thanks for the info op. dont mind the usual shills, they come out to discredit ron paul like clockwork, you can set your watch to them lol

Originally posted by Cynicaleye
More made up facts and numbers. All the graphs have clear errors which I don't even have to point out.

It is this kind of typical troll response, lacking any even cursory reference to presented data nor counter evidence, that must also be exposed on this site.

Is it not obvious that this site, supposedly dedicated to scientific principles of discovery, that the same people rigging elections are at work here?

As their position becomes less defensible they resort to increasingly fraudulent methods to attack rational debate. What a bunch of crap!

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
WORST MATH EVER

So this person found a segment of the vote where Ron Paul and Romney didn't have a straight line graph...expanded that out to the total vote...and was surprised to see the small deviations become greater???

Whoever the fool is who did these graphs is not very good at math.

Plus...do we even need to point out that you can't make a graph showing who got what votes when??? He is showing total votes in the X axis...and somehow finding who got what vote after each vote was cast.


This is like the people saying that if you take the unreported precincts in Waldo county...find an error rate and apply that to the entire state...Ron Paul wins.


People confuse themselves with math all the time...but they figure if they can put numbers together in a graph...IT MUST BE TRUE.

This is hilarious OP...thanks for th laugh.

What is truly laughable, Outkast, is your opinion masquerading as an argument. You would be asked to leave any 200 level math class if you attempt to present an opinion rather than argument.

You state the OPs methods are flawed yet do nothing to prove it. Most lay persons lack the education to critically dissect mathmatical arguments. That fact has been exploited by propagandists for years as they support assertions with skewed statistics. Lay people depend on analysis of "experts" to interpret data.

The sad fact is propagandists need no upper level calculus training to impugn arguments if they simply speak with authority and throw in a little jargon. Just like you. Ha! Now kindly leave the science to scientists and get back to your Psych 101 class.

Haven't seen the doc...don't need to.

In nowadays, an idea that a decision to elect the next president would be left to the "common folks", is laughable. Of course it's rigged. It wouldn't work any other way. Pretty soon you would be getting presidents that put the people before big busyness sponsors...and we can't have that. Hell no !! But in order for it to work the way it does is to let people think they are the ones who choose. Damn internet is going to spoil everything...

There is big money in politics...especially in America. Big money means big players. Makes no sense that they would allow you to elect somebody they can't control, and than hope for the best fate of their multi billion corporation.

Let me predict what is going to happen about all this, not to mention Maine...nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Just deny everything and it will go away...a tested recipe for avoiding naughty public questions. As it worked with Bush...it will work again, and again.

Slightly off topic but not much...


since I don't follow elections by default not even in my country, let alone some other...can someone tell me...what is Ron Paul's sin?

what are the strongest arguments against him being the president ? I would like to hear that from someone who doesn't support him.

Thanks

**ATTENTION**

Discuss the topic, not each other. If you continue to attack each other in any sense of the word, your accounts will be post banned and the staff will conduct a review of your account.

No other warnings will be given, no other T&C violations will be tolerated.

Thank You.

~Tenth
ATS Moderator

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.

Originally posted by ignant


Between multiple states already, thousands of dead people voting, votes not adding up, discrepancies...

Its looking like most states primaries are being rigged, and have been for decades already.

Afterall, Americans don't want to face it, but USA hasn't had a real president-elect since JFK

Do you know if the viceroy of Florida is from the Obama bloodline..?

PS: do not answer that..

As soon as I can get m copy of SPSS working I'll do some legitimate statistical analysis, but there are a few major flaws that stand out in his methodology. First, he is working under the premise that voter fraud is occurring before he has any proof. This can and often does lead to confirmation bias. Second, a proper statistical analysis is based on randomly selected data. His data is not randomly selected. He specifically chooses the precincts with the lowest voter turnout and then makes a projection based on that. I bet if he based his projection on randomly selected precincts it would be close to the actual data, and I plan on showing this in my analysis. Finally, his assumption that we should see similar trends with Gingrich and Santorum is false. Their appeal in the state was pretty much universal regardless of demographic. This is why they did so well in the state. Romney tends to have a lot more appeal in urban areas. Thus his higher numbers there. Paul tends to do better in the more rural areas. Thus his higher numbers there. If you're only looking at precincts with lower voter turnouts, which tend to correspond with more rural areas, then you are not reflecting Romney's urban appeal in your data. This document is proof of nothing other than this person has no idea how to do a proper analysis and he has no idea how politics work.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Newt and Santorum consistently swap votes back and forth with little effect on Romney and Paul.

Confused

What do you mean by swapping votes?

Also, is it suppose to have an effect on the other people in the polls?

Asking because I'm "new" to this whole voting/electing thing.