UNDENIABLE Mathematical Proof the South Carolina Primary was RIGGED!

reply to post by pwe11


The reason your analysis falls apart is because you are not using a random sample. The reason the projections and polls you see on the news can be accurate is because they're using data as it comes in. This tends to be fairly random. As a result you can get a more even sampling of any demographics that may be present. Your method only looks at a specific demographic. Those who live in precincts with low voter turnout. These precincts tend to correlate with more rural areas. Ron Paul does well in rural areas, but not as well in urban areas, which are areas that Romney does well. By ignoring these more urban areas you are ignoring a key demographic that votes for Romney. So of course his actual results are going to be better than his projected results and Paul's are going to be worse than his projected.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by pwe11

 

The reason your analysis falls apart is because you are not using a random sample. The reason the projections and polls you see on the news can be accurate is because they're using data as it comes in. This tends to be fairly random. As a result you can get a more even sampling of any demographics that may be present. Your method only looks at a specific demographic. Those who live in precincts with low voter turnout. These precincts tend to correlate with more rural areas. Ron Paul does well in rural areas, but not as well in urban areas, which are areas that Romney does well. By ignoring these more urban areas you are ignoring a key demographic that votes for Romney. So of course his actual results are going to be better than his projected results and Paul's are going to be worse than his projected.

Legerdemain at it´s best. I already explained the flaws in your logic here twice in this thread,(but one of the explanations was modded it seems). Now at least you admit that the projections on TV works(that are done on an even smaller sample), and you claim the reason being that those results are completely random. If this was true, then any sequence of random results should give the same prediction. Furthermore you claim that Romney is doing better in urban areas. Why? You seem to again only use the numbers to back this up. This is a circular argument. If i say Ron Paul should do better in urban areas, you would wonder why right? Clearly the numbers would not back this up, so there would need to be another reason for me saying so!

The best reason oultined so far why Romney seem to do better in Urban areas, is that the GOP fraudsters only bother to manipulate the bigger caucuses, as outlined in the OP authors post. So what is your counter argument here? That the numbers says different?

Originally posted by pwe11
I am the author of the paper being discussed here. I appreciate all of your comments in taking the time to read my work, whether you agree, disagree, like, or believe it's "the worst math ever." Please understand that I have created hundreds of graphs for counties in New Hampshire, Florida, and South Carolina. The challenge for me is getting the information in a form simple enough that most readers can comprehend and brief enough as to not lose the reader's interest. I started out with the intention of detailing all of the algorithms but realized that it's simply too much analysis for most people. I am surely impressed with anyone here that sees how "obviously flawed" my math is. Ironically enough, several statistical analysts with masters degrees feel otherwise. I can guarantee that if you go to the South Carolina Elections Commission Website and Download the data from Anderson County and load into a spreadsheet, arrange the data from smallest vote precinct to largest, and graph the running total votes vs each candidate's running vote total, your graphs will look just like mine. If the "experts" can tell us who has won the SCGOP Primary when less than 1% of the vote has been counted and using less than 0.4% exit poll subjects, the outcome can accurately be projected with 5000 votes cast in a county with 27,000 votes total from 35 precincts, especially if the precincts are representative of the whole county, as I believe they are in this case. If you think you know the demographics in Anderson better than me, let me hear from you. I lived there for 22 years.

I welcome contact from any of you who have talents that can help bring this information to light.

edit on 19-2-2012 by pwe11 because: (no reason given)

Math is a funny thing...you can make numbers say just about anything if you start out with false premises. If you pick the right demographic...you can make a graph "predicting" anyone won any of the states so far. This is where you fail...and apparently you still don't even realize it.

And if you can show us where any state so far has had a projected winner with less than 1% of the vote in...I'd love to see it.

How about you go redo your analysis and instead of picking the smallest 35 precincts...pick the largest 35 precincts.

The problem with you picking the smallest 35 precincts is that deviations become greater as the population gets greater in the precints. If you start with the largest precincts...the deviations as you get to smaller precincts won't be able to skew your numbers.

