outsiders that Ron Paul supporters are conspiracy theorists who can't employ what I (and many) consider to be basic logic.

The policy is absolutely inappropriate. While I recognize that this is private property, this is analogous to the NY times deleting all comments of a particular opinion from one of its editorials -- or all pro Ron Paul comments on its election coverage. It presents an intentionally skewed vision to the viewing public of the opinion of the NY times readers -- or in this case, RPF users.

If you merely want a location to work on graphs, etc, without interruption, there are plenty of places on this forum to do it (or use PMs). If you want a public discussion and to raise awareness, post it here, and expect opposition.

You can't have your cake and eat it too -- posting repeated threads in grassroots central with names like "Election fraud evidence piling up" or "Anomolies confirmed!", then acting like posts strongly objecting to these titles and claims are inappropriate, and this is your own private working group.

KingNothing

04-12-2012, 05:47 PM

Excuse me, since when are users allowed to create conspiracy theory threads in grassroots central, with titles making absurd claims, then specify in the OP that no dissent is allowed?

Apparently only true believers are allowed to post here, so you can guess what kind of answer you're going to get.

It's one of the reasons I post here much less than I used to.

tremendoustie

04-12-2012, 06:27 PM

took a break for awhile sorry... moved to HT

Thank you.

I'm not trying to impede this discussion -- I think those interested in the topic should enjoy studying it as much as they want, but GC really is not the appropriate place.

drummergirl

04-12-2012, 10:04 PM

Now, here's why I care (I'm not trying to troll you, I promise):

The fact is, this site represents Ron Paul supporters, to a lot of people, and this thread (along with its many clones) appears all over google searches.

For obvious reasons, I have a strong interest in ron paul supporters not looking like conspiracy theorists who don't understand basic logic or election dynamics.

I could not agree with you more on this point.

I've avoided posting in this thread in general, but I think it would be productive to respond to you here.

Actually, I've visited these forums on occasion many times over the years (as well as daily paul) but never signed up for an account or posted until this thread. When a friend first sent me a link, my first thought was, "Seriously? More tin foil hat stuff? ... OK, I'll take a look. It will probably be 5 min, 10 tops and I'll be able to toss this out as the latest conspiracy theory along with the black helicopters and the UN camps, etc."

But as I began looking carefully at the problem, read through the threads, and began reproducing the math, I became increasingly disturbed. You see, I wish as much as anyone, that this would all go away. That some Neil Degrasse Tyson of statistics would show up and say, "look, here is the problem..." and we'll all sing kumbaya. So, I'm not holding my breath on that.

As far as GRC goes; this is 100% a grassroots effort. As far as I know, no state's attorney general is looking into this yet (they ought to be). And, we have good reason to believe that this issue will impact the delegate totals in tampa, so it's kind of important stuff.

row333au

04-12-2012, 10:34 PM

Ron Paul is a conspiracy theorist by the establishments, neo-cons, neo-libs and the zionist....

From his federal government, federal reserve, FEMA, taxes, military complex, foreign policies including the UN, global warming, agenda 21, gold/silver currencies, the establishment themselves, the commerce lobbyist, corporatism. crony economics, green control opposition of alternative energy, the drug wars and legitimacy of how drugs should be approach, the media bias and conspiring against his winning, the establishment's oligopoly and theocracy, the subsidies and unlimited funding with interest free to multi-trans national conglomerate corporations to the extent of WTO, IMF and trilateral, and re-payment free the election frauds against him, the north American union and NAFTA, etch.... those are a very few he put out to the public awareness that were confirmed not theories....

And these are what people are following Dr. Ron Paul for.... these are not theory but reality done through politicians, lobbyist, controlled movement group such as the main Tea Parties infiltrated by the establishments, media and delegations precincts with GOP conclusions along with media....

brandon

04-16-2012, 08:59 AM

I could not agree with you more on this point.

I've avoided posting in this thread in general, but I think it would be productive to respond to you here.

Actually, I've visited these forums on occasion many times over the years (as well as daily paul) but never signed up for an account or posted until this thread. When a friend first sent me a link, my first thought was, "Seriously? More tin foil hat stuff? ... OK, I'll take a look. It will probably be 5 min, 10 tops and I'll be able to toss this out as the latest conspiracy theory along with the black helicopters and the UN camps, etc."

But as I began looking carefully at the problem, read through the threads, and began reproducing the math, I became increasingly disturbed. You see, I wish as much as anyone, that this would all go away. That some Neil Degrasse Tyson of statistics would show up and say, "look, here is the problem..." and we'll all sing kumbaya. So, I'm not holding my breath on that.

As far as GRC goes; this is 100% a grassroots effort. As far as I know, no state's attorney general is looking into this yet (they ought to be). And, we have good reason to believe that this issue will impact the delegate totals in tampa, so it's kind of important stuff.

Please keep this out of this thread. You have your thread that we are not allowed to post in.

On another note, Can you guys believe these vote flippists are still, months later, making meaningless excel graphs that no one cares about? Poor fellas. They really do seem truly dedicated. The saddest part is when all is said and done, and this becomes but a distant memory that never gained any traction, they will still look back on it as if they were correct and no one listened to them. They will go to their grave thinking they cracked the secret vote flipping code by plotting election demographics in excel, but the establishment held them down by sending undercover agents to debate them on a discussion forum.

soulcyon

04-16-2012, 09:12 AM

:\ whats with all the hate, brandon

brandon

04-16-2012, 09:19 AM

I tried to debate them back when they first started going off on this, and they condescended me, belittled me, accused me of being a an undercover agent of some sort, and ultimately got me banned. I don't have hate for them, just not much patience. And since they somehow managed to get all forms of debate banned from their threads I just decided to vent here.

drummergirl

04-16-2012, 02:04 PM

Please keep this out of this thread.

Sorry to disturb you with the truth.

LibertyIn08

04-16-2012, 03:50 PM

dupe post

LibertyIn08

04-16-2012, 03:50 PM

Sorry to disturb you with the truth.

