When you simplify it until it's just silly, your argument loses its impact. Supposing that 70% of voters did one thing, and the other 30% did whatever was necessary to make the totals come out right, isn't an argument that anyone should take seriously.Originally Posted by parocks
That's exactly what he did. and he says it proves there is no fraud. 100% certain.
I've listed what I believe to be reasonable 'mistakes' based on the ballot multiple times in this thread. Off the top of my head, and I may be forgetting something I've listed earlier:
1) Overvoting for Gingrich's first delegate due to ballot positioning- 'whoops'.
2) 'Down the Line' Voters (voting in every delegate race). There may be some voter fatigue associated to this, so Gingrich, first on ballot, would benefit most. However, since each delegate race is clearly labeled with the candidate's name, I don't believe it should be extremely common. The name of an opposing candidate should act as a form of kryptonite for most voters -- would you 'accidentally' vote for someone clearly labeled 'Santorum'? But I do list it, because it's certainly a plausible ballot mistake.
3) Santorum voters not voting for their delegates because they forget to turn the paper over.
4) Voting for only one of your candidate's delegates, not realizing you're supposed to vote in all of the delegate races for your candidate.
5) Not voting for any delegates because you don't know their names and/or don't care.
I do not think the following is a 'reasonable' or probable mistake, certainly not in any significant numbers:
1) A Gingrich, Romney, or Santorum supporter skipping over Gingrich's delegates BUT then voting for Paul delegates. If you know enough to skip voting for Gingrich, you know enough to skip to your guy.
2) Random voting. Anyone serious enough to go vote isn't going to draw a happy face on the ballot form.
3) Voting for the wrong candidate's delegates, but not their own candidates delegates. The candidate for each delegate race is clearly labeled.
Obviously. You really don't need to keep repeating this, it has nothing to do with my point. We know exactly how many people, at a minimum, overvote for Paul (Paul's Avg. Delegate Vote - Paul's votes). If you adjust Gingrch, Romney, and Santorum by this number, it does not undo the anomaly, but rather, makes an even odder case (especially for Romney). This has nothing to do with proportionality, since I'm dealing with raw vote counts.
Personally, I find someone not voting for any delegate far more likely than voting for all of them, given how clearly labeled delegate races are and the aversion some names bring for people that like a specific candidate.
Last edited by affa; 04-09-2012 at 02:26 PM.
"Ron Paul, not going anywhere. Ideologically pure and tough as nails!"
ABO + NOBP = Ron Paul
Romney - NOBP = Obama
Post Election Addendum -
We warned you. You insulted and cheated us. You lost. Your fault.
"Crime occurs here"
You're one of the guys that pretty much everyone on this thread but me and maybe dsw agrees with and supports, right? You're on the same wavelength as the other "flippers" right? Or no?
I love how you think that some precincts don't have fraud, but others do. And it's all based on the type of graph you use to make that determination.
Perhaps you can explain, too, exactly how the "Cumulative Precincts" are ordered. I see numbers along the bottom. Is it still ordered from smallest precinct to largest?
How about looking at the graph the opposite way? start from largest, go to smallest? Maybe you could then say "Crime stops occuring here."
Where is your science surrounding "hinge points"?
Can you show me a link to something that wasn't written by a crazy person where they talk about changes in cumulative averages and how those things are anomalous?
Can you add data like average home price? Can find that data? get the data for average home price per precinct, add that data, then sort the precincts low to high
and we'll see if "large precincts" or "expensive houses" make Romneys curve go up more. You might also want to try % percentage of registered voters who are Republican. Get that data, add it to the data you're using, sort from lowest percent to highest percentage, and see if Romney's numbers curve up at the end.
Yes indeed it IS the absentee precinct and that strengthens the case. Absentees are taken from all areas of the county and much less subjected to demographics.
Please go back to my charts, you will see that I plotted all the absentee precincts in VA and found a beautiful "hinge point" (which I prefer to call the "Crime Occurs Here" point) is clearly seen on the chart.
I saved you the trouble of finding it:
I find that we're going around and around. Please try to keep up.
BTW, Wisconsin is very exciting. One populous county (OUTAGAMIE) doesn't flip at all. Their reports look totally different than all others I've looked at. Go to the other thread to comment or to re-learn stuff. This one is for Alabama.
