Page 25 of 26 FirstFirst ... 1523242526 LastLast
Results 721 to 750 of 766

Thread: (Huge) delegate vote anomaly in Alabama verified

  1. #721
    /
    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty1789 View Post
    How do you group the 20 precincts together? Are they sorted?
    The reason I am asking is that when you look at Paul's share of votes vs Santorum's per county, which should cancel out quite a bit of noise, there is no sign of correlation whatsoever. None. The 5% "skimmer" is not apparent here either, as plenty of counties score above 5% and Paul's best score is almost all the way up to 8%. Some more head scratching at my end, I'm afraid.
    I used a running average, n=20, precincts arranged ascending totals as usual. You still end up with 1800+ data points but each averaged total is the average of the 20 previous precincts. I call it a running average (not positive that's technically the proper term).

    It's interesting that you say Paul scores almost 8% in some counties... but his cumulative % statewide stays at 5% +/- 0.3%. Hey Liberty1789, I think it's healthy that you see Bama from a different viewpoint. I don't have all the answers but there's simply no other logical explanation why Paul loses in almost every precinct other than fraud. Please explain differently about the "no correlation between Paul and Santorum's vote totals between counties." I believe that the manipulation is done at the state tabulation level so that Paul is maintained at 5%. Again, it's the "can't see the forest for the trees" concept.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #722
    These are just my thoughts on the matter at this point, so they are subject to change in the light of more information.

    I have good reason to suspect that the "flipper" virus dates back to the late 1980s. Part of the reason it's so crude is it's age. I also suspect we can find the author by following the bodies, but that's a rabbit trail for another day.

    The vote "sucker" (I don't know virus, object, function?) mechanism has a more modern and sophisticated feel to it. It would still need to be simple enough to avoid breaking the program to stay under the radar. Perhaps it takes a fixed percentage rather than capping a candidate at a certain amount. Perhaps it uses a random number generator to take a range of percentages (like 3.4 to 5.2 percent or something).

    In any case I suspect that the sucker and the flipper were both expecting to utilize the cushion provided by the difference between PPE votes and delegate votes to hide their activities. And like 2 people on a joint checking account both using the last $100 before pay day, they blew past the cushion because they both used it.
    Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

  4. #723

    EVM Data - Jefferson County

    Here we go, nice excel file from The Man's massive listing. Haven't analysed anything out of it yet. Best of luck.

    http://www.filedropper.com/aljeffersonevmdata

  5. #724
    Quote Originally Posted by parocks View Post
    About 25-30% didn't vote in any delegate races
    You sure know how to waste peoples' time. Whenever anyone ANYWHERE begins to demonstrate anomalies in vote counts, with reliable data, with significant evidence of tampering, you show up and start your babbling. Don't you have anything better to do than attempt to undermine this work? They are even quoting your babble on the DailyPaul, that is when threads about the Alabama delegate anomaly are posted.

  6. #725
    Quote Originally Posted by dsw View Post
    I tried to answer the question by looking at the data
    Why didn't you look at the data before you made that terminally fraudulent post about Iowa? Have you cleaned up that post yet?

  7. #726
    At first glance, I do NOT see a simple trend where Romney receives votes at a certain count. There does appear to be some correlation between precincts with a high "votes minus delegates" discrepancy AND % difference between 2 EVM's in a precinct, BUT the difference does not seem to favor a single candidate. Just digging in though.

  8. #727
    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty1789 View Post
    Here we go, nice excel file from The Man's massive listing. Haven't analysed anything out of it yet. Best of luck.

    http://www.filedropper.com/aljeffersonevmdata
    Thank you so much for converting the big PDF file. I know how much work that is.

    Here what I rushed to look at:

    Difference with EVM listing: 225

    Let me emphasize once again. THERE SHOULD NOT BE A SINGLE VOTE DIFFERENCE between the EVM results and the State Tabulated results. NOT ONE VOTE.

    This is not a question of vote interpretation by humans or vote machine scanning errors. This is a question of electronic vote counts incorrectly transferred between two computers. THERE IS NO MARGIN OF ERROR HERE. Those counts MUST match exactly.