You have a theory and a poorly supported one at that.

dsw

04-17-2012, 11:20 PM

If you look behind one chair and don't find a grasshopper, does that prove there are no grasshoppers anywhere in the house? Discuss.

http://i.imgur.com/xWtqH.png

RonRules

04-17-2012, 11:35 PM

My cat found it, today actually:
http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj80/RonRules/Elections2012_Demographics/IMAG0035.jpg

drummergirl

04-17-2012, 11:52 PM

It's an unlabeled chart?

If you look behind one chair and don't find a grasshopper, does that prove there are no grasshoppers anywhere in the house? Discuss.

http://i.imgur.com/xWtqH.png

dsw

04-18-2012, 01:23 AM

It's an unlabeled chart?

Hmmm, it seems to be. At least we know it can't be something that's been PROVEN not to exist. I guess we'll have to leave it at that.

dsw

04-18-2012, 08:13 PM

I wonder if the pattern still holds when they use the right map?

You can see what individual voting machine equipment they use with this map of election equipment in Wisconsin:
http://gab.wi.gov/sites/default/files/accessible_voting_equipment_map.png

Unfortunately that map only shows the "accessible" option at each location.

http://gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/voting-equipment/voting-equipment-use
The actual map:
http://gab.wi.gov/sites/default/files/voting_equipment_map.png
And an even more useful list:
http://gab.wi.gov/sites/default/files/page/voting_equipment_by_municipality_2_pdf_15114.pdf
A possibly relevant discussion:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x823256#823509
A year out of date but:
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/verifier/map.php?&state=Wisconsin
Centrally counted:
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/verifier/searched.php?ec=central&state=WI&equipment_type%5B%5D=All+Types&vendor%5B%5D=All+Vendors&model%5B%5D=All+Models&vvpat=all&submit=Search&rowspp=50&topicText=&stateText=

dsw

04-18-2012, 08:35 PM

Something to keep in mind as the flipper fundamentalist view that the graphs *must* flatten out takes hold. If that's the case then fraud isn't just limited to Romney, it goes back as far as the oldest on-line data I could find, and includes things like bond measures, minor local elections, etc. (I don't know what that does to the one-rich-guy-and-one-programmer theory. I guess they've been at this for a long time.) I thought that showing that non-flattening graphs were really pretty common, especially when it goes back to things like a 1996 bond measure, would undermine the claim that the graphs must flatten out, but instead the response was "If bond measures are being flipped, we're in a serious mess here."

If you want to find graphs that don't flatten out go look for counties that have a mix of rural and urban areas, like the one I used below. Similarly if you want to find correlations between demographic factors and precinct size. It's too bad there's not more precinct-level demographic information available. I'd love to see some median-income data on Va Beach City, for example, considering that most of the "post-crime" precincts that are so *impossibly* pro-Romney are in a geographically clustered area that corresponds to the largest concentration of million-dollar homes. Rich people preferring Romney over Paul? What sense would that make?

There is a *lot* of election data out there in formats similar to Dane County. Here's one that popped up:
http://www.lanecounty.org/Departments/MS/CountyClerk/Elections/Pages/resultsindex.aspx
and some 1996 data:
http://www.lanecounty.org/Departments/MS/CountyClerk/Elections/Documents/19961105s.txt
A *lot* of these show evidence that a sample taken from the smallest precincts isn't mathematically guaranteed to be statistically identical to a sample taken from the largest precincts of fraud. Just to pick one, starting where it's labeled as page 119 in that file we find a vote on a bond measure for a light rail transportation project. Take a look at the graph below and tell me if that doesn't prove that there may have been a correlation between precinct size and an urban precinct location and a correlation between being in the city and wanting tax money to go toward a transportation project in the city fraud. (It passed.) Similarly in a lot of the other races too.

http://i.imgur.com/m3IOa.png

dsw

04-18-2012, 08:38 PM

This news story should belong in the vote flipping thread. I some really important stuff.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/11517-does-a-spanish-company-control-american-elections

Note that the Scytl-Soros-Obama connection connection in the article is weak, but more and more people are concerned about the foreign ownership of voting machines. It is much more likely that Balfour-Beatty Capital, part owners of Scytl, with two directors from Golman Sachs would have a hand in this.

What's much more important is that they're trying to cover their tracks.
Google: scytl balfour Beatty capital
The first result is:
Australia | Australia & Oceania > Australia & New Zealand ...
www.allbusiness.com/australia/4969410-13.html
SCYTL Acquires SOE Software, Becoming the Leading Election Software Provider .... Balfour Beatty Campus Solutions, LLC, a division of Balfour Beatty Capital.

Go to the Blafour Beatty website and search for Scytl.

NOTHING

Any questions?!

Just one ... what's the evidence for Balfour Beatty being part-owners of Scytl? I couldn't find anything that said that. Of course, they might just have covered their tracks really well!

1836

05-10-2012, 12:04 AM

The conspiracy continues.

Nobody has yet explained why polling companies seem to get it so right with the final results.

Are they all in on the big conspiracy?

[mod edit] this post and others below were moved from another thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?369316-The-case-for-the-occurence-of-algorithmic-vote-flipping

RonRules

05-10-2012, 12:08 AM

The conspiracy continues.

Nobody has yet explained why polling companies company (Edison Research) seem to get it so right with the final results.

Are they all in on the big conspiracy?

These guys pretty much matched the left side of my charts.
http://www.youtube.com/user/2012happens

Your guys matched the right side of the chart. Wonder why?

1836

05-10-2012, 12:17 AM

These guys pretty much matched the left side of my charts.
http://www.youtube.com/user/2012happens

Your guys matched the right side of the chart. Wonder why?

Not simply Edison. Independent pollsters who poll before the primary. They get it pretty damn right, most of the time. The Real Clear Politics Average shows this.

If anything, Ron Paul has SIGNIFICANTLY outperformed his polling average. Are all the independent pollsters affiliated with Edison? Are they all conspiring to bring Ron's numbers down? Or does Ron Paul have 30, 40, 50% support or more and then everyone is missing it, except you guys pushing this conspiracy?