Main thread is here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ling-up/page20
All of the answers to those questions are in the summary document here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...cuxJTo1iE/edit
I know you don't understand the math or logic, but do try and read this when you have some time hiding under your bridge.
Your argument explains why Romney won the absentee vote (which is clear would have happened either way when looking at the graph). It doesn't, explain why he systematically gains after the hinge point, which is the point RR is trying to make.
FWIW I largely agree. Of your reasonable mistakes, #1 I think happened (in 2012) to a signficant degree. I think "down the line" voters (some giving up at various points) are more likely than you think they are. Some people think they're being good citizens by voting in every race even if they know nothing about the issue or candidates. Santorum got hurt by being on the back page. Voting only for the first of your candidates would explain some of the fatigue effect that is clear. And (if 2008 is any guide) a good percentage falling into your fifth category of not voting at all.
The three you list as unlikely, I agree are unlikely. Except that (3) in that list is a special case of (2) in the first list if they give up before getting down to their own candidate.
Among the loose ends I want to get to eventually is seeing how those different voter behaviors might explain the distributions of delegate votes. But since some of them do affect Paul more than the others, I don't see how you're concluding that no such explanation is possible.
I got onto that line of analysis from the graph that had that one outlier point that was allegedly manipulated to smooth out the cumulative line. Except that it doesn't smooth out the cumulative line, it's one of the outliers and with a large number of votes. And it's not a precinct, it's absentee voters, so given that absentee voters tend to skew toward older voters, and Romney's support tends to skew toward older voters ... if I weren't so cautious by nature I'd say "KABOOM!!! DEBUNKED!!1!!1!!1!". Instead I'll just say that, in light of the nature of that last point and the expected correlation explaining why that point is an outlier, and after seeing the scatter plot of Romney's votes (http://i.imgur.com/L4kDR.png), I think the evidence of fraud in that county is difficult to see.
Is there a page anywhere collecting links to data sets, etc? I'd love to have another look at that "hinge point" in the Va absentee data.
Agree with all but this one.
I do not think the following is a 'reasonable' or probable mistake, certainly not in any significant numbers:
2) Random voting. Anyone serious enough to go vote isn't going to draw a happy face on the ballot form.
"Random voting" to me at least, includes people who pick and choose based on whether or not they know enough about the delegate candidates. Sometimes there are well known, well liked politicians who are trying to be delegates, and their name on that ballot is going to drive up the numbers in that race.
But, again, agree with your assessment of the other categories, at least reasonable vs unreasonable.
Also consider, is it really normal to have races on a ballot that you're not supposed to vote in? Maybe it's the way it's always been, but there are certainly a lot of people who wouldn't give a lot of thought to the question "should I be voting in these races". It's not obvious that you shouldn't vote for the delegates of the candidate you didn't vote for. Those people voted wrong, but I'm not sure that makes them idiots. I don't think the ballot was confusing, but a lot of people just charged on, not even thinking that there were races they shouldn't've been voting in.
Because Paul's spike is so massive (NOT in proportionality, but in raw votes) that any attempt to adjust it does not explain / messes up Gingrich/Romney.
Again, we can establish a minimum number of bad voters by taking (Avg. Paul Delegate Votes - Paul Votes). That's a pure count of overvoters -- and we could probably even add to that count if we wanted, since this assumes 100% of Paul voters are perfect. If we adjust the other candidates by this amount, it does not explain Gingrich very well, and totally warps Romney. He seems to be missing his share of 'down the line voters', even if we take fatigue into account.
If the ballot went Paul/Gingrich/Romney/Santorum, i'd be more apt to believe massive ballot mistakes combined with acceptance of bad ballots could cause this. However, that's not the order. You keep asking me why, and I've told you why. Play with a spreadsheet, and you'll see what I mean. Correcting for 'bad voters' only adds more questions, it doesn't answer any (except for forcefully 'fixing' Paul's anomaly at the expense of creating many others)
The oddities are even more prevalent when looking at the precinct level, since the anomaly is not equally distributed between precincts.
"Ron Paul, not going anywhere. Ideologically pure and tough as nails!"
ABO + NOBP = Ron Paul
Romney - NOBP = Obama
Post Election Addendum -
We warned you. You insulted and cheated us. You lost. Your fault.