    There are 67 counties in Alablama. 225 votes in one county could mean as many as 15,075 state wide.

    This is a HUGE problem and I thank "The Man" and "Liberty1789" for doing the initial work. We have more analysis to do, but most importantly, we need to follow up with the Secretary of State and the Atty General of Alabama.
    Statistics don't lie, people do.

  9. #728
    Quote Originally Posted by RonRules View Post
    Difference with EVM listing: 225
    Let me emphasize once again. THERE SHOULD NOT BE A SINGLE VOTE DIFFERENCE between the EVM results and the State Tabulated results. NOT ONE VOTE.
    RonRules, I am a pretty safe hand with Excel, but the discrepancy error could be mine. It was not an easy conversion. I did not go and verify each of them manually, feeling a bit of speadsheet nausea after so many hours...
    Last edited by Liberty1789; 05-07-2012 at 07:00 AM.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #729

    parocks having the last laugh?

    Jefferson's County listing allows to look at votes per machine. Guess what: 18 machines have... 1 vote! So we get to look at 18 single ballots! Fabulous!

    -> 14 ballots followed the rule: presidential vote matches delegate race votes
    -> 2 Romney voters violated the rules with 1 delegate race overvote, by voting once for Gingrich 1st delegate and once for Santorum 1st delegate
    -> 2 Santorum voters violated the rules with massive overvote:


    2 out of 18 near-vote-for-all: quite high...

    Below are not ballots anymore, but addition of ballots. Simple logic allows to identify rule violations and to speculate on what went wrong. Have a go: it's kind of fun:


    From all the machines where I would argue that you can identify a vote-for-all pattern in all likelihood, I derive a voting error rate of 7% (i.e. 12/165). In Jefferson County, Paul scored 4% in the presidential race and more like 10% in the delegate races.

    parocks, feel good

    The Man, if I may be so bold as to ask you 2 things that I would love to squeeze out of your Jefferson election official contact:

    (1) the answer to the following question: was the enforcement of the delegate overvoting rule any different in 2008, through software or poll worker checks?

    (2) the Jefferson EVM listing for 2008. I love pdf conversion so much
    Last edited by Liberty1789; 05-07-2012 at 06:59 AM.

  12. #730
    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty1789 View Post
    Those Santorum voters sure like to vote! Why would they miss Paul P17 and a few Romneys? Were their names Devil and Lucifer?

    I like how you've laid this out, but it took me about a two minutes to understand the color code. Red is an overvote for delegate and black is an expected delegate vote. The title "PPP Votes, 1 Santorum" will most likely confuse people, and you'll be flooded with questions. May I suggest the first line say: "One Vote for Candidate Santorum", second line: "Delegates picked on that ballot. (Red= incorrect vote)"

    The result above (except for the dumb Santorum voter theory) can only be explained with disappearing candidate votes. This is not vote flipping because the total number of votes is still 1.

    The Man: Would it be possible to get a copy of the poll tapes for machine #138 and #299? More would be even better (#197, #270, #131, #165 above), and particularly machines with high counts.
    Last edited by RonRules; 05-07-2012 at 09:09 AM.
    Statistics don't lie, people do.

  13. #731
    Hey RonRules, Liberty1789- I have forwarded your request to the official. I will post any kind of response received from him. I am paying attention to your posts. Liberty1789, in order to begin to consider this "idiot voter" theory, there are some very difficulty assumptions that must be made.

  14. #732
    Hey Liberty 1789, Any chance that I could interest you in analyzing the POSSIBLE correlation between "Romney's votes minus delegates" AND Romney's % difference from EVM1 to EVM2 within a precinct?
    Update- I'm working on it already. No need to bother.
    Last edited by The Man; 05-07-2012 at 02:20 PM.

  15. #733
    OF COURSE!!!
    <facepalm and I coulda had a V8 moment>

    Why stuff the ballot box when you can just delete your opponent's votes?