1836

05-10-2012, 12:18 AM

1836

05-10-2012, 12:20 AM

1836

05-10-2012, 12:21 AM

RonRules

05-10-2012, 12:22 AM

Oh, another question.

Ben Swann was interested in this, then he didn't run a story about it. If it has so much credibility, why wouldn't such a friendly reporter with his eye to the truth do a story on it?

Or is he part of the conspiracy also?

I never contacted Ben Swann or Alex Jones. I prefer dealing with people that know math at this point. Call UC Riverside for professors that back this up.

BTW, there's a "NO FRAUD" thread specifically for guys like you. Could you please ask them?

PS: Just so you'all know, poster 1836 was just bawwing about an hour ago: "Why was my thread removed?"

RickyJ

05-10-2012, 12:27 AM

Oh, another question.

Even the 9/11 Truth conspiracy, which has been repeatedly proven to be incorrect in most all of its conclusions, has a huge list of professors who are backing up its claims.

Where are the professors, statisticians, and mathematicians to endorse the vote flipping claims?

Thanks!

WTC7. Please, nothing else needs to be said. Stop ignoring science and reality, it isn't going away just because you ignore it.

1836

05-10-2012, 12:27 AM

I never contacted Ben Swann or Alex Jones. I prefer dealing with people that know math at this point.

BTW, there's a "NO FRAUD" thread specifically for guys like you. Could you please ask them?

PS: Just so you'all know, poster 1836 was just bawwing about an hour ago: "Why was my thread removed?"

Getting personal are we? I have done a great deal for the liberty movement. I would expect more of a professional response from someone apparently so confident in his conclusions than to resort to personal attacks.

But then, perhaps your conclusions are the fabrications of wishful thinking.

1836

05-10-2012, 12:28 AM

WTC7. Please, nothing else needs to be said. Stop ignoring science and reality, it isn't going away just because you ignore it.

I won't argue about 9/11, as that's not what I'm talking about here. It's been discussed before on this forum rather extensively, and you can read my opinions in those threads from the past.

What cannot be ignored is that there's not a lot of statisticians and mathematicians who seem to be endorsing and approving of the vote flipping conspiracy.

Why is that?

RickyJ

05-10-2012, 12:30 AM

What cannot be ignored is that there's not a lot of statisticians and mathematicians who seem to be endorsing and approving of the vote flipping conspiracy.

Why is that?

They want to keep their jobs, why else? Money is the great motivator and enslaver of mankind. It keeps people in chains to those that control the supply of it.

TheTexan

05-10-2012, 12:32 AM

What cannot be ignored is that there's not a lot of statisticians and mathematicians who seem to be endorsing and approving of the vote flipping conspiracy.

There's also an assload of economists who think the Federal Reserve is just awesome.

That said, I generally agree that the vote flipping probably is a fiction. That's largely irrelevant to my point though.

1836

05-10-2012, 12:33 AM

They want to keep their jobs, why else? Money is the great motivator and enslaver of mankind. It keeps people in chains to those that control the supply of it.

Then why have a lot of professors gotten on the 9/11 bandwagon? Again, I'm not trying to start a big 9/11 argument. But you'd think that particular subject would be more controversial than claims of election fraud.

I have never argued or believed that election fraud is non-existant, just that this particular theory is entirely wrong.

You'd think that if it were so legitimate, at least a few people in a position to review these claims and approve or disapprove of them would be able to lend a bit of credence. Yet you've not seen that.

Just these same posters reiterating the same, tired old theories, based on some guise of empiricism and methods that have been shown to be cursory at best.

And if they're so great of methods, why not get some endorsements from prominent people in the fields of statistics or mathematics?

1836

05-10-2012, 12:34 AM

There's also an assload of economists who think the Federal Reserve is just awesome.

That said, I generally agree that the vote flipping probably is a fiction. That's largely irrelevant to my point though.

Yes, but usually when you have a theory that's worth considering because there might be some intellectual rigor or legitimacy to it, you would have no trouble finding individuals in the fields that relate to the theory to endorse it.

RonRules

05-10-2012, 12:37 AM

They want to keep their jobs, why else? Money is the great motivator and enslaver of mankind. It keeps people in chains to those that control the supply of it.

I've seen a total of 5 professors (all at the same University). All thought the data was highly suspicious. None dismissed it. Two wanted a Data DVD to continue the analysis.

If you're not sure about vote flipping, that's fine. I would not expect you to know about aerodynamics, but you trust engineers and scientists before you get on a plane.

So, just take these charts to a statistician, take the time to properly explain the X-Axis (Cumulative Precinct Vote Tally). If you are unsure on how to explain that, give them the nice 47 page document that Drummergirl put together and see what they say.

Report your findings here. Thanks.

RickyJ

05-10-2012, 12:41 AM

TheTexan

05-10-2012, 12:41 AM

Yes, but usually when you have a theory that's worth considering because there might be some intellectual rigor or legitimacy to it, you would have no trouble finding individuals in the fields that relate to the theory to endorse it.

It's been some time since I've read this thread, but if I remember correctly there is some data that needs to be explained. Vote flipping may have been ruled out (by the primary vs caucus argument, for one), but I don't remember anybody providing a solid alternate explanation for that data.

Let them discuss, IMO. Free exchange of ideas, and all that.

1836

05-10-2012, 12:41 AM

I've seen a total of 5 professors (all at the same University). All thought the data was highly suspicious. None dismissed it. Two wanted a Data DVD to continue the analysis.

If you're not sure about vote flipping, that's fine. I would not expect you to know about aerodynamics, but you trust engineers and scientists before you get on a plane.

So, just take these charts to a statistician, take the time to properly explain the X-Axis (Cumulative Precinct Vote Tally). If you are unsure on how to explain that, give them the nice 47 page document that Drummergirl put together and see what they say.

Report your findings here. Thanks.

You're kidding me.