Well, I kind of see your point. If I had to pick 30% to make it work, someone could say, "but it doesn't work at 29%. And it doesn't work at 31. In most cases, it doesn't work. So your argument only works in a narrow set of circumstances."
Are you arguing that you need to see an upper and lower range, beyond which the numbers stopped adding up? Well, maybe I'll do that.
I know you don't like my explanation, but you know that ANY as in "any attempt to adjust it does not explain / messes up Gingrich/Romney." is simply wrong. I adjusted Paul, and Gingrich and Romney aren't messed up.
Title: an attempt to adjust Ron Paul's numbers without messing up Gingrich and Romney.
I guess I'm not sure what you're looking at when you draw that conclusion. When I do, say, 10% idiot voters (voting every race) and 30% voting in no delegate races for Mitt, Newt and Santorum supporters, but only 10% like that for Paul, and a few percent voting for Newt's first delegate by mistake, the excess votes for all four candidates are in the single digits. And that's without trying to tweak the numbers to make the fit better. Changing the "lazy" percentages to 15% for Paul, 30% for Mitt, and 35% for Santorum gets the error down to 3% or less for all of them.
I don't mean this as a proof -- as I said I hope to get back to this eventually and do a more thorough job with it. But to me it's a sanity check on the possibility that a combination of those voter behaviors could explain the distributions.
Edit: a little bit more tweaking gets to this.
Assume 10% of voters voted in every race.
Assume some percentage of voters for each candidate voted in no delegate races: 18% for Newt, 17% for Paul, 33% Mitt, 38% Santorum.
The result is within 0.5% of explaining the first delegate vote for all four.
Not a proof of anything except that the kinds of voter behaviors that seem plausible can easily combine to explain the delegate overvotes. A more logical breakdown would probably give a higher "lazy" percentage to Newt, offset by some percentage of voters mistakenly voting in the first race just because it was immediately below the presidential candidate race. Santorum's percentage being higher makes sense because his races were on the back. Etc. But this is too coarse an explanation to take as proving anything, it's just checking to see that the likely kinds of voting behaviors can affect the delegate distributions in ways that correspond to the kinds of anomalies we see.
Last edited by dsw; 04-09-2012 at 03:51 PM.
If I'm understanding what you're doing, you could set the number to 20% or 80% or whatever and it would just move the line between the green and purple parts up or down. Right?
If you make enough assumption based variables, you can make anything fit anything.
"Ron Paul, not going anywhere. Ideologically pure and tough as nails!"
ABO + NOBP = Ron Paul
Romney - NOBP = Obama
Post Election Addendum -
We warned you. You insulted and cheated us. You lost. Your fault.
yeah, I think so. at some point it becomes impossible, and it's probably more of an art than a science. there are other numbers that aren't on that chart, like the presidential vote. So, let's say I put up a handful of charts. At some point, the chart looks "best". There are fewer outliers, fewer numbers that are out of sync with the other numbers.
I happen to like the 30%. I like the slope of the "wrong" voters, as it heads down from Gingrich to Paul to Romney and a little bit more to Santorum. That seems about right, to me.
It's the relationships of the numbers to each other, all the candidates numbers are acting "right". The number of "wrong" votes, which was derived from the various percentages, falls from candidate to candidate. That's what we would expect, right?
We would think it odd if Ron Paul's number of wrong votes was lower than Romneys.
"Why does Romney have more wrong votes than Paul," we would say. And if Romney has more wrong votes, we certainly would consider it anomaly that we would have to explain. When I say that my numbers fit together perfectly, I say there are no clear anomalies that have to be explained. It doesn't mean that any of those numbers are actually right.
I'd like to see a chart like mine where "flipping" is explained.
It seems like the flippers are just hoping to discover some truth by making as many graphs as possible. The day of the Alabama Primary, I said "holy $#@!, there's fraud", and then, when nobody else was talking about it, I went and looked at the numbers and saw that in some precincts, there were more presidential votes for Ron Paul than delegate votes. That was enough to get me away from the fraud thesis.
I'm also amazed that someone here didn't just say "I think that half of Ron Paul's vote was given to Santorum" and I think 10% of Gingrich's vote was given to Romney". And then plug those numbers in, and see if they work.