    Sorry, having a bit of a brain rush because this explains SO MUCH!


    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty1789 View Post
    Jefferson's County listing allows to look at votes per machine. Guess what: 18 machines have... 1 vote! So we get to look at 18 single ballots! Fabulous!

    -> 14 ballots followed the rule: presidential vote matches delegate race votes
    -> 2 Romney voters violated the rules with 1 delegate race overvote, by voting once for Gingrich 1st delegate and once for Santorum 1st delegate
    -> 2 Santorum voters violated the rules with massive overvote:


    2 out of 18 near-vote-for-all: quite high...

    Below are not ballots anymore, but addition of ballots. Simple logic allows to identify rule violations and to speculate on what went wrong. Have a go: it's kind of fun:


    From all the machines where I would argue that you can identify a vote-for-all pattern in all likelihood, I derive a voting error rate of 7% (i.e. 12/165). In Jefferson County, Paul scored 4% in the presidential race and more like 10% in the delegate races.

    parocks, feel good

    The Man, if I may be so bold as to ask you 2 things that I would love to squeeze out of your Jefferson election official contact:

    (1) the answer to the following question: was the enforcement of the delegate overvoting rule any different in 2008, through software or poll worker checks?

    (2) the Jefferson EVM listing for 2008. I love pdf conversion so much
    Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

  16. #734
    It's also kinda bizzarre that SO many machines would have only ONE vote total. If this were random, you'd expect about the same number of machines with TWO votes, THREE votes and that vote count per machine increasing like the left tail of a Normal Distribution up to the median #of votes per machine.

    May I have a histogram please!

    I'm expecting a fat left tail. And I know tails!

    Edit: My theory here is that the vote flipping algorithm is set up in such a way as to prevent the count from going negative or even zero. It just stops subtracting when it reaches 1. This is to prevent some rather embarrassing situations like Volusia County, FL, where the vote count dropped to negative 16,022.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volusia_error

    I also recently discovered that this "alleged" algorithm tops off at a certain count. I found that when you separate out the last top 10-20 percentile of the vote, the results flat line! That was quite a surprise until I realized that the likely reason is so the fraud can go undetected and below the margin of error count.

    It is important to DEMAND that ZERO is the only acceptable tolerance of error with electronic transfer of vote counts.
    Last edited by RonRules; 05-07-2012 at 04:14 PM.
    Statistics don't lie, people do.

  17. #735
    Great work guys! That's pretty messed up!

  18. #736
    Quote Originally Posted by RabbitMan View Post
    Great work guys! That's pretty messed up!
    And girls
    Statistics don't lie, people do.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #737
    Wrong thread!
    Last edited by RonRules; 05-07-2012 at 09:45 PM.
    Statistics don't lie, people do.

  21. #738
    Wrong again!
    Last edited by RonRules; 05-07-2012 at 09:45 PM.
    Statistics don't lie, people do.

  22. #739
    I moved them to the Mother thread:
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...lipping/page67
    Last edited by RonRules; 05-07-2012 at 09:46 PM.
    Statistics don't lie, people do.

  23. #740
    Quote Originally Posted by The Man View Post
    Hey RonRules, Liberty1789- I have forwarded your request to the official. I will post any kind of response received from him. I am paying attention to your posts. Liberty1789, in order to begin to consider this "idiot voter" theory, there are some very difficulty assumptions that must be made.
    So I sent this email to Jefferson County Alabama Election Commissioner:

    "Thank you for your response. I have a request from a couple of analysts that I will relay to you. Any response to these is greatly appreciated:
    (1) the answer to the following question: was the enforcement of the delegate overvoting rule any different in 2008, through software or poll worker checks?
    (2) the Jefferson EVM listing .PDF for 2008 like the one to which you sent me the link.
    (3) Would it be possible to get a copy of the poll tapes for machine #138 and #299? More would be even better (#197, #270, #131, #165 above), and particularly machines with high counts.
    Sincerely,"

    Here is the response received from him just now:

    1) We changed no procedures from 2008 to 2012 regarding delegates. Realize though that in 2008, the presidential race was the only thing on the ballot. The presidential primary was held in February, and the statewide primary was held in June.
    2) ftp://ftp.jeffcointouch.com/election...aryReport.html
    3) No. However, they would match the reports. We post those tapes here at the courthouse as well as at each poll location so anyone can view them and compare our published numbers to the actual tapes. Many of the candidates will have people assigned to various polls to obtain those numbers before the poll workers can drive downtown and would quickly notice a disparity. Also, the reports are compared to the tapes through a canvassing procedure after each election. For a primary election, the party is responsible for conducting the canvass and we facilitate it. For a general election, we conduct the canvass ourselves.
    Last edited by The Man; 05-08-2012 at 06:00 PM.

  24. #741
    Quote Originally Posted by The Man View Post
    3) No. However, they would match the reports. We post those tapes here at the courthouse as well as at each poll location so anyone can view them and compare our published numbers to the actual tapes. Many of the candidates will have people assigned to various polls to obtain those numbers before the poll workers can drive downtown and would quickly notice a disparity. Also, the reports are compared to the tapes through a canvassing procedure after each election. For a primary election, the party is responsible for conducting the canvass and we facilitate it. For a general election, we conduct the canvass ourselves.
    The poll tapes (depending on the machine) often only show totals. Can you ask him if the tapes only show the totals or the individual candidate numbers.

    In Bev Harris videos, you'll see the machine output on a tape the results for each candidate. If that's available, that's what we need, regardless of their procedures for having checked it.

    Thanks for posting though.
    Last edited by RonRules; 05-08-2012 at 04:58 PM.
    Statistics don't lie, people do.

  25. #742
    Brilliant! So, we have Romney flipping and Santorum deleting votes. And it does sound like the poll tapes are checked, which tends to point back to the voting machines... Unraveling the web of deception does take effort and patience. way to go!

    Quote Originally Posted by The Man View Post
    So I sent this email to Jefferson County Alabama Election Commissioner:

    "
    Thank you for your response. I have a request from a couple of analysts that I will relay to you. Any response to these is greatly appreciated:
    (1) the answer to the following question: was the enforcement of the delegate overvoting rule any different in 2008, through software or poll worker checks?
    (2) the Jefferson EVM listing .PDF for 2008 like the one to which you sent me the link.
    (3) Would it be possible to get a copy of the poll tapes for machine #138 and #299? More would be even better (#197, #270, #131, #165 above), and particularly machines with high counts.
    Sincerely,"

    Here is the response received from him just now:

    1) We changed no procedures from 2008 to 2012 regarding delegates. Realize though that in 2008, the presidential race was the only thing on the ballot. The presidential primary was held in February, and the statewide primary was held in June.
    2) ftp://ftp.jeffcointouch.com/election...aryReport.html
    3) No. However, they would match the reports. We post those tapes here at the courthouse as well as at each poll location so anyone can view them and compare our published numbers to the actual tapes. Many of the candidates will have people assigned to various polls to obtain those numbers before the poll workers can drive downtown and would quickly notice a disparity. Also, the reports are compared to the tapes through a canvassing procedure after each election. For a primary election, the party is responsible for conducting the canvass and we facilitate it. For a general election, we conduct the canvass ourselves.
    Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

  26. #743
    my guess is that this vote flipper will 100% be switched to on in these 3 states voting today!! i guarantee it because of rons success this past two weekends.... mark my words!!!!! vote swicth will be in full effect!!! NO DOUBT ABOUT IT! WATCH AND SEE

  27. #744
    Quote Originally Posted by rb3b3 View Post
    my guess is that this vote flipper will 100% be switched to on in these 3 states voting today!! i guarantee it because of rons success this past two weekends.... mark my words!!!!! vote swicth will be in full effect!!! NO DOUBT ABOUT IT! WATCH AND SEE
    It's also because the machines are quarantined before the elections. If the machines have been locked up in a room with no internet access for a couple of months, then for sure, we'll see flipping.
    Statistics don't lie, people do.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #745
    Quote Originally Posted by The Man View Post
    For a primary election, the party is responsible for conducting the canvass and we facilitate it. For a general election, we conduct the canvass ourselves.
    Note that in both 2008 and 2012, the "Canvas" is simply a report that the SOE Central Tabulator spits out. These voting machine companies try to make these election officials jobs as easy as possible. A "canvas report" is now just a report that you run from the central tabulator. I don't find that satisfactory at all.

