posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 09:15 AM
Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
The Cynical Outkast?.. Why does that sound familiar?...Can you actually debunk UNDENIABLE? If so impress me.
Do you understand what the person with the undeniable mathematical proof is doing?
We don't even have to look at the math to spot his errors...just look at his beginning ASSUMPTIONS.
1. The perpetrators, for the most part, do not alter the votes in low vote count
precincts. It’s too easy to get caught and there are few votes to gain.
Why does he make this assumption...because Ron Paul did well in small precincts and horrible in larger precincts.
But the main point to take out of this is that he already ASSUMES there is fraud and uses that assumption as FACT to go ahead and try to prove fraud
is happening. He is beginning with a false premise. This alone invalidates anything else he does.
He uses some small precincts where he found where Ron Paul and Romney were very close. So he takes this rate and applies it to the entire county.
Now...if that is how elections really worked...anyone could project the winner with only a very very small percentage of the vote counted.
Another major flaw in his assumptions is that votes should be linear in one county based on the rate of a few small precincts in that county. His
reasoning alone is just filled with logical errors. The worst math comes from having illogical premises.
But let's continue to look at his assumptions.
4. Any election can be accurately predicted/ projected after a certain minimum
percentage of precincts from diverse areas in a county have reported its vote
results.
This is flat out false...but this is what he uses for his ENTIRE analysis.
5. In a four candidate Primary where there is a legitimate reason one of the candidates
loses votes in (a) particular precinct(s), the gains will be spread amongst the other 3
candidates in a fairly consistent manner.
6. In a four candidate Primary where there is a legitimate reason one of the candidates
gains votes in (a) particular precinct(s), the losses will be spread amongst the other
3 candidates in a fairly consistent manner.
Where is it said that this is true? He is claiming things as fact that he is just making up at random. There is NOTHING that says that votes gained
should be equally spread out as loses to the other candidates. There is plenty of polling to show this...Newt and Santorum consistently swap votes
back and forth with little effect on Romney and Paul.
7. The vote percentage received for a particular candidate, in general, should not vary
significantly from low vote total precincts to higher vote total precincts. Each
candidate’s vote will obviously vary between precincts. But there is no direct
relationship between total votes cast at a precinct versus vote percentage received
by a particular candidate.
Again...this is a baseless assumption he is using. There are plenty of candidates that do well in rural areas and horrible in urban areas...and vice
versa. And he uses this for his entire analysis. It's just really really sad that some of you people think this makes sense.
Does everyone honestly think that if you do good in small rural areas that you will win the entire state???
He ends these assumptions with this
I believe all of these obvious to the point of being self- evident. Let’s not waste time in this
report debating these.
Do all of you honestly think that you can accurately predict an entire county by using 1/4 of the vote from the smallest and most rural
precincts???
This is hilarious...really.