You're telling someone who doubts your claims that it is MY job to essentially PROVE A NEGATIVE? Prove that there's NOT a chance you're right?

If nothing else proves that you do not understand what empirical data is about, that's it right there.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU GUYS. Show some statisticians who are willing to say "this is a correct analysis," and show some endorsements that lend some credibility to these arguments. You've spent hundreds if not thousands of pages of threads on these forums showing your data, now find some endorsements from credible academics.

As you mentioned, someone even wrote an academic-style article. Why not try and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal?

Also, I'd also like my questions answered, please.

RonRules

05-10-2012, 12:44 AM

I just said that 5 professors agreed. Can you please go waste valuable disk space somewhere else?

1836

05-10-2012, 12:45 AM

Since the other thread quickly spiraled downhill, here are the questions I'd like answered as soon as you have a chance to do so:

1. Why hasn't Ben Swann run a story if there is so much truth to this? He was interested in doing one, interested in looking at data, then didn't run a story. Is he part of the conspiracy?

2. Why are independent pollsters who poll before primaries and caucuses so darn right, as reflected by the Real Clear Politics average?

3. Where is the empirical data to support a stronger presence of Ron Paul support than shown by the final results?

4. Why hasn't a large clamor erupted from news websites that are friendly to fringe and conspiratorial causes, like InfoWars?

5. If this were true it would be the story of the century for some small-time reporter looking to make it big. Where are the news stories about these claims, where is the media coverage even from the independent outlets?

6. The 9/11 conspiracy, which has been proven false repeatedly, nonetheless has plenty of professors, researchers, scientists to endorse its claims. Why hasn't the vote flipping fraud conspiracy realized a large number of endorsements from scientists, mathematicians, statisticians, and people who would be in a position to lend credibility to the claims?

drummergirl

05-10-2012, 12:45 AM

You are wrong.

I won't argue about 9/11, as that's not what I'm talking about here. It's been discussed before on this forum rather extensively, and you can read my opinions in those threads from the past.

What cannot be ignored is that there's not a lot of statisticians and mathematicians who seem to be endorsing and approving of the vote flipping conspiracy.

Why is that?

drummergirl

05-10-2012, 12:46 AM

1836

05-10-2012, 12:46 AM

I just said that 5 professors agreed. Can you please go waste valuable disk space somewhere else?

Ok. What are the names of these professors? What university?

I can claim that X number of professors from some hidden university back up whatever the heck I say, and what kind of factual claim is that? I could be making it up.

If you have people willing to back up your claims who are in academic positions to lend credibility, then please, by all means, reveal who they are.

In terms of wasting disk space, please tell me which takes up more space on the forum owner's server: my few questions totaling about two pages of a thread, or your hundreds and hundreds of pages of this "data" with pictures included?

TheTexan

05-10-2012, 12:47 AM

1836

05-10-2012, 12:49 AM

Stop demanding that others do your work for you. Go get the answers yourself troll.

LOL.

If you guys aren't willing to answer serious questions from a serious critic, then your "analysis" has no footing whatsoever.

The other fellow RonRules just posted that 5 university professors from some university backed up your claims, and yet he is content to not name anyone because apparently, just claiming professors are endorsing you without naming anyone is good enough.

I'm asking real questions because I give a damn. If the theory proves to be correct, I'll be right there with you defending it. But I have my questions, too.

As I mentioned, whenever someone makes a claim, the burden of proof is on them.

I can say "we are all actually reptilian beings from another dimension," and then say to you "now prove that I'm not right." Can you see how horribly ridiculous that kind of thing is? And that's why asking someone to prove a negative is never done by intellectually rigorous claims.

drummergirl

05-10-2012, 12:50 AM

Ok. What are the names of these professors? What university?

Since you apparently can't read, it's UC Riverside. Read the thread or stfu.

1836

05-10-2012, 12:50 AM

Most of these are appeals to authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority)

We don't take kindly to authority round these parts, no sir.

You're correct! You're a smart fellow. I loved logic in college.

Nonetheless, while I phrased these questions poorly, there are legitimate questions within the statements.

Oddone

05-10-2012, 12:52 AM

Algorithmic vote analyzers, they're ever so pious. Are they doing real science or confirming their bias?

drummergirl

05-10-2012, 12:52 AM

This from a pretender who claims to know something about the way Texas was born.

I suppose if you'd been there in 1836, you'd have told Travis to prove that Santa Ana was coming.

LOL.

If you guys aren't willing to answer serious questions from a serious critic, then your "analysis" has no footing whatsoever.

The other fellow RonRules just posted that 5 university professors from some university backed up your claims, and yet he is content to not name anyone because apparently, just claiming professors are endorsing you without naming anyone is good enough.

I'm asking real questions because I give a damn. If the theory proves to be correct, I'll be right there with you defending it. But I have my questions, too.

As I mentioned, whenever someone makes a claim, the burden of proof is on them.

I can say "we are all actually reptilian beings from another dimension," and then say to you "now prove that I'm not right." Can you see how horribly ridiculous that kind of thing is? And that's why asking someone to prove a negative is never done by intellectually rigorous claims.

1836

05-10-2012, 12:52 AM

Since you apparently can't read, it's UC Riverside. Read the thread or stfu.

Where are the professors, are they willing to come out of the closet or are they just anonymous? Because anonymous claims don't make for very much of a convincing endorsement.

1836

05-10-2012, 12:53 AM

Algorithmic vote analyzers, they're ever so pious. Are they doing real science or confirming their bias?

Whatever side you are on on this topic, well done. Well done.

RonRules

05-10-2012, 12:54 AM

Ok. What are the names of these professors? What university?

I told you what university. Read my posts. Check the Stats dept and the Poli-Sci dept. Both quite famous depts. I don't like posting people's names in forums, without prior permission.

We are taking full burden of proof responsibility, evidenced by hundreds of statistical charts, calculations and tables. And several reports.

What have YOU done?

1836

05-10-2012, 12:54 AM

This from a pretender who claims to know something about the way Texas was born.

