The case for the occurence of algorithmic vote flipping

[drummergirl]

MODERATOR NOTE: This is a contentious subject that members of this forum have expressed strong disagreement on. A number of members do not think there is any evidence of vote flipping, but 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. To view arguments making the case against the occurrence of vote flipping or to post arguments yourself go here or in other previous threads making the case against vote flipping such as here or here.


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


Here is a summary, written with the non-math oriented in mind, of the analysis so far.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...BVE/edit?pli=1

Since the original threads are now over 4000 posts, there is a TON of more data that's been analyzed since super Tuesday, and considering the time critical nature of the information, I thought it would be a good idea to start a new thread.

If your state primary is yet to be conducted, please bring this to the attention of your election administrators so they have a chance to prevent fraud in their elections.

If your state primary is past, please gather up your data and head to your attorney general.

For anyone who likes to be thorough, the original thread is most easily read by the first post and then backwards from the most recent

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?363915

[economics102]

+rep! Keep pushing, this is vital work!

[drummergirl]

thanks; next project is a technical summary with lots of math for those who want data.

[RonRules]

Please keep this new thread as clean as possible, with productive posts (Pro or con). If your pet argument has been shot down, please don't self-bump. Keep praise to a minimum, but please criticize in private.

Make every post about new information that has not been provided before. Learn to make charts through Excel or the new Java program made by RPF member "Program4Liberty". This is the quickest way to analyze a new state/county/precinct.

You can download the current version here:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/voteanalyze/?_test=b

All you need to do is to arrange your data in this format:



==================Using VoteAnalyze================
To Use:

I have included pregenerated output information for everyone, but if you should wish to verify that these numbers and this program are correct, the program source code is included here, and you can re-generate the information yourself by double-clicking VotesAnaylze.bat and following the prompts. Use compile.bat to compile the program.

Here is an example of generating the 2012 outputs:

VotesAnalyze.bat
Note: This program requires that no candidate's last name contain another candidate's last name - e.g. Joe Adams and Bill Adamson.
Enter the relative path and filename to the candidates text file: votes2012/candidates.txt
Note: This program requires that all data be provided in files with comma seperated values (.csv)
Enter the relative path to the folder containing the .csv files: votes2012
Generating data by state...
Generaling data for all states combined...
Outputting correlation table...
Generating chart images...
Program Finished.

That's it! "votes2012/candidates.txt" and then "votes2012" are the only things you need to enter to get the program to generate data for 2012.
Use 2008 and 2000 in place for those years.

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

Please note: it's not a polished program, so if you type anything in incorrectly, the input tables aren't formatted correctly, or something I've not mentioned here happens, then you'll just get a Java error.

Try again, tweak, and use the forums.

[Constitutional Paulicy]

Not sure how accurate this is, but I heard someone say that the reason Romney's numbers surge at the close of the process is due to larger districts. The argument was that he does better than other candidates in larger population centers (big cities) where the vote counts take longer to tabulate so they are the last districts to submit their results.

[drummergirl]

Unfortunately it's a bit more than that. If that were the case his graphs would have a bump to a higher percentage, then flat line. But what we see, over and over in nearly every state, is once 20-50% of the votes are tabulated, the graph of Romney's overall percentage climbs linearly to the end of the tabulation. Statistically, it's impossible (well, the odds are better of winning the Texas state lottery 10 weeks in a row on a single quick pick a week).

And no one has been able to come up with a hypothesis as to why Romney's total does this at the expense of Ron Paul, Rick Perry, and Michelle Bachman in Iowa, Paul and Huntsman in New Hampshire, Santorum in Louisiana (Ron Paul untouched), Paul, Santorum, and Gingrich in Oklahoma, etc.

[Titus]

Hopefully asking for clarification is ok.

Your article calls these basic statistics. However, it has been about 10 years since I took statistics, and I don't think I dealt much with Omega (I think that's the one that looks like an O). Is that the symbol for standard deviations? If so, are y'all using a t-test?

I'm not quite understanding the captions underneath each graph with the diagonal lines. Are the precincts sorted from smallest to largest and then added together? If so, wouldn't that suggest that the percentage of each precinct is what is flipped, rather than some from each precinct?

I think this needs a lot more explanation for people like me who have taken some statistics and want to know more about which equations were used and how they were generated.

Please don't take this as criticism of the model but I really want to understand it so I can contribute. If I can't understand it, I can be near certain the MSM viewers won't. Heck, the MSM hasn't even added up Maine's numbers.

That being said. +rep. Keep up the good work.

[RonRules]

Not sure how accurate this is, but I heard someone say that the reason Romney's numbers surge at the close of the process is due to larger districts. The argument was that he does better than other candidates in larger population centers (big cities) where the vote counts take longer to tabulate so they are the last districts to submit their results.

I have said that and possibly other people in this forum. Most of us have watched the results come in on each of the primaries's election night, being filled with enthusiastic early on, to only be disappointed as the evening progressed.

The time-based evidence is hard to come by from official sources. You'd have to go to CNN/CBS/ABC and ask them for the file where they received the data along with time stamps for each piece of data as it came in.

If you are really interested in researching this, you could also go back to each thread were individual primaries were discussed in this forum, collect the results that we posted with post time in the thread and make charts from that data. The X-Axis would be time instead of cumulative precinct size. I believe that the charts will look somewhat similar to our current charts, because of what you state: "where the vote counts take longer to tabulate so they are the last districts to submit their results."

It would be interesting to see one more point of argument to use. The general population would be more likely to accept such a time-based chart than "cumulative increasing precinct vote tally".

It's a neat project and I'd love to see someone tackle that.

One thing to be mindful though is that precincts, regardless of size, that use Direct Entry Machines (touch screen), will report just as quickly for small precincts as for large precincts. The above concept will work only for manually counted precincts or precincts that use optical scan.

[Titus]

It would be interesting to see one more point of argument to use. The general population would be more likely to accept such a time-based chart than "cumulative increasing precinct vote tally".

I would certainly find that easier to understand.

One thing to be mindful though is that precincts, regardless of size, that use Direct Entry Machines (touch screen), will report just as quickly for small precincts as for large precincts. The above concept will work only for manually counted precincts or precincts that use optical scan.

Question. Is the graph suggesting that time changes the way the votes are "flipped" or is it the size of the precinct?


Did someone do Maine?

[arsenius]

Titus, it is by precinct size. However, smaller precincts often finish totaling first, and so may be reported first. The argument is not that only later precincts are flipped.