The idea that the flipping started at a certain point based on the size of the precinct doesn't make any sense to me. To me a little bump in a curve is not evidence of anything meaningful taking place.
It's a simple formula. In any given district, Ron Paul (fake number after stolen) = .5 x X where X is the amount of votes before "flipping" and Santorum (fake number after stolen) = (.5 x X) x Y where Y is the real Santorum number.
Someone can do that and declare victory until people poke holes in it. If someone finds a precinct where Ron Paul got more than Santorum, you can assume that, at least, half or more of Ron Paul's votes were not flipped to Santorum.
I just would think that someone would try to do some creative thinking to try to lay out a scenario, because what I see from flippers really is "look, a graph, this proves fraud"
Many different factors.
For example, let's talk about Santorum.
Based on both major 'mistake factors' (Wrong side of ballot + Fatigue Based 'Down the Line Voter theory), shouldn't Santorum be hurt the worst?
But when I look at precincts >100 voters, I see a higher conversion rate for Santorum to Santorum delegates than I do Romney to Romney delegates. (I am looking at averaged delegate vote counts, for the record)
Romney conversion rate: 86.21%
Santorum conversion rate: 87.48%
(Conversion rate: How many of your voters voted for your delegates; obviously, this can include so-called 'idiot voters' that voted for all)
For reference, Gingrich is at 98.53% and Paul is at 242.90%
Every theory like Down the Line Voters, with fatigue applied, would in practice have given more 'mistake' votes to Romney's delegates than Santorum's delegates-- and between that and the 'Santorum voters are too stupid to turn the ballot over theory', Romney should have a far higher conversion rate than Santorum. But he doesn't; he has a lower one.
This leads me to believe the 'dumb voter' theory does not hold water. You can force fit it to explain Paul, but there are serious issues trying to explain the others.
For some reason, even though Santorum voters are too dumb to flip a piece of paper, and there's a large mob of zombies voting willy-nilly for everyone, Romney still can't seem to get his voters to vote for his delegates. That's odd to me. Do i know exactly what it means? No. But it's one piece of data, among many, that lead me to think it's not a cut and dried case of idiot voters going on.
Last edited by affa; 04-09-2012 at 04:46 PM.
"Ron Paul, not going anywhere. Ideologically pure and tough as nails!"
ABO + NOBP = Ron Paul
Romney - NOBP = Obama
Post Election Addendum -
We warned you. You insulted and cheated us. You lost. Your fault.
Well, sure, but all I'm trying to demonstrate is that the kinds of voter behaviors we agree are reasonable can combine to explain the anomalies. This was in response to assertions that the anomalies simply could not be explained by voter behavior.
Go back under the bridge.
No.
I do not think something like:
"Assume some percentage of voters for each candidate voted in no delegate races: 18% for Newt, 17% for Paul, 33% Mitt, 38% Santorum"
is remotely 'reasonable'.
You're taking 'reasonable' mistakes and applying unreasonable mistake rates, at high variance from candidate to candidate. I do not think that's reasonable.
"Ron Paul, not going anywhere. Ideologically pure and tough as nails!"
ABO + NOBP = Ron Paul
Romney - NOBP = Obama
Post Election Addendum -
We warned you. You insulted and cheated us. You lost. Your fault.
Maybe I'm just denser than usual today but Santorum *was* hurt the worst, in the sense that he had the fewest precincts with overvotes for delegates. I don't see how you're calculating conversion rate since without knowing what percentage were idiot voters you don't know how many of Santorum's delegate race votes were from Santorum supporters.
And even though it doesn't prove that it happened this way, doesn't my example (10% idiots, and lazy percentage varying by candidate, and increasing from Newt to Mitt to Santorum as we move toward the back of the ballot) show that the theories we're talking about can apportion the mistakes in a way that reflects the observed anomalies? So I'm confused about what shouldn't be working out in my little simulation of lazy and idiot voters, that does seem to be working when the errors easily reduce to under 1% using only two of the various kinds of behaviors that seem reasonable.
The numbers also seem fairly coherent. The laziness levels are consistent with the (much better behaved) 2008 data. And except for Paul, whose supporters tend to be more intelligent and diligent, the other three "lazy" factors turn out to increase as we move toward the back of the ballot, with Newt having a significant advantage for being first. In other words, it's what we're talking about when we talk about these kinds of voter behaviors, and the relative values fit with what we know. It's what a non-fraud explanation would need to look like.