I suppose if you'd been there in 1836, you'd have told Travis to prove that Santa Ana was coming.

Ad hominem attacks don't really make your theory any more convincing.

Still waiting on the names of those professors and answers to those questions. Thanks.

drummergirl

05-10-2012, 12:56 AM

Where are the professors, are they willing to come out of the closet or are they just anonymous? Because anonymous claims don't make for very much of a convincing endorsement.

You seriously expect people who already have full schedules and students and final exams to come onto a forum like this and deal with the likes of you?

You can't event show a shred of respect for your fellow human beings.

Go back under your bridge.

1836

05-10-2012, 12:56 AM

I told you what university. Read my posts. Check the Stats dept and the Poli-Sci dept. Both quite famous depts. I don't like posting people's names in forums, without prior permission.

We are taking full burden of proof responsibility, evidence by hundreds of statistical charts, calculations and tables.

What have YOU done?

I've posted some reasonable, critical questions, asked you to explain why independent pollsters unaffiliated with Edison came to relatively correct conclusions before the vote was held, and I've explained to you that asking someone to prove a negative is really shitty for your argument, because the burden of proof is on you.

I've also asked you to quote me some credible authorities in academia to back up your claims.

I'm doing a lot for the liberty movement.

1836

05-10-2012, 12:58 AM

You seriously expect people who already have full schedules and students and final exams to come onto a forum like this and deal with the likes of you?

You can't event show a shred of respect for your fellow human beings.

Go back under your bridge.

More ad hominem attacks. Again, not very convincing in context of how your argument is claimed to be so factual.

I don't expect nor even care if a single professor came on here and argued for your side.

But if some professors would be willing to put their names on statements relating to your analysis and your theory, then I suppose that would add a lot of credibility to your argument. Also, the article that you wrote, would you be willing to submit it to peer-reviewed journals?

Oddone

05-10-2012, 12:59 AM

Personal attacks are always the first sign of a failed argument.

1836

05-10-2012, 01:00 AM

Let me reiterate that while I am very critical, I have absolutely nothing against you guys personally. This is all about your argument, which seems to be false to me, in light of some things I have pointed out. I have also pointed out that I feel this is a conspiracy which hurts the movement. I have done all of this honestly and without playing politics as to my true feelings.

I have no doubt that you guys are ardent Ron Paul supporters and probably really good folks.

But if we are not able to have a serious discussion without you guys resorting to ad hominem attacks on me personally, that's not going to help your argument.

I'm interested in getting the information out there, and getting the facts to light. This has taken up a lot of space on the forum, and so I'm interested.

I apologize if you've taken any of this personally, apparently so. I have not made any statements about you guys personally, other than to challenge your argument. I don't claim to be the smartest person in the world or the room, I'm asking questions from a critical perspective.

drummergirl

05-10-2012, 01:02 AM

1836

05-10-2012, 01:05 AM

You don't act like a real Texan.

And I'm serious; go answer your own rhetorical questions. Unless of course you are too lazy.

Apparently you are quite lazy intellectually speaking, because you only come on these threads once in a blue moon. You spout a bunch of pseudo-logical BS that has no bearing on the topic, create pages of crap for the analysts to sort thru, and get all butt hurt because we call you on your load of manure.

You want to know why Ben Swann hasn't touched this? Go ask him; I have no idea. I've never met the man. You expect me to read a man's mind? Are you insane? Really? I'm supposed to have magic answers for you because you cry like a baby?

Go back under your bridge.

Your ad hominem attacks don't speak to your "intelligence," if I may say. Your personal attacks on a critic speak to an argument that is not convincing enough on its own, to attempt to be bolstered by personal attacks on its critics.

"The analysts" can sort through my "psuedo-logical BS" all they want, all I need are answers to my questions.

Otherwise you're just making claims and then refusing to defend them against a harsh critic, albeit, a critic who has NOT attacked you personally, which you seem to be perfectly happy to do to me.

And I think that speaks for itself, in a lot of ways.

drummergirl

05-10-2012, 01:07 AM

More ad hominem attacks. Again, not very convincing in context of how your argument is claimed to be so factual.

I don't expect nor even care if a single professor came on here and argued for your side.

But if some professors would be willing to put their names on statements relating to your analysis and your theory, then I suppose that would add a lot of credibility to your argument. Also, the article that you wrote, would you be willing to submit it to peer-reviewed journals?

If you bothered to read what I wrote (clearly actually reading things is a problem for you), you'd know it's not an academic article. There will probably be a number of peer reviewed articles on this topic sometime in 2014. If you'd like to put the liberty movement on hold while you wait for peer reviewed articles in statistics journals, that would be your choice.

As for me and my house, I give no quarter to tyrants. enjoy your chains.

1836

05-10-2012, 01:10 AM

If you bothered to read what I wrote (clearly actually reading things is a problem for you), you'd know it's not an academic article. There will probably be a number of peer reviewed articles on this topic sometime in 2014. If you'd like to put the liberty movement on hold while you wait for peer reviewed articles in statistics journals, that would be your choice.

As for me and my house, I give no quarter to tyrants. enjoy your chains.

...Not sure when a serious critic became a "tyrant."

The liberty movement is not on hold any more than your arguments are some big serious part of it. And that's the problem I seek to have answered.

Because you guys claim your arguments are so legitimate that they need a great deal of attention from the liberty movement to advance the ball forward on them. Meanwhile, someone like myself comes on here to ask questions (even harsh questions) and gets personally attacked.

I wouldn't ask if I didn't think that the entire question of whether this topic is significant is itself relevant. The fact that the forum moderators have allowed these threads to continue is not the answer to that question. The answer should be in whether or not the argument itself is legitimate, and whether it is proven.

It is neither as far as I can tell, and this is why I ask my questions. You can personally attack me all you want, but the core question of relevance to the liberty movement remains. For me and for others.

drummergirl

05-10-2012, 01:11 AM

Your ad hominem attacks don't speak to your "intelligence," if I may say. Your personal attacks on a critic speak to an argument that is not convincing enough on its own, to attempt to be bolstered by personal attacks on its critics.

