Republican Voting Fraud Unraveling, New Evidence!

New evidence have been put forward by statistical analysis by several analysts doing work on the current voting numbers in the republican primaries/caucuses, now not only pointing to the considerable vote manipulation in the current primaries, but also going back to the 2008 primaries as well, while the 2004 primaries seem to be clean.

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.

This is NOT something so simple as 'Romney does better in urban areas'. There are hundreds of posts evaluating this claim, and it's been shown to be a false premise in several different ways (the above graphs being perhaps the best).

Affected counties show a systematic, no-noise algorithmic increase in Romney's votes from a specific hinge point to a specific hinge point, with the votes coming from different opposing candidates in different counties (sometimes neighboring). This is not based on the rural/urban divide, for we see this same precise incline even when looking at precincts within a specific city (in affected counties)... counties that show no evidence of anomalies have the expected, flat results for all candidates.

I want to thank PWE11 that brought this issue to light with a post in this thread, but as he does not have the post counts himself yet to create a new thread, and i consider this issue to be far to important to be buried so deep in another largely dead thread, i decided to help him out to spread the message by creating this thread.



Here is the link to the hightlights of this research project as well as the further linkage for the proof/methods used..
www.ronpaulforums.com...

Nice info F
But for keeping your eye out and ensuring the spread S

I am amazed there arent at least ten Romney shills already foaming at the mouth in reply....
It speaks volumes when even the shills know when to keep quiet.......the proof must be stronger than we know....
The Voting machines of the fixing scandal, may never have been destroyed as the court had ordered, they may even have turned up in florida in time to help george dubbaya to hold onto power....
I believe the origonal scandal of the vote flipping was done in a SC election on electronic machines programmed to give the credit for votes for the opposition,on a one in three basis, the other two going to the candidate who won.....
Theres a great you tube video about it, and the \Jersey company which owns and runs voting machine shell companies which deal with the varios goverments...
The bulk of them are owned by one person,,,the owner of the crooked voting machines in SC.

are there really romney supporters??..I mean..really?

im not talking about anti-pauls

i mean...is there really anyone SUPPORTING Romney on this site...not just because he might be the least stupid stooge


edit: not just on this Site but in general...

Originally posted by Acetradamus
are there really romney supporters??..I mean..really?

Yes, Obama is losing to Romney in national polls

This is my surprised face

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by Acetradamus
are there really romney supporters??..I mean..really?

Yes, Obama is losing to Romney in national polls

Considering the proof of voting fraud in the primaries thus far laid forth, there is a considerable probability of those polls also being manipulated. So i would not personally consider those polls proof that there are actual Romney supporters. So far, i have not seen even one on these forums, at least.

I think the only real Wrongnmey suppporter IS Obama
( oooops what was I thinkin?...scratch that smiley!)

Both are funded by the same bankers and espouse the same agenda and as usual....both are paid on the installment plan...which one has to admit is odd for a country who's one remaining export is supposed to be manufactured democracy ( I thought China was the knock off king...heh heh NO, not anymore.)....

No wonder all those other "client" counties have to be bombed into it...
You'ld have to be bombed on glue to think this particular product was genuine.

Who ever invented the HELLgelian Die-elect-ic should have had his expletive deleted


pS you don't need any fancy anal -Y- sis either: just listening to the eye witnesses on radio interviews, and the ensuing party bigs' obfuscations after every primary should be enough...
MISSING TRUCKS CARRYING BALLOTS!!!!!!!?????....THE RESULTS ARE PHONED IN !!!

reply to post by mastahunta


The same people that the OP is talking about are the same people that are giving you the national polls. You post this as if you don't have a clue.Come on Curly!

reply to post by NeoVain


What proof? Could voter fraud be going on? Sure, but what you have posted proves nothing. I have pointed out the many numerous flaws in these "statistical analyses." See when you perform a statistical analysis of any kind it must meet certain assumptions. As far as I have seen these analyses meet none of the assumptions required to perform a regression (the test kind of being employed here). So you can go on believing there is voter fraud occurring but do not claim there is any kind of mathematical proof. For example, where are the tests for heteroskedasticity? I doubt the people who did these "analyses" even know what heteroskedasticity means let alone tested for it.

Go ahead and call me a shill all you want. That doesn't change the fact that your "mathematical proof" doesn't meet even one assumption required to perform a proper and valid test. Not only would the methods applied in these "studies" prevent your findings from being published in a professional journal they would prevent you from getting a passing grade in a statistics class. That's how basic these mistakes are.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

What proof?

You either:
A. Didnt look at the evidence, or
B. Didn´t understand it.

Please do before flaunting you ignorance like a cocked gun, you where already destroyed in the other thread, i don´t know why you still bother.

reply to post by NeoVain


This is attempting to pass itself off as a mathematical analysis. It isn't. It ignores the most basic requirements for this kind of analysis. Once again show me where someone tested for heteroskedasicity. Show me where someone has actually tested for linearity. Just putting together a graph using faulty methods does make it a statistical analysis. All it makes it is a graph made using faulty methods. You can keep trying to argue with me but that doesn't change the fact that these are not proper statistical analyses so stop trying to treat them as such.

As I said before you are free to believe that voter fraud is occurring but these "analyses" are far from mathematical proof. That's the point I've been trying to make this whole time. Linear regressions require the data to meet certain requirements. This data does not meet those requirements. Therefore, any analysis performed using that data is flawed and the conclusions drawn from such an analysis are invalid. There is no arguing with that. Those are the facts. I have no horse in this race. I don't support any of the candidates. What I do support is proper application of math. If you try to pass faulty math off as legitimate then all you are doing is using the same kind of propaganda and employing the same kind of scare tactics that the MSM uses. ATS is supposed to be about finding the truth. That's not going to happen if you latch onto every "study" that employs a faulty methodology simply because it confirms your worldview.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

Just putting together a graph using faulty methods does make it a statistical analysis.