Many of us have made specific arguments against your "paper"...but you haven't addressed any of them. You just come in here and state it is correct, that you have looked over the arguments that have been raised and apparently you are dismissing them.

How about this...go back and address each specific argument that is brought up in this thread...defend your paper instead of just pretending to be superior than all of us.

BTW...I had 6 semesters of calculus, 3 of statistics, and a few other math courses to get my degree in computer science....so don't try to impress us with your "college education"...just defend your faulty math and your false premesis you started with.

reply to post by NeoVain

The best reason oultined so far why Romney seem to do better in Urban areas, is that the GOP fraudsters only bother to manipulate the bigger caucuses, as outlined in the OP authors post. So what is your counter argument here? That the numbers says different?

Urban areas are generally more liberal, rural areas are generally more conservative.

Romney is the most liberal candidate out of the group.


But you and the author are probably right...he does good there just because they rig the vote.

reply to post by NeoVain


While using any randomly selected data from the same state or county will give you differing projections they won't be statistically significant from each other. The reason you have to randomly select a sample is because it prevents any one demographic from being overrepresented. By creating a projection using only the smallest precincts in a county the only kind of accurate projection you could do is with other small precincts from that county. This is because you don't have an data from larger precincts or other counties in your analysis. So, how can an analysis predict something that has no precedence in the data you use?

While the main reason to say Romney does better in urban areas and Paul does well in rural areas is based primarily on numbers, it is also based on looking at previous trends. Romney is a moderate. Moderates do well in cities and areas with a larger population. It's almost like a law of averages for politics. As population increases you have more opinions and as a result the person closest to the middle does the best because they can appeal to the most people. Of course there are exceptions. Paul on the other hand pushes for a small federal government and states rights. These are two things that always play well in the rural areas. Furthermore, in more rural areas you tend to have a greater homogeneity in opinions due to the small population size. Therefore, a fringe candidate will generally do better in these areas since the onl really have to appeal to one kind of person as opposed to many in a city. Now, of course this is all extremely simplified and exceptions do occur, but for the most part this is what the primaries numbers show and it is backed up with data and observations from previous elections.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Let me say that I really appreciate your taking the time to participate in intelligent discussion on this. This is one of the reasons that I felt like it was time to give it some exposure on the web. I haven't dismissed anyone's argument and I do not believe myself superior to any of you. I felt a need to speak up because of the demeaning adjectives that were used to describe me personally in this thread. Now For that, I wil try to address your points:

1. The state I am referring to is South Carolina in this year's GOP Primary. According to the FOX network news staff, they called the election with 1% of the Vote counted and an exit poll with less than 2400 people (more than 600,000 people voted total in SC). I watched it live on TV. You can see it at this link: revolutionarypolitics.tv... I happened to see it live.

2. As anticipated, when you reverse the precinct order, you get two very straight lines with Gingrich and Santorum. Paul and Romney's lines are straight until around 18,000 votes cast, when Romney's slope decreases by 3.0% and Paul's percentage increase by 3.0%.

If you would like to do your own analysis of this data, allow me to send it to you. You are wrong in assuming that I just want to state that I'm correct and not address the arguments. I stand firm behind the mathematics. You can argue the method. And look, if there is electronic vote manipulation occuring, this is all that we can do- analyze the data. I live in a State where the vote is 100% electronic, Alvin Greene was elected as the Democratic nominee to the Senate (probably the greatest voting anomaly in history), the EVM manufacture (ES&S) has been involved in countless election irregularities previously, the votes are electronically "counted" in Europe, there is no paper receipt, there can never be a real recount, and many South Carolinians don't trust the results. Would you?
I recently had a conversation with a political representative in SC regarding this subject, whose reaction was, "How could the election be rigged if the results perfectly match all of the exit polls of the major television networks/" At the time, I didn't know that a single exit polling company, Edison Reseach, supplies all of the networks with their poll and each network implies that it is their own independent exit poll. And after delving deeper (please check me on this), their standard practice is to "adjust" the poll after they know the actual reported vote totals. I'd like to get your take.

