# Thread: The case for the occurence of algorithmic vote flipping

1. Originally Posted by 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).
If the larger percentages are in the larger precincts, i.e., the data points that pull up the average tend to occur toward the end of the sequence, then it won't flatten out. It's only going to flatten out if you get to a point where the prior average is (roughly) the overall average, and the remaining precincts average out to the overall average ... but that's not the case if there's a correlation between the precinct ordering and the vote percentage.

What the non-flattening graphs show, in a convoluted way, is that there IS a correlation between precinct size and vote percentage. If there is such a correlation, the graph won't be flat, and the stronger the correlation the less flat it will be.

Look at it this way. Assume there's a correlation between precinct size and vote percentage and for this example, assume it's increasing. If we look at some midpoint in the sorted sequence, then the correlation means that the points to the right will have a higher average than the points to the left. But the cumulative average is obviously the average of the points to the left, so points to the right will cause the cumulative average to continue rising as we continue accumulating them. So the correlation means that the curve is not flat. Fraud or no fraud, it's just the effect of sorting by a non-independent variable.

The statistical argument assumes that the precinct size and vote percentage are independent variables. If there's a correlation between precinct size and vote percentage, then the statistical argument is incorrect.

• Originally Posted by 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.
Thank you for your questions. This summary was written to help explain the math for people who don't know math. next project is a technical summary. And yes, if you flip through the original thread and look for the t-test values, R squared, and f numbers your jaw will drop.

If you are wanting to look for yourself at the basics, page one of the original thread and then read backwards is my best advice for now. I apologize for not having more detail for you atm, but I have to get up early (ewwww!).

• [QUOTE=Titus;4316877
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?[/QUOTE]

It is not time. It is precinct size, which is actually shorthand for "the number of ballots cast in a precinct". So "small" just means there were not a lot of votes cast there. The difference between small and large is not necessarily obvious. I know we have one state where the break point was a difference of 20 votes per precinct. 20 votes is not that big a change.

And I believe Maine statewide was done.

• Originally Posted by Titus
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?
If a given state/county is re-plotted with time on the X-Axis, it will show some slope in the direction of vote flipping, much like the cumulative precinct vote tally charts. I expect the chart to be more bumpy, depending on the type of equipment used at the various precincts.

Maine was done at the state level as shown below, but I don't remember seeing charts for individual counties in Maine. You'll have to get the data from the friendly local GOP, but it is also an important project to pursue. Maine is one of those states were will will likely have a plurality of delegates, but lose (officially) the popular vote. This could happen in 6-7 states and I expect much commotion in the coming weeks as these delegates get announced.

It is important that we can make a strong case for vote flipping in these contentious states. From the looks of the chart below, I think Ron had the popular vote in Maine, but got flipped to second place. We need a solid analysis, county by county in Maine. Anybody want to do this?

• Originally Posted by dsw
The statistical argument assumes that the precinct size and vote percentage are independent variables. If there's a correlation between precinct size and vote percentage, then the statistical argument is incorrect.
I think what you mean is that if there should be a correlation between precinct size and vote percentage then the statistical argument is incorrect. That is absolutely true.

It is the central issue of what we see, as a matter of fact. The math we are talking about is pretty basic and old. If the math is wrong, the whole field of statistics will never be the same.

• Originally Posted by drummergirl
I think what you mean is that if there should be a correlation between precinct size and vote percentage then the statistical argument is incorrect. That is absolutely true.

It is the central issue of what we see, as a matter of fact. The math we are talking about is pretty basic and old. If the math is wrong, the whole field of statistics will never be the same.
But the probability argument (that the odds of Mitt's graph doing such and such is some huge number) only makes sense if there's no correlation between the precinct size and the vote percentage. The slope of the graph proves that there IS a correlation, and therefore the calculation of the odds of it happening is no longer valid. So I'm confused about what the probability argument is supposed to show. It assumes something proven to be false.

It's obviously not impossible for there to be a correlation between precinct size and vote percentage, and therefore a curve that doesn't flatten out, without needing any fraud to explain it. The Virginia Beach data show one way that could happen. There's a large contiguous area with two properties, (a) the precincts in that area are among the largest in the city (they account for 60% of the top 23 precincts), and (b) Romney was very popular in those areas. With no fraud at all having those two conditions coincide is sufficient to have a graph that starts out looking good for Ron Paul but doesn't flatten out and ends with Mitt winning.

I'm not saying that this is the whole story in VBC -- obviously not since the bias for Romney over Paul shows up well before that point in the ordered list of precincts (and well before the alleged flipping is supposed to start according to the algorithm). But it illustrates a kind of situation that could cause this sort of correlation, without fraud.

A key point here is that, as I noted in the other thread, there's a strong pattern in the precinct ordering that tends to cluster precincts of similar size together. I don't know if that's true elsewhere, but it's clear in VBC. So when an area spanning multiple precincts is strongly pro-Mitt, and it happens to be one of the areas with large precincts, a correlation with precinct size is the natural result.

• Originally Posted by dsw
It's obviously not impossible for there to be a correlation between precinct size and vote percentage, and therefore a curve that doesn't flatten out, without needing any fraud to explain it.
This is why we've spent tens of hours charting historical elections, showing that Romney is, by far, Mr. Precinct Size and that, barring 2008, it has only really been seen in nature to any significant degree Louisiana, where the guy in charge of elections ended up in jail for election fraud.

• Originally Posted by S.Shorland
Get this off the front page.Anyone interested already knows you are in hot topics.It's just a bright light flashed in the eyes that detracts from current real important business.
Wouldn't that be a moderator decision? Wead just wrote a blog about the fraud going on, that is in grassroots. The only "detraction" from other business occurs if you click on the topic. So don't click.

• First I can say I stoped reading the 4k+ thread weeks ago.

Second, whether you disagree or agree with the methods is irrelevent here. That horse has been beaten to death several times over. So don't "tinkle" in their cheerios.

You guys have put a ton of work into this, work that you wouldn't have done if you didn't really beleive what you were working on would make a difference. I'm not sure if its valid or not. In my mind for validation it would have to be taken to an outside source, re-run the work re-checked the numbers by someone without a horse in the race. This would ultimatley be a huge factor in proveing or disproving the results and your conclutions.

Have you looked into the costs of having an outside source pour over your data and give their conclutions? I'm not sure what that would cost or what ammount of time it would take. What I do know is if Dr. Paul can raise \$1M in a couple days. Surley with properly asking and showing your need you could come up with the several \$1k's to take this to the next logical step and if kept transparent you'd get what you're asking for.

If the conclutions are right it would fundementally change the voting world. If they're wrong it would only cost what people were willing to chip in.

What is the next step?

• I agree with jbauer, what is the next step?

At this point I don't see this coming to anything, without some sort of breakthrough. The phenomenon has been duplicated all over. It's established. There needs to be a next step to prove whether it's fraud or not, or get it into someone in the media's hands (a tall order, I know!). Drummergirl, your updated summary is great, although I would personally change the beginning to be less emotional and jump right into the report. Thank you for starting work on a technical summary as well!

I am currently emailing drummergirl's summary to the county clerks in Wisconsin, because it is voting next week. I am trying to make it clear in the email that I am contacting them as a concerned citizen who wants to ensure that the voting process is on the up and up, whether the claims are true or not. I am including some questions about how voting machine testing is done, based on some concerns that came out in the thread.

I would definitely donate to a chipin of some sort to get this looked at by an independent party also.

• Page 2 of 108 First 12341252102 ... Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•