"The analysts" can sort through my "psuedo-logical BS" all they want, all I need are answers to my questions.

Otherwise you're just making claims and then refusing to defend them against a harsh critic, albeit, a critic who has NOT attacked you personally, which you seem to be perfectly happy to do to me.

And I think that speaks for itself, in a lot of ways.

If calling a troll a troll is ad hominem, then so be it.

That's just your way of throwing a red herring into the mix. The issue is that you are posting intentionally inflammatory and diversionary remarks. Your questions are rhetorical and designed to distract effort from analysis and critical thought.

1836

05-10-2012, 01:13 AM

If calling a troll a troll is ad hominem, then so be it.

That's just your way of throwing a red herring into the mix. The issue is that you are posting intentionally inflammatory and diversionary remarks. Your questions are rhetorical and designed to distract effort from analysis and critical thought.

That's pretty amazing, considering you just claimed to be so humble and I so arrogant when you posted that I was a "tyrant" and a "troll." To say that I'm diverting from "analysis and critical thought" by asking questions you won't answer.

Here are the questions once again, and I'd like an answer. If you're so confident in your argument, this should be child's play. Yet, you ignore them.

1. Why hasn't Ben Swann run a story if there is so much truth to this? He was interested in doing one, interested in looking at data, then didn't run a story. Is he part of the conspiracy?

2. Why are independent pollsters who poll before primaries and caucuses so darn right, as reflected by the Real Clear Politics average?

3. Where is the empirical data to support a stronger presence of Ron Paul support than shown by the final results?

4. Why hasn't a large clamor erupted from news websites that are friendly to fringe and conspiratorial causes, like InfoWars?

5. If this were true it would be the story of the century for some small-time reporter looking to make it big. Where are the news stories about these claims, where is the media coverage even from the independent outlets?

6. The 9/11 conspiracy, which has been proven false repeatedly, nonetheless has plenty of professors, researchers, scientists to endorse its claims. Why hasn't the vote flipping fraud conspiracy realized a large number of endorsements from scientists, mathematicians, statisticians, and people who would be in a position to lend credibility to the claims?

drummergirl

05-10-2012, 01:13 AM

...Not sure when a serious critic became a "tyrant."

If you had any real criticism I would happily deal with it. You are just an obstructionist. And you don't know much of Texas history apparently. You chose your name poorly.

1836

05-10-2012, 01:15 AM

If you had any real criticism I would happily deal with it. You are just an obstructionist. And you don't know much of Texas history apparently. You chose your name poorly.

Call me what you wish, I'm waiting on my academic sources, and answers to the questions I asked.

Ignore them all you want, continue to attack and call me names. It doesn't help your argument's legitimacy. It hurts it.

The burden of proof is on your shoulders and you're rather uncomfortable with it there. But you posted all this; defend it! Don't just ignore criticism because it's inconvenient.

RonRules

05-10-2012, 01:17 AM

4. Why hasn't a large clamor erupted from news websites that are friendly to fringe and conspiratorial causes, like InfoWars?

Picture Alex Jones yelling three times in quick succession: "CUMULATIVE PRECINCT VOTE TALLY!".

This is why.

1836

05-10-2012, 01:19 AM

Picture Alex Jones yelling three times in quick succession: "CUMULATIVE PRECINCT VOTE TALLY!".

This is why.

I would think that if this was presented to him, that he might be interested in it. Honestly, that's something I find surprising. I can understand if the reason why he hasn't done anything on it is because you haven't presented it to him. Maybe he doesn't know about it.

In that case, I understand completely. In which case, the answer is that he just doesn't know about it. As much as anything, I suppose I was wondering if he does.

Nonetheless, there ARE other independent outlets. Why not have them cover this?

drummergirl

05-10-2012, 01:26 AM

Fine troll:

That's pretty amazing, considering you just claimed to be so humble and I so arrogant when you posted that I was a "tyrant" and a "troll." To say that I'm diverting from "analysis and critical thought" by asking questions you won't answer.

Here are the questions once again, and I'd like an answer. If you're so confident in your argument, this should be child's play. Yet, you ignore them.

1. Why hasn't Ben Swann run a story if there is so much truth to this? He was interested in doing one, interested in looking at data, then didn't run a story. Is he part of the conspiracy?

If you've followed this at all, you'd know The Flipper is probably about 3 people. Not likely Ben Swann is one. But then, I don't know the man. You expect me to know the motivations of a man? I'm single for a reason. You want this guy's opinion; do some leg work and ask him.

2. Why are independent pollsters who poll before primaries and caucuses so darn right, as reflected by the Real Clear Politics average?

This is about election results not polls. I don't watch polls. Irrelevant.

3. Where is the empirical data to support a stronger presence of Ron Paul support than shown by the final results?

Read the technical summary and the thousand or so charts and 5 thousand posts or so. Like Ragu, it's in there.

4. Why hasn't a large clamor erupted from news websites that are friendly to fringe and conspiratorial causes, like InfoWars?

I have no idea. Ask them. Again, you expect me to have magical knowledge about the motivations of men.

5. If this were true it would be the story of the century for some small-time reporter looking to make it big. Where are the news stories about these claims, where is the media coverage even from the independent outlets?

Go ask them. Lot's of big stories get no or little press coverage. Another rhetorical red herring.

6. The 9/11 conspiracy, which has been proven false repeatedly, nonetheless has plenty of professors, researchers, scientists to endorse its claims. Why hasn't the vote flipping fraud conspiracy realized a large number of endorsements from scientists, mathematicians, statisticians, and people who would be in a position to lend credibility to the claims?

You want me to tell you about the 9/11 conspiracy? I don't know a thing about it; not following it; not interested in it. You want to know why we don't have a massive cult-like following? You seriously can't figure out why a phenomenon in it's infancy that has had no press, no publicity, and has only a handful of people using their spare time working on the problem doesn't have a laundry list of endorsements and supporters? You need me to answer that for you? Would you like a binky or a blanky to go with the story? Because I can go into intense detail for you if you are so infantile as to need that depth of explanation.

drummergirl

05-10-2012, 01:50 AM

I apologize if you've taken any of this personally, apparently so. I have not made any statements about you guys personally, other than to challenge your argument. I don't claim to be the smartest person in the world or the room, I'm asking questions from a critical perspective.