Faulty methods? I believe you conveniently skipped most of the contents of this thread.
www.ronpaulforums.com...

Please consider evaluating the evidence available next time before making such absurd claims clearly aimed at discrediting perfectly valid evidence laid forth by perfectly competent analysts working in unison, lest you will only succeed in looking like a desperate shill for anyone that have actually looked at and understood the evidence.

reply to post by NeoVain


I'm just going to go ahead and post the section from the Wikipedia page for "Regression analysis" dealing with what is required for a valid regression. Feel free to show me where each of these issues was tested.

The sample is representative of the population for the inference prediction.
The error is a random variable with a mean of zero conditional on the explanatory variables.
The independent variables are measured with no error. (Note: If this is not so, modeling may be done instead using errors-in-variables model techniques).
The predictors are linearly independent, i.e. it is not possible to express any predictor as a linear combination of the others. See Multicollinearity.
The errors are uncorrelated, that is, the variance-covariance matrix of the errors is diagonal and each non-zero element is the variance of the error.
The variance of the error is constant across observations (homoscedasticity). (Note: If not, weighted least squares or other methods might instead be used).

Everyone around me is Republican, I'd say 30-50% of them are voting for Romney. None of them like him, but don't think there is a better choice. I am just guessing on this percentage, but I'd say that the fact that no one really likes the guy much, and many are only voting for him cuz he's the best of the bunch (to them), that is why you do't hear any word from any supporters. I also think his supporters don't typically think outside the box, another reason you don't hear them here on ATS, cuz they aint here!

Excaliber, your post above gives no link.

Personally, the total lack of RP coverage in itself shows the manipulation, do you really need more proof?

My Kid last night pointed out to me a commercial for the "3" candidates in the caucus tonight. Isn't there still 4? Guess who they left out.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

Feel free to show me where each of these issues was tested.

If you had a genuine interest in this matter, you would look at the evidence laid forth before "demanding" to be spoon-fed such information by other ATS members, and indeed, even before actually replying to this thread. But as is clear from your urge to "debunk" or "discredit" this analysis before even properly considering and evaluating the avaliable information, one can only assume your intention is less honest in this matter, but rather motivated by some agenda which you feel an urge to fulfill.

Don´t get me wrong, i appreciate you bumping this thread and all, but i was just hoping for the quality of your posts to be of somewhat higher standard, at least look at the premise of the analyses properly and if you find them lacking on their own merits, and for their intended purposes please supply a similar analysis with these "blanks filled" to show us how it should be done, and how your results differ.

reply to post by SunnyDee


Regression Analysis

There's the link. As I have said I'm not making any claims regarding voter fraud or what not. What I am saying is that all of these statistical analyses claiming to prove voter fraud do no such thing. They are each inherently flawed by not adhering to the assumptions required of a regression analysis. Even if they meet the assumptions no one has shown this. No one has tested for linearity, heteroskedasicity, or anything else. If these people actually want to show that voter fraud is occurring they need to do all the work involved. Go read any peer-reviewed article that employs a regression analysis. You're going to find much more than just the analysis. You're going to have tests regarding the assumptions. You're going to have tests based on the outcomes of those tests. You're going to have literature reviews that back up your methodology.

What I'm trying to say is that there is a lot more that goes into a regression than the regression itself. So far no one has presented any of this other required work. I also don't know why people are fighting me on this fact. If a psychologist, or an economist, or a political scientist wants their work to be taken seriously they need to be thorough and they need to do all of the required tests to show their model is valid. Why do these people claiming fraud feel they don't need to be held up to the same standards? If these people want their research to be taken seriously they need to do it right and they need to present it professionally. For starters they need to go back to square one and look at their methodology. As I have pointed out in the past one of their premises is the same as their conclusion. This is a big no-no. If they don't start adhering then they can forget about making any kind of change.

reply to post by NeoVain


It is the job of the researcher to present their findings in a professional and coherent manner. I have skimmed through what you have posted and have seen nothing that attempts to prove such things as linearity and heteroskedasticity or any of the other requirements of a proper regression. If you have seen otherwise feel free to post it here.

I have considered doing my own analysis. However, I'm not sure if all the data I would need is available. Furthermore, with the amount of data I would need the input and analysis would take at least a week if I worked on it eight hours a day. Then there's the fact that it would be pointless. I presented enough independent research topics on ATS to know that it never changes anyone's mind. The people who were on your side in the first place compliment your work while the detractors continue to use terms like shill and post the same material debunked by the research. So why would I want to put that much effort into something I'm not getting paid to do and knowing that it won't make a difference regardless of the results?

reply to post by Xcalibur254

So why would I want to put that much effort into something I'm not getting paid to do and knowing that it won't make a difference regardless of the results?

You could ask the same thing to those analysts that actually bothered to do it as is evidenced by this thread; why did they bother with it, knowing some shills will not even bother properly looking at the evidence before attacking? Maybe because they where sure at least some of the others would understand?

Yes, maybe you are part of the problem here

On another note, you sure seem to put alot of effort into discrediting other peoples work, despite "not getting paid for it" already, so why not at least try to do it properly?

"not getting paid" enough?

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Maybe that regression analysis doesn't work with fake starting numbers.