Which is not to say that this proves it's reasonable to think that there were 10% idiot voters (or in that vicinity), and 38% Santorum voters who didn't find the back page, etc. That's a different question entirely, and a necessary question before this kind of argument could be used to say anything about fraud vs. non-fraud.
The 2008 data had undervote rates for the major candidates (except Paul) of around 30%, so that's why I started out in the ballpark I started out in. And it's clear from the fact that Newt had significantly more (and larger) overvotes in delegate races than Santorum that whatever error effect we're looking for decreases as we go from Newt to Mitt to Santorum. That's what the high variance is about. Ron Paul is the odd man out there, but he's also the one who had a small fraction of the (reported) vote total compared to the other three, so the math for the effect of idiot voters means that Ron Paul is disproportionately affected.
The point was just that there's nothing about those anomalies that isn't consistent with the kinds of voter behaviors we agree are reasonable. If the argument then becomes that it would require unreasonable percentages of people making those kinds of errors, then that's a different argument from the one you were making initially, and it's an argument I don't have a strong view on either way.
************************************************** ***************
*****************************************
A data - Tuscaloosa Election Results
B data - Tuscaloosa Election Results
C data - C = B x .100
D data - D = A - C
D = A - (B x .100)
*******************************************
************************************************** ******************
First Delegate race for each candidate - All voters, Wrong voters, Right voters 100%
************************************************** ******************
All Voters (A) Wrong Voters (D) Right Voters (C) Presidential Voters (B)
Gingrich 6092 533 5559 5559
Paul 2575 1529 1046 1046
Romney 5669 -417 6086 6086
Santorum 6409 -886 7295 7295
************************************************** *******************
************************************************** ******************
First Delegate race for each candidate - All voters, Wrong voters, Right voters 90%
************************************************** ******************
All Voters (A) Wrong Voters (D) Right Voters (C) Presidential Voters (B)
Gingrich 6092 1089 5003 5559
Paul 2575 1661 914 1046
Romney 5669 192 5477 6086
Santorum 6409 -156 6565 7295
************************************************** *******************
************************************************** ******************
First Delegate race for each candidate - All voters, Wrong voters, Right voters 80%
************************************************** ******************
All Voters (A) Wrong Voters (D) Right Voters (C) Presidential Voters (B)
Gingrich 6092 1615 4477 5559
Paul 2575 1739 836 1046
Romney 5669 801 4868 6086
Santorum 6409 573 5836 7295
************************************************** *******************
************************************************** ******************
First Delegate race for each candidate - All voters, Wrong voters, Right voters 75%
************************************************** ******************
All Voters (A) Wrong Voters (D) Right Voters (C) Presidential Voters (B)
Gingrich 6092 1963 4129 5559
Paul 2575 1791 784 1046
Romney 5669 1105 4564 6086
Santorum 6409 938 5471 7295
************************************************** *******************
************************************************** ******************
First Delegate race for each candidate - All voters, Wrong voters, Right voters 70%
************************************************** ******************
All Voters Wrong Voters Right Voters Presidential Voters
Gingrich 6092 2201 3891 5559
Paul 2575 1843 732 1046
Romney 5669 1409 4260 6086
Santorum 6409 1303 5106 7295
************************************************** *******************
************************************************** ******************
First Delegate race for each candidate - All voters, Wrong voters, Right voters 68%
************************************************** ******************
All Voters Wrong Voters Right Voters Presidential Voters
Gingrich 6092 2312 3780 5559
Paul 2575 1864 711 1046
Romney 5669 1531 4138 6086
Santorum 6409 1449 4960 7295
************************************************** *******************
I prefer the assumption that 68% of the president voters also voted first delegate.
The numbers work better in my mind. A larger gap between Gingrich and Paul. A smaller gap between Paul and Romney. Takes into consideration the single Gingrich vote which we think there are a lot of.
80% is unviable because Ron Paul has more wrong votes than Gingrich in that scenario and that's more difficult to explain than 75, 70, 68 assumptions.
Last edited by parocks; 04-09-2012 at 05:30 PM.
For me, it keeps coming back to this. This is so different than anything observed in the 2008 data. Why? What is different (besides the year)?