Now that is an outright lie. Here is a list of your personal attacks from YOUR posts this evening in this thread.

The conspiracy continues.

Nobody has yet explained why polling companies seem to get it so right with the final results.

Are they all in on the big conspiracy?

They get it pretty damn right, most of the time.

Oh, another question.

Ben Swann was interested in this, then he didn't run a story about it. If it has so much credibility, why wouldn't such a friendly reporter with his eye to the truth do a story on it?

Or is he part of the conspiracy also?

Oh, another question.

Even the 9/11 Truth conspiracy, which has been repeatedly proven to be incorrect in most all of its conclusions, has a huge list of professors who are backing up its claims.

Where are the professors, statisticians, and mathematicians to endorse the vote flipping claims?

Thanks!

Getting personal are we? I have done a great deal for the liberty movement. I would expect more of a professional response from someone apparently so confident in his conclusions than to resort to personal attacks.

But then, perhaps your conclusions are the fabrications of wishful thinking.

Just these same posters reiterating the same, tired old theories, based on some guise of empiricism and methods that have been shown to be cursory at best.

And if they're so great of methods, why not get some endorsements from prominent people in the fields of statistics or mathematics?

Yes, but usually when you have a theory that's worth considering because there might be some intellectual rigor or legitimacy to it,

You're kidding me.

You're telling someone who doubts your claims that it is MY job to essentially PROVE A NEGATIVE? Prove that there's NOT a chance you're right?

If nothing else proves that you do not understand what empirical data is about, that's it right there.

Ok. What are the names of these professors? What university?
said right after the name of the university was given

I can claim that X number of professors from some hidden university back up whatever the heck I say, and what kind of factual claim is that? I could be making it up.

In terms of wasting disk space, please tell me which takes up more space on the forum owner's server: my few questions totaling about two pages of a thread, or your hundreds and hundreds of pages of this "data" with pictures included?

I can say "we are all actually reptilian beings from another dimension," and then say to you "now prove that I'm not right." Can you see how horribly ridiculous that kind of thing is? And that's why asking someone to prove a negative is never done by intellectually rigorous claims.

Whatever side you are on on this topic, well done. Well done.

asking someone to prove a negative is really shitty for your argument,
I have done all of this honestly and without playing politics as to my true feelings.

Your ad hominem attacks don't speak to your "intelligence," if I may say. Your personal attacks on a critic speak to an argument that is not convincing enough on its own, to attempt to be bolstered by personal attacks on its critics.

And I think that speaks for itself, in a lot of ways.

It is neither as far as I can tell, and this is why I ask my questions. You can personally attack me all you want, but the core question of relevance to the liberty movement remains. For me and for others.

The burden of proof is on your shoulders and you're rather uncomfortable with it there.

So you can whine on about being called a troll. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. And you can moan about being attacked, just remember you fired first, troll.

KingNothing

05-10-2012, 06:23 AM

That's pretty amazing, considering you just claimed to be so humble and I so arrogant when you posted that I was a "tyrant" and a "troll." To say that I'm diverting from "analysis and critical thought" by asking questions you won't answer.

Here are the questions once again, and I'd like an answer. If you're so confident in your argument, this should be child's play. Yet, you ignore them.

1. Why hasn't Ben Swann run a story if there is so much truth to this? He was interested in doing one, interested in looking at data, then didn't run a story. Is he part of the conspiracy?

2. Why are independent pollsters who poll before primaries and caucuses so darn right, as reflected by the Real Clear Politics average?

3. Where is the empirical data to support a stronger presence of Ron Paul support than shown by the final results?

4. Why hasn't a large clamor erupted from news websites that are friendly to fringe and conspiratorial causes, like InfoWars?

5. If this were true it would be the story of the century for some small-time reporter looking to make it big. Where are the news stories about these claims, where is the media coverage even from the independent outlets?

6. The 9/11 conspiracy, which has been proven false repeatedly, nonetheless has plenty of professors, researchers, scientists to endorse its claims. Why hasn't the vote flipping fraud conspiracy realized a large number of endorsements from scientists, mathematicians, statisticians, and people who would be in a position to lend credibility to the claims?

Total ownage. Good on you, my friend!

1836

05-10-2012, 10:46 AM

I have some questions.

First:

Why have no academics come out and, behind their own name, endorsed this theory?
Last night when I asked that question, all I was told is that "five professors" from "UC Riverside" had agreed with you. But you would not name them, in which case you're just making a claim.

Secondly:

Why did independent pollsters such as Rasmussen, Public Policy Polling, and Quinnipiac get so close to the final results of these elections when they obviously couldn't be "in" on the conspiracy? The RealClearPolitics average of polls proves the point: collectively, independent pollsters are almost dead on in primary states. If anything, Ron Paul OUTPERFORMED his polling numbers.

Thirdly:

Is there any empirical data to show that there is a greater number of Ron Paul supporters than the final results of the primaries showed? In other words, if Ron Paul has that much more support like you claim, where is it?

Finally:

Why have you so denounced and personally attacked your critics? My questions on here last night may have been harsh, but were met with unbelievably personal and angry attacks from "drummergirl," who proceeded to call me every insult in the book.

Why is it not possible to have a dialogue with a critic? I have posed reasonable questions, and would like answers.

Thank you.

LinuxJedi

05-10-2012, 11:35 AM

I remember once attempting to look at the data objectively, and I was also insulted / attacked by those who believe. Either everything I have learned about statistics / probability is wrong (I doubt it), or this stuff is all bogus. Anyways, that was a couple months ago... in the period of time that I cared, there were others who attempted to bring some objectivity to all of these who were personally attacked. I have the utmost respect for those who have attempted to add common sense to these discussions.

