UNDENIABLE Mathematical Proof the South Carolina Primary was RIGGED!

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.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


Once you give up, you have already lost. Luckily, there are always some people that NEVER give up!

It seems the faith of humanity may be resting on them.

I choose to assist, do you?

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

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


The far most common arguments against Ron Paul that i have seen are listed and explained below.

That he is a "homophobe" and "racist" which where based on unconfirmed straw-grasping in the first place, and has since been thouroughly debunked in other threads.

Also that he wants to end the war on drugs, some people obviously does not understand this and think everyone will become a heavy pill-popper or a "pot-head" overnight if drugs became legal This concern is understandable due to the heavy media-bias against all forms of drugs persisting over the last 20 years, that has successfully indoctrinated most people with the viewpoint that all drugs are bad, no matter how beneficial or harmless they may be in reality. (Like Hemp)

The last thing is his foreign policy, some people does not understand that peace is preferable to war, and insist on attacking other countries "before they have a chance to attack", to be the "safer policy". Nevermind that no real threat exists prior to any of these attacks, these people obviously are deluded by the media spin-doctors acting on their employers command based on economic interests.

reply to post by NeoVain


Hey Neo...I would very much like to help. I'm not sure how much help is this debating issues over ATS. Although fun and educational, has very little practical purpose in the sense that it changes anything.

My opinion is that these things will not change, unless we as beings change. You can not eradicate corruption. Not with this frame of mind of ours. When we stop being motivated by the accumulation of material wealth, that is when we will. As long as there is money we will not have corruption free society, there is always someone who wants it badly.

Money breeds power...power brings...thirst for more power.

Until then...I'm not giving up...I'm just starting to see the big picture. Rigged elections are not the problem...they are only a consequence of our current social and economic structure. This is where we need to build...build a free human being. Free of desire to hurt/kill, to be richer, to be stronger, to subdue those who are weaker...

I need this 2012 doom really badly

I think we as a species would benefit from world wide extinction in order to start fresh. This system is so far gone on multiple levels, that reparation is not possible. At least not peacefully.

Hang in there
Mario

Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

 

The far most common arguments against Ron Paul that i have seen are listed and explained below.

That he is a "homophobe" and "racist" which where based on unconfirmed straw-grasping in the first place, and has since been thouroughly debunked in other threads.

Also that he wants to end the war on drugs, some people obviously does not understand this and think everyone will become a heavy pill-popper or a "pot-head" overnight if drugs became legal

This concern is understandable due to the heavy media-bias against all forms of drugs persisting over the last 20 years, that has successfully indoctrinated most people with the viewpoint that all drugs are bad, no matter how beneficial or harmless they may be in reality. (Like Hemp)

The last thing is his foreign policy, some people does not understand that peace is preferable to war, and insist on attacking other countries "before they have a chance to attack", to be the "safer policy". Nevermind that no real threat exists prior to any of these attacks, these people obviously are deluded by the media spin-doctors acting on their employers command based on economic interests.

Ending the war on drugs

Oh yeah...


One thing reminds from the Zeitgeist (weather you support the film or not)...and that is the fact that this society functions on scarecity (not sure about the spelling there, meaning shortage of something). It is funny and true.

Nobody wants for oil to be abundant, they couldn't profit from it than. I also heard (not confirmed by a realiable source) that diamonds are being destroyed, in order to keep the value (read price tag). They don't want renewable sustainable energy sources cos they cant be profited from. It is true...the system is rigged in such a way that there is always a shortage. And shortage produces value. Abundance produces no profit.

So...scarecity produces wealth to those in power, and poverty to those not in power. And the gap widens.
Gotta love the system.

This is why war on drugs is a must stay...if you would introduce Hemp back to farmers fields...as it was before the WWI, we could almost be free... (don't stone me for this one...I really like weed)

**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..

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I agree. You cannot base an accurate statistical investigation on a series of assumptions. If you do then fine, but you have to accept the limitations they place on the results!

If you allow assumptions into an investigation or theory that you do not subsequently acknowledge, then you can 'prove' anything.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I think you missed the main interesting point, though I agree with you on this occassion that this is in no way undeniable proof. We'll likely never have undeniable proof, just a series of odd happenings that together make it unlikely - though possible - that the nomination process is fair.

What was interesting about the maths here is that the small precincts were in fact a predictor for Santorum and Gingrich, but not for Paul and Romney. This could mean that Paul and Romney voters are more closely aligned than we think, and the flip has to do with rural communities vs urban communities - i.e. a fairly narrow set of ideals determining Romney/Paul votes - or it could mean that votes have been illegally flipped.

I would like to see an analysis of all rural vs urban votes - is Romney taking votes from Paul in Urban areas, and vice versa, with Santorum and Gingrich being pretty consistent with both areas?

Its also interesting - nothing more at this stage - that in Maine we had a similar trend. Paul winning after 30-40% % of votes, followed by a complete turnaround in the trend - in fact an almost identical flip.

reply to post by NeoVain


Why for some reason does this not surprise me at all??

If we don't fight this manipulation of the voting system, we will lose out on yet another non Ron Paul president!!!

Great post OP and everyone needs to keep these stories coming, we the people need to put an end to this crap and put in office who WE want.....Not them!!

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.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


First you complain about the writer working under the premise of fraud occuring, which "tends to bias" the results this way. Then you do the exact same thing here yourself:

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.

These are clear assumptions from you, based on the premise that voter fraud is NOT occuring (thus drawing these conclusions using the official numbers)

Using the same reasoning that you do, this pretty much voids the rest of your assumptions as well.

Talk about false premises eh?

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.

reply to post by NeoVain


Two completely different things. My conclusion is based on looking at the data. The data shows that Romney does well in area with a higher population and that Paul does better in areas with lower population. That is not starting with your conclusion and then setting out to find evidence that supports it. Furthermore, this is only a minor part of my argument. The more important ones are that his analysis has so many flaws in it that there's no way you could make an accurate conclusion with it and that his premises and conclusions are inherently flawed. If you want to keep believing for some reason that this is evidence of voter fraud that's fine with me, but it certainly isn't mathematical or undeniable. In fact it is quite deniable and I don't see any proper use of math at all.

Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by Xcalibur254

 

First you complain about the writer working under the premise of fraud occuring, which "tends to bias" the results this way. Then you do the exact same thing here yourself:

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.

These are clear assumptions from you, based on the premise that voter fraud is NOT occuring (thus drawing these conclusions using the official numbers)

Using the same reasoning that you do, this pretty much voids the rest of your assumptions as well.

Talk about false premises eh?

Those aren't assumptions...those are statistical trends that are backed up by data.

Do you not see the difference?