So knowing Anderson County, I mapped out the precincts last night and did my best to look at this situation demographically. Mitt Romney definitely does better in the Urban precincts and Paul definitely does better in the Rural- just like you would expect. I'd like to hear your comments on these:

In smaller urban precincts: Santorum 16.7%, Gingrich 44.1%, Paul 18.4%, Romney 16.9%
In smaller rural precincts: Santorum 16.4%, Gingrich 42.2%, Paul 21.9%, Romney15.6%
In larger Urban precincts: Santorum 14.9%, Gingrich 41.5%, Paul 13.4%, Romney 25.2%
In larger Rural precincts: Santorum 16.2, Gingrich 42.5%, Paul 16.7%, Romney 19.8%

Again, I welcome your participation and will gladly send the data already in spreadsheet to you, including the demographics part.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


I appreciate your commentary. Understand that I am attempting to determine whether the manipulators rigged primarily the larger vote total precincts and left the smaller ones alone. If I took a "random" sample, my control group could contain manipulated data. Also, I have asked two different exit pollers what they would expect to see if I looked at results of the smallest precincts versus largest. I received one response:
"the z value or standard deviation would be larger which would mean that instead of a 5 percent margin of error, you would have a 7 or maybe 8 percent MoE. In any exit poll a good number is around 400. When a national poll is taken most agencies use around 1000 as the base number. Even though 1000 is a fraction of the population, the data is considered representative of the group statistically. But do not be fooled by numbers. A 5% margin of error, in no way means that the final number will be five percent higher or lower. What the MoE really states is that if another poll was taken that 95% of the time the results would be within 3 standard deviations of the original. The large polling agencies will never explain this to the public, just as we probably will never explain it to the public, because it is confusing and takes years of study to truly understand how to create a survey and questions with validity and reliability. In South Carolina, I have heard reports that our numbers - the ones we feel were manipulated- are actually pretty close to another firms findings."

reply to post by pwe11


Congrats man, seem you shut them up.

Or perhaps they just ran out of straws to grasp at.

Oh well, now that the fraud is proven, what is the next step? Persecution of those involved? Revolution?

reply to post by pwe11


The entire methodology is flawed though. You're trying to prove vote manipulation by excluding data based on the assumption of vote manipulation but you can't do that until you reach your conclusion. Pretty much your entire model relies on using the conclusion as a premise, but you can't assign a truth value to the premise without proving it first. The logic is completely circular. Because of this you have ignored data and jumped to a conclusion not entirely supported by the data. Once again your conclusion relies on it being a premise and this has led to a clear cut case of confirmation bias. You refuse to see the more likely conclusions such as the fact that you're only looking at a specific demographic and as a result it cannot predict for other demographics. The simple fact of the matter is that your premises and conclusion are riddled with logical inconsistencies which invalidates your analysis even before you did it.

If what you claim is true explain why your model also doesn't work for Santorum. There are significant differences between his projected and actual numbers as I demonstrated in my own analysis. Yet nowhere does your theory explain this. As I said before when your model cannot predict three out of four variables the most likely explanation is that your model is flawed.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by pwe11

 

The entire methodology is flawed though. You're trying to prove vote manipulation by excluding data based on the assumption of vote manipulation but you can't do that until you reach your conclusion. Pretty much your entire model relies on using the conclusion as a premise, but you can't assign a truth value to the premise without proving it first. The logic is completely circular. Because of this you have ignored data and jumped to a conclusion not entirely supported by the data. Once again your conclusion relies on it being a premise and this has led to a clear cut case of confirmation bias. You refuse to see the more likely conclusions such as the fact that you're only looking at a specific demographic and as a result it cannot predict for other demographics. The simple fact of the matter is that your premises and conclusion are riddled with logical inconsistencies which invalidates your analysis even before you did it.

Pure legerdemain. What you are describing here is actually the scientific method, it seems you are not very familiar with it. To call it flawed, is to call the scientific method itself flawed. If you truly believe this, you would have a bone to pick with every scientist in the world.