Same ballot style, same equipment, same state, same party, (mostly, because in 4 years some die, turn 18, move, etc.) same people.
Parocks thinks it's just a sudden surge of stupidity. To me, the thought that that many people suddenly performed that much worse is unrealistic. And when you start looking at the data more closely, it just does not pan out. You can throw in a couple of fudge factors and try to make the data fit, but quickly reach the point of just doing data massage.
Are there any precincts in which other candidates did not have delegates running? That would certainly explain it -- for example, if only paul had a delegate slate in a particular district, obviously his first delegate would get far more votes than he would as a candidate.
Some here seem desperate to cry "fraud", given any data that seems at all unexpected to them. I think it's very irresponsible and irrational.
Last edited by tremendoustie; 04-09-2012 at 05:44 PM.
“If you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.” -CS Lewis
The use of force to impose morality is itself immoral, and generosity with others' money is still theft.
If our society were a forum, congress would be the illiterate troll that somehow got a hold of the only ban hammer.
The best way to get Newt where you want Newt is not to have him have a lot of "right" voters, but to have him have a lot of "wrong" voters. And the lower the number of his right voters, the higher the number of his wrong voters.
Giuliani is interesting here. You could've picked Gingrich's number because they were both first on the ballot. We see that the Giuliani number is high. We know that he was first. Consider the effect of the proposed group known as "wanted to vote all but got fatigued. Because Giuliani was first, an average amount of his people wanted to vote for him and did. An average amount of his people wanted to vote for all, and got tired. But they get their votes counted, because they got tired before they got to the next candidate. This is a highly philosophical point, because it's the same people doing the same thing, there's really no way to measure any difference between the Giuliani Presidential voters who intended to vote just for Giuliani and those who intended to vote for all, but quit .
************************************************** *****
GIULIANI DELEGATES, PLACE 1
percentage of pres vote who vote first delegate - 83.4%
************************************************** ******
HUCKABEE DELEGATES, PLACE 1
percentage of pres vote who vote first delegate - 72.0%
************************************************** ********
McCAIN DELEGATES, PLACE 2
percentage of pres vote who vote first delegate - 69.7%
************************************************** **********
PAUL DELEGATES, PLACE 3
percentage of pres vote who vote first delegate - 75.2%
************************************************** **************
ROMNEY DELEGATES, PLACE 3
percentage of pres vote who vote first delegate - 70.1%
************************************************** ********************
THOMPSON DELEGATES, PLACE 1
percentage of pres vote who vote first delegate - 79.0%
************************************************** ******
No, I think the machines were broken in 2012.
For me, it keeps coming back to this. This is so different than anything observed in the 2008 data. Why? What is different (besides the year)?
Same ballot style, same equipment, same state, same party, (mostly, because in 4 years some die, turn 18, move, etc.) same people.
Parocks thinks it's just a sudden surge of stupidity. To me, the thought that that many people suddenly performed that much worse is unrealistic. And when you start looking at the data more closely, it just does not pan out. You can throw in a couple of fudge factors and try to make the data fit, but quickly reach the point of just doing data massage.
Again, we don't agree on your initial numbers. If you want to establish an assumption that an undervote of around 30% is 'normal', then fine. Do that. But don't then give Santorum 38%, and Paul 17%, chalk it up to a further assumption, spin some dials, add some more assumptions, spin another dial, and tell me the numbers now look normal.
"Ron Paul, not going anywhere. Ideologically pure and tough as nails!"
ABO + NOBP = Ron Paul
Romney - NOBP = Obama
Post Election Addendum -
We warned you. You insulted and cheated us. You lost. Your fault.
It's just as irrational, if not more irrational, to assume fraud is unlikely or impossible when voting is not remotely transparent. We aren't jumping to conclusions, we're spending tens of hours studying it and making a case for it. It's the people stating fraud is impossible or jumping to the 'demographics' caused it argument in the face of all evidence that are leaping to conclusions.
We're looking at the data. You aren't. No need to insult us.
"Ron Paul, not going anywhere. Ideologically pure and tough as nails!"
ABO + NOBP = Ron Paul
Romney - NOBP = Obama
Post Election Addendum -
We warned you. You insulted and cheated us. You lost. Your fault.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us