    In Milwaukee County for example, they get a printed (sometimes hand written) sheet from each precinct, which they centrally compare. That's how I was able to see the huge discrepancy of Ron/Mitt 3/133 votes in the Village of Greendale.

    The dirty deed may be done at the individual machine level, but the logistics of effecting it that way are much more difficult than at the Central Tab. Based on the Centrally tabulated reports we got from Alabama, I stick with my story of the CT being the main culprit.
    Statistics don't lie, people do.

  30. #746
    Quote Originally Posted by RonRules View Post
    Note that in both 2008 and 2012, the "Canvas" is simply a report that the SOE Central Tabulator spits out. These voting machine companies try to make these election officials jobs as easy as possible. A "canvas report" is now just a report that you run from the central tabulator. I don't find that satisfactory at all.

    In Milwaukee County for example, they get a printed (sometimes hand written) sheet from each precinct, which they centrally compare. That's how I was able to see the huge discrepancy of Ron/Mitt 3/133 votes in the Village of Greendale.

    The dirty deed may be done at the individual machine level, but the logistics of effecting it that way are much more difficult than at the Central Tab. Based on the Centrally tabulated reports we got from Alabama, I stick with my story of the CT being the main culprit.
    The difficulty of canvassing and our present circumstances is that The Flipper is not a ballot stuffer. Canvassing just checks the total number of votes against the number of voters that came to the polling place. It can't detect flipping or (unless it's really excessive) vote deletion.
    Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

  31. #747
    Failed to download that so far. Does it really contain 2008 by precinct/EVM? The "Summary Report" name worries me a bit.

  32. #748
    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty1789 View Post
    Failed to download that so far. Does it really contain 2008 by precinct/EVM? The "Summary Report" name worries me a bit.
    Try this link: ftp://ftp.jeffcointouch.com/election...port021508.pdf

  33. #749
    Quote Originally Posted by dr.k.research View Post
    You sure know how to waste peoples' time. Whenever anyone ANYWHERE begins to demonstrate anomalies in vote counts, with reliable data, with significant evidence of tampering, you show up and start your babbling. Don't you have anything better to do than attempt to undermine this work? They are even quoting your babble on the DailyPaul, that is when threads about the Alabama delegate anomaly are posted.
    Yeah, I was in Maine, at the convention. I think people should be focused on things like that, winning delegates, and not staring at charts. It's pretty simple what happened in Alabama.

    Seems like theres a lot of people who joined up here in March 2012 who want Ron Paul Supporters to spend lots of time and effort on a wild goose chase that makes us seem crazy. If someone on another site realizes that theres a simple explanation for what happened in Alabama, good for them.

  34. #750
    Quote Originally Posted by The Man View Post
    No dice... Baffles me. If you have the file locally, would you mind uploading it to filedropper?

Page 25 of 26 FirstFirst ... 1523242526 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Huge Explosion reported at Mobile Alabama shipyard
    By RonPaulFanInGA in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-25-2013, 09:11 AM
  2. (Huge) delegate vote anomaly in Minnesota verified
    By PeacePlan in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-14-2012, 04:03 PM
  3. Alabama - How to become a delegate
    By tsai3904 in forum Alabama
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-23-2011, 09:31 PM
  4. UPDATE - Sutton ZERO vote anomaly
    By BluegrassForRonPaul in forum New Hampshire
    Replies: 207
    Last Post: 01-09-2008, 05:23 PM
  5. Huge Alabama News
    By hummtide in forum Campaigning
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 12-16-2007, 11:28 AM

Posting Permissions

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