Scientific method: In order to get the truth about any subject matter, you first need to form a theory as to what the conclusion will be, in order to be able to verify/falsify it depending on the results obtained through experiments, mathematical and/or physical in nature..

The rest is of your post is based on the scientific method being flawed, and is therefore invalid on the same merits.

reply to post by NeoVain


This nothing like the scientific method. Yes you do hypothesize a conclusion. However you then don't assume that hypothesis is true and use it as a premise in the very study you are doing to prove it as a conclusion. If he wants to assume that voter fraud occurred in the smaller precincts he must first show that is the case. He has not shown that and to assume that in a study designed to "prove" that flies in the face of the scientific method.

I will first address your statement Santorum's analysis in Anderson County," There are significant differences between his projected and actual numbers as I demonstrated in my own analysis. Yet nowhere does your theory explain this." I must not have read the post of which you speak. My paper uses Santorum's vote percent received in the smallest 35 precincts, or 16.9%, and mutiplies the total final vote count, 26,175, by .169 to obain a finaly projected count of 4,423. This number is within 72 votes of Santorum's reported total of 4,351, which is 1.65% of Santorum's total and 0.275% of the Total Vote. Are you classifying this tiny deviation as "significant?" I want to hear you out.
Moreover, it's absolutely normal in an honest election for a single candidate to receive a "bump" or "dip", which can give a increase or decrease to his vote total, but the slope (vote receiving percentage) should remain consistent, regardless of the number of votes in the precinct. In this example for Anderson County, Notice how paralell Gingrich's projection is to his Actual Reported and Santorum's projected to his reported. As accurate as the totals are at the end, the slopes tell an even more accurate story.
As for my "circular" logic, After a kidnapping has taken place and the victim has been missing for several days, blood is found inside the victim's car. The investigator starts a homicide inquiry that uses the conclusion "murder has taken place" as a "premise" for the investigation to proceed. If a supect is apprehended and his fingerprints are found in the car and he is immediately arrested on murder charges with no solid evidence that a murder has even occurred, are the investigator's "premises and conclusion" riddled with logical inconsistencies that invalidate his analysis?" If you were the investigator and the suspect posted bail on the grand theft charges and you have the authority to simply not press charges for suspected murder, would you let this suspect go free into the general population... because your logic is "circular" and you "assumed" a murder has occurred? The answer is more than likely "no." Why not? Because you have "reason to believe" a murder has taken place, or "suspicion." One cannot be 100% sure that murder/ vote theft has occurred because both cases are based on circumstantial evidence.
This same discrepancy between low and high vote total precincts has lots of mad scientists scrambling. Here is one: eyes-on-elections.blogspot.com...
There are other demographic factors which hopefully can shed some light on this. Rural vs. Urban doesn't account for this in Anderson. But like you point out, this can surely be explained by other demographic factors... right? Only time will tell.

reply to post by pwe11


I'm saying it's significantly different because that is what the statistical analysis. Comparing Santorum's projected votes to his actual votes we get a significance of less than .001. So even if we were using a significance level of .01 the analysis would still say they are significantly different. When I get some more time I will look over this post more thoroughly. In the mean time here is the post where I detail my own analysis using our methods.

I have now finished my analysis using the methods laid out in the OP. I only looked at precincts that had less than 250 voters. I entered them in from least amount of voters to most amount of voters. Each entry was cumulative with all previous entries. This would give me a total number of voters from all the precincts, as well as the totals for each candidate from those precincts. I then ran four regressions, one for each candidate. My independent variable was total number of votes and my dependent variable was total number of votes for that candidate. This then gave me an equation for each candidate to use as a predictor as long as I knew the total number of voters. These equations are as follows:

Gingrich = Total(.443) - 9.760
Paul = Total(.214) + 12.104
Romney = Total(.171) + 2.955
Santorum = Total(.172) - 5.299

I then entered in the projected amounts and the actual amounts for the remaining counties. From these I ran a nonparametric test for each candidate comparing the projected values to the actual values. This produced the following results. The was no significant differences between Gingrich's projected and actual votes. There were significant differences between Paul's projected and actual votes. There were significant differences between Romney's projected and actual votes. There were significant differences between Santorum's projected and actual votes.