This is the worst sort of mob-mentality, and in my opinion has no place on RPF.

Regarding the actual flipper... as I have shown before, and I do maintain, this is a fact about numbers. I provided a computer simulation (taking a day off work to do so) to demonstrate that random data can generate similar features of these graphs, and I was attacked. There is really nothing to see, and I realize there is some supposed "absolute mathematical law" that is being violated. To that, please provide the theorem and reference to some text which you have that discusses / proves this theorem. If you can, provide a proof of said theorem. Please demonstrate that, if said theorem exists, the data examined matches the assumptions so that it can legitimately be used here. But you know, it comes back to "no... you are just dumb... I have a degree from wikipedia"... or "YOU PROVE that our assumptions are false"... and so on.

Again, utmost respect for those attempting to bring some sanity to these threads.

brandon

05-10-2012, 11:39 AM

1836, arguing with these people is a complete waste of time, which I learned the hard way. Best to just ignore them and report them when they leak out of this thread.

drummergirl

05-10-2012, 11:56 AM

I have some questions.

First:

Why have no academics come out and, behind their own name, endorsed this theory?

Academia is slow. You can expect to see peer reviewed articles on the subject in 2014 or 2015. Do you seriously expect someone with a full schedule of research and teaching to just stop everything and pick up this project? That is an unrealistic expectation.

Secondly:

Why did independent pollsters such as Rasmussen, Public Policy Polling, and Quinnipiac get so close to the final results of these elections when they obviously couldn't be "in" on the conspiracy? The RealClearPolitics average of polls proves the point: collectively, independent pollsters are almost dead on in primary states. If anything, Ron Paul OUTPERFORMED his polling numbers.

Red herring. We are analyzing actual election results. Polls might give a clue, but they are mostly irrelevant.

Thirdly:

Is there any empirical data to show that there is a greater number of Ron Paul supporters than the final results of the primaries showed? In other words, if Ron Paul has that much more support like you claim, where is it?

Yes, there is a boat load of data. If you want to know how Ron Paul actually did before the vote theft, you can get a pretty good idea by looking at his percentage of vote total before flipping hits and multiply it by the number of votes cast in the election and you'll be pretty close to his actual performance. Just look through the threads, read the summary and links if you want more data there is a ton of it.

Finally:

Why have you so denounced and personally attacked your critics? My questions on here last night may have been harsh, but were met with unbelievably personal and angry attacks from "drummergirl," who proceeded to call me every insult in the book.

You fired first, so what did you expect? Am I supposed to act like some defenseless little girl because you call me names? If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

This is you. If you don't like the term, don't do it. I call them as I see them.

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

1stAmendguy

05-10-2012, 12:06 PM

I don't have a mathematics background, but I like to read this thread.

To 1836 and brandon did you read this part of the Mod note in the OP?

in the interest of avoiding flame wars and derailments to the work that is being done here this thread is to be kept free of attacks on this project

The moderators have suggested that you please direct your criticisms of this project somewhere else, not here.

drummergirl

05-10-2012, 12:14 PM

Laugh if you want. Law enforcement is slow and academia is slower.

First, no professor will publish until they have received a grant. They'll do about half of the work, put in a grant application, wait to receive the grant money, then put the article out for peer review and wait to be published. That process takes 2-3 years.

Similarly, a professor might be kind enough and interested enough to look over some data and talk with you about what you are seeing, but they would not put their name on it until the article is published in the peer reviewed journal.

The absolute most one would do as far as an endorsement would be to say to a reporter something like, "Yes, I've seen the presentation and it looks very interesting. I haven't yet had the opportunity to study the problem fully." As they have some graduate student staying up nights writing the grant application as fast as possible.

affa

05-10-2012, 01:34 PM

plenty of people have went on the record about various past potential conspiracies, from JFK through 9/11. Rather than lend credence to the theory, the anti-conspiracy folk who refuse to even entertain the idea that people might get together to do something terrible to make money simply band together to tarnish the whistleblower's reputation.

expecting someone with a recognizable name to simply jump on board at this point is just plain silly. first off, it doesn't work like that, and as stated by drummergirl, would certainly take a long time (longer than we have, most likely). besides, no amount of evidence, or professional opinions, will convince some of you, because some of you exist solely to deny the possibility, misdirect, and confuse.

1836

05-11-2012, 10:47 AM

Red herring. We are analyzing actual election results. Polls might give a clue, but they are mostly irrelevant.

That is a remarkably ignorant statement.

You can actually prove the statistical validity of polling results averaged over time and further, studies have been done that confirm this. If you wanted to confirm it yourselves, then you could plot all the data points from respected independent pollsters (say, RCP's chosen data set) on a graph and run regression lines with predictions of where the candidate's total should end up. Then you could take a number of similar other data sets from other races with similar overall characteristics and do the same, and then average it out once you had a decent sample size to see clearly the mean deviation (hint: it's not much).

What I'm saying is that you can prove that polls are not irrelevant and are in fact statistically valid over the long term and with a given sample size of races and data sets, you can actually even prove it for yourself! Even in the case of Ron Paul outperforming his expectations in particularly New Hampshire and South Carolina, you can see that the reasons were due to variables outside the pollsters' control and completely expected if the demographics had been known ahead of time. In fact, if you had the raw pollster data, you could theoretically adjust the poll methodology after the fact using the actual election demographics to come up with a more accurate picture of the final election results. Pollsters have to estimate demographic makeup, and likelihood of voting, which are the single greatest variables leading to polling error.

Therefore, polls are not irrelevant.

This crashes right into your conclusions which fly in the face of polling results, because they can be averaged state by state, candidate by candidate, whether you are talking about Ron Paul or someone else.

If your conclusions are sound, you would expect there to be some kind of consistent correlation with the independent pre-election day pollsters in the long run. Then again, you might also find that you're consistently wrong – perhaps that's why you have avoided dealing with this topic by just shooing it aside (rather convenient to prove your hypothesis, by shutting out data you don't like).