Analysis Pointing To Voting Fraud in The Republican Primaries, page 1

Analysis Pointing To Voting Fraud in The Republican Primaries, page

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 72 times

Topic started on 29-2-2012 @ 10:19 AM by SkepticOverlord

There are an increasing number of statistical analyses popping up online that are using proven math theories in statistics to show that vote manipulation is happening in the Republican primaries. The math models used do not rely on demographics and paint a rather compelling picture that the primaries are being manipulated for a predetermined outcome -- Mitt Romney as the Republican candidate.

UPDATE: Please use the existing ATS Thread for continued discussion
UNDENIABLE Mathematical Proof the South Carolina Primary was RIGGED!

Here are a couple of the better analyses out there:

Google Docs: The 2012 GOP Primary: Unmasking The Vote Manipulation

The final results of the GOP Primaries and Caucuses are pre-determined and are created through vote tabulation manipulation. Having worked with various programmers through the years in creating algorithms, I find the particular one laid out in this document to be quite primitive and laughably obvious. Having analyzed the New Hampshire and South Carolina Primary Counties like this one, I am shocked that the perpetrators haven’t spent more resources to make the end result more believable. If we don’t expose this nonsense right now and convince all candidates’ supporters to fight this vote manipulation in unison, regardless of one’s candidate’s name, we may never have another national election in the US where “we the people” decide the outcome.

REDDIT: Some people with statistical backgrounds think they have uncovered UNDENIABLE evidence of voter fraud.

Where we are - it appears we have statistical proof of vote flipping in the Primary. Much of the research focuses on South Carolina, but we have extremely suspicious data on most other states as well, though we need to be careful since some states are primaries and others are caucuses, which need to be kept separate, even if both end up being fraudulent.
The basic summary:
1) Romney is always the only benefactor.
2) There is evidence of vote flipping going back to the 2008 primary.
3) The algorithm(s) being used are rather crude, often basic 1:1 flipping.
4) Votes are often, but not always, siphoned from a single candidate. This candidate is often Ron Paul, but has also been Gingrich, Santorum, and even Huckabee in 2008.
5) Romney benefits as precincts increase in size, and this increase is algorithmically 'clean' with little or no 'white noise' common to non-altered candidates. For example, we might see a steady 10% rise in Romney's votes from precincts sized 50% to 80%, at which point it increases to a steady 15% (far after any differences in size should matter).
6) Demographics are not at play, though this is the 'debunk' most often brought up by people new to the thread.

DISCLAIMER: I'm presenting this because I think ATS members can make a valuable contribution to these discussions that are happening online in several places. I may not be able to participate much, but I present this for our excellent members to digest, analyze, and contribute additional research.

edit on 29-2-2012 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 29-2-2012 @ 10:48 AM by Wookiep

Bump! This is definately something that I think many of us have already suspected.. I have noticed a pattern with the Romney votes that seems very suspicious, and it seems to be quite consistent every time. He never seems to gain much support in smaller precincts, and as the numbers come in he almost always has a mysterious "surge" near the end of the vote tallies in the large precincts.

There are maybe 2 Romney supporters I've seen on ATS and I still haven't met one in person. Over 300,000 people voted for him last night in Michigan??

hmmmm.

edit on 29-2-2012 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 29-2-2012 @ 10:54 AM by Res Ipsa

What happened in Maine was all I needed to see to be convinced.
Rachal Maddow did a good expose on this.

reply posted on 29-2-2012 @ 10:57 AM by VonDoomen

reply to post by Wookiep

Yes, i cant believe romney "won" michigan after his "let detroit fail" statement, considering detroit was the life-blood of michigan for such a long time. coupled with the fact that he can barely make a crowd at his speeches compared to ron paul, the whole thing stinks like an indonesian open air fish market!

Thank you skepticoverlord for posting this story as I/we may not have caught this great story otherwise. This needs to be stickied to the front page!

reply posted on 29-2-2012 @ 11:02 AM by OutKast Searcher

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

There is already a rather large thread on your first link
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The member Xcalibur254 did a great job of just completely picking apart the analysis. The "author" of the google doc even came and joined ATS to defend it....but he seemed to have dissapeared after Xcalibur254 completely destroyed his analysis.

And your second link seems to make the same assumptions as the first.

The people doing these analysis are making incorrect assumptions to base their "proof" off of. They are both taking the smalles precincts out of a state, calculating a percentage, and claiming all the candidates should get that share of the vote in the entire state. Also, the second source you linked, their whole premise is that we should treat votes as COMPLETELY RANDOM EVENTS....It is absolutely horrible math theory.

Romney does better in larger urban areas...that is just a known fact. So the people doing these "analysis" take that fact, flip it on it's head, and take statistics knowingly ignoring it.

This would be like saying, let's take the 5 most rural states and get a percentage of vote of Republicans and Democrats...and then cry fraud once you include the top 5 states that have the largest metro areas and all of a sudden the Democrats are doing better.

The people doing these could start with the largest precincts, calculate a percentage and then it looks like Romney is being cheated in the smaller precincts.

Sorry...but this is just horrible...horrible math.

edit on 29-2-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 29-2-2012 @ 11:02 AM by Destinyone

People should be screaming at the top of their lungs over the voter fraud already proven in this election cycle. They, for the most part are not. It's easier to not participate in the constitutional voting practice, and let MSM choose their next President for them. I'm shocked at how few people even bother to vote these days.

What used to be a right, exercised with pride, is now something that cuts into their favorite tv programs. Apathy will be the end of our Liberties, and Freedom.....