So, using the model laid out in the OP we are only able to accurately predict the votes for a single candidate in Anderson County. This would indicate that the method used in the OP is not an accurate method in projecting election results and as such his conclusions are invalid. There are a number of reasons that this model didn't work, many of which have already been mentioned. I would say chief among these are the fact that a random sample was not used and the fact a linear model is not appropriate for this data.

If I get the chance I'll come up with a model that corrects these errors and then we can compare that with the one in the OP and see which produces more accurate results.

I'll look at your method, but from a practical perspective, Santorum's projection is extremely accurate. Do you really believe that if an exit poller predicted numbers that held within 0.275% of the reported numbers that they would call this "not accurate"? It's an absolute bullseye. More importantly, his slope is deadly along with Newt's.
In the bigger equation, there are dozens of these anomalies and not one where anyone but Mitt benefits. If these were natural events, the graphs would produce similar anomalies for some other candidate- obviously. You seem intelligent and educated, but you haven't spent time looking at the data. I like your skepticism though. I'd be glad to send you all of the data so you could invest your time in analyzing and developing methods to evaluate. Then we could have a nice chat.

Some further "circumstantial proof" right here.

reply to post by NeoVain


Doesn't matter all elections are rigged for sure.

IF you went to one communitiy and counted the voters vs the people residing there you would be shocked.

Fraud smaud.

Nothing new here.

Wait to OBAMA works his magic and his millions he handed out to acorn..Wait and see. He is going to wave his transparacy wand for all of you to see and make everything taste like cherry punch.

I do not feel fraud is what is deciding this election. It's the MSM. Most people do not go out and rally. Therefore they sit at home and if they can be bothered to go out and vote, they'll vote whoever the media tells them to vote for. Until we stop giving them the time of day they will continue to run the show.

Not to mention it's difficult to get votes from people who like government freebies at the cost of their fellow man.

After reading the OP's information and the Thread from SO, it's become pretty clear that there is election manipulation happening here!

So what can we do? We have info, but where can we take it from here? Is there someone or some group that we can contact to take this to the next level?

We have to do something, or we will get exactly what we deserve! The time for complacency is over.....let do something!

The OP's paper is a terrible bit of analysis, which would score F on any 1st year stats course. For a start you never "prove" anything with stats, let alone offer "undeniable proof". You just provide evidence. Pure maths is the only subject where you offer proof.

All the assumptions are, at best, dodgy and the data should be stratified before any analysis. Instead he has taken one strata and extrapolated this across the whole data set. Urgh.

A broader question must be: why do you think they are committing fraud? If it is, it must be to tweak it from Santorum to Romney. Ron Paul is so far behind it would be pointless.

From Ron Paul's own site we can see that in 10 different polls from 7 different organisations he got numbers between 4% and 11% for Arizona. In the end he got 11.6% - actually better than one might have expected.

Now if you think there is massive fraud at the polls, then you must think there is massive fraud across all 7 polling organisations as well. Not to mention that all the candidates (including Paul) will be running their own private polling, and if the final result didn't broadly match their polls, then at the very least they will start asking questions.

Sooo...to make this conspiracy work, you will have to include not only all the people who work for the pollsters, but Ron Paul himself....which makes it kind of confusing.

What did you guys think someone who polls 4-11% is going to get on the day? 50%?? That certainly would have raised some eyebrows.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
After reading the OP's information and the Thread from SO, it's become pretty clear that there is election manipulation happening here!

So what can we do? We have info, but where can we take it from here? Is there someone or some group that we can contact to take this to the next level?

We have to do something, or we will get exactly what we deserve! The time for complacency is over.....let do something!

The only thing that is clear is that people manipulated statistics and a lot of people who are looking for "proof" eat it up without question.

In this very thread, it has been shown by many people why these analysis are 100% false...but you don't seem to acknowledge any of that.