Evidence of Vote Flipping in GOP Primary Elections

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

i find it telling that romney's gain is almost exactly equal to the combined loss of paul and huntsman. almost as if votes were switched *dramatic music*

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

i find it telling that romney's gain is almost exactly equal to the combined loss of paul and huntsman. almost as if votes were switched *dramatic music*

Really...it's surprising to you that all percentages add up to 100% all the time???

Honestly people...think a little bit.

I made a thread about electronic voting systems and how you can not trust them.

In my county, most people didn't even bother voting this primary, as most feel that the choice has been made already.

Those that did vote were Ron Paul supporters, but when I looked at the results online, I found it rather interesting that Romney won by a landslide. Heck Santorum received 15% of the votes, and Gingrich 11% when neither of them are even running.

I might be able to understand single digit vote numbers for them, but really, double digits vote percentage totals for candidates that obviously aren't even running?

Thing is there is no paper trail with the electronic vote systems to indicate whether your vote was changed or not, this is designed for the perfect fraud. Otherwise they would have some sort of paper trail where people and precincts can make sure that there vote was counted correctly.

And those counting machines are just as bad,

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

from what i've seen of your postings, i'm not surprised that you didn't understand my point. a positive variation in romney that equates to the combined negative variation of paul and huntsman without ANY going to the bottom two candidates is suspicious.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

from what i've seen of your postings, i'm not surprised that you didn't understand my point. a positive variation in romney that equates to the combined negative variation of paul and huntsman without ANY going to the bottom two candidates is suspicious.

It's not suspicious...it's basic math.

If Romney gains 20%...someone has to lose 20%. It may be one person, it may be two, it may be three. In this case it was two people.

Nothing odd about it.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

If Romney gains 20%...someone has to lose 20%. It may be one person, it may be two, it may be three. In this case it was two people.

the closer you get to approaching 100% of votes counted, the straighter the line will become, however this isn't what happened.

gingrich and santorum both follow this, but the other three don't. statistics don't work like that.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

If Romney gains 20%...someone has to lose 20%. It may be one person, it may be two, it may be three. In this case it was two people.

the closer you get to approaching 100% of votes counted, the straighter the line will become, however this isn't what happened.

gingrich and santorum both follow this, but the other three don't. statistics don't work like that.

The point OutKast is making is easily debunked. He is grasping for straws.

If this were a two man race, the "vote flip" we are seeing in these charts could be
100% normal. It is easy to figure that when presented with two candidates, people in
geographically different areas might have different preferences. With a four man race, the
likeliness of the two candidates seeing a near exact "vote flip" in many different areas just isn't
good...

docs.google.com...

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


In the case of this analysis' methodology that's not true. The way they inputted data was based on a precinct's population size. As a result as you go on each data point is going to have a greater impact on the plot as a whole. So if a candidate does better in more densely populated areas you can expect a slope like the one we see. One of the major problems with this analysis is that they assume people in all precincts are going to vote in a similar manner. This simply isn't true. Each precinct is independent and a number of factors unique to that precinct can affect who they favor.

A key fact that must be remembered is that we are primarily comparing small precincts with large precincts. The majority of the population is moderate. As a result as population increases we can expect the number of vote for the most moderate to increase. In this case that is Romney.

Originally posted by FeatherofMaat
reply to post by freakjive

 

And yet SO many of you nitwits scream about vote fraud and the need for restrictive voter ID laws. It is ELECTION fraud that is the problem. Elections are, to an extent, rigged, and so many of you fools think it's a bunch of illegal, dead immigrants voting.

They have you idiots RIGHT where they want you. You want to complain? Complain about rigged voting machines. But, you have to do what your Faux News gods tell you so that isn't gonna happen;

yes!!! exactly. i'm not worried about voter fraud. that's too complicated and would require a large number of people to comply. it's ELECTION fraud that can be done in the machine and doesn't require an army of people committing fraud. voter fraud is a smokescreen.

reply to post by pasiphae


Actually with the electronic voting systems, it isn't that hard

I can tell you how I see it.

The same way I saw it before the votes were counted...

The establishment first hoped to make the 2012 presidential race a bid between two of their
puppets, either Rick Perry or Obama.

Rick Perry crashed and burned and so they turned their attention and influence towards
another puppet, Mitt Romney. The establishment could not take the chance of a Ron Paul vs
Obama scenario---knowing that even with the full strength of their influence, power, money,
and dirty tricks, the outcome of such a race could potentially be such that there would be no
way to ~force~ an Obama presidency. They knew full well that such a scenario was possible.

So they threw the weight of their influence behind Romney, not particularly caring whether
either Romney or Obama won the election, but caring A GREAT DEAL and doing what they
could to MAKE SURE that Ron Paul was excluded from obtaining the GOP nomination.

So polls were skewed, MSM talking heads were instructed, ballots were stuffed, electronic
voting machines were hacked, and GOP establishment electioneers were bought, coerced,
and/or lied too.

Subsequently, "crazy" Uncle Ron Paul has been ignored, ridiculed, berated, slandered
and marginalized in an attempt to keep him from facing off against Obama as the top
Republican candidate.

As long as Ron Paul does not win the Republican primary, TPTB will win. Because a Ron Paul
third party ticket can easily be manipulated into an Obama win....and like I said, the boys over
at Goldman Sachs and the rest of TPTB could care less whether Obama or Romney wins.

So, the vote is rigged, the polls are manipulated, the MSM is bought and paid for....now all the
establishment has to do is empty out a bank vault large enough to handle all the gold they will
be stealing and hoarding for the next several years

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Xcaliber already pointed out why your thinking is flawed.

This entire analysis is based off taking a baseline from the smallest precincts and crying fraud when the larger precincts don't follow that baseline.


Unless you are looking for something to confirm your own beliefs....this should make absolute sense to you.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

If this were a two man race, the "vote flip" we are seeing in these charts could be
100% normal. It is easy to figure that when presented with two candidates, people in
geographically different areas might have different preferences. With a four man race, the
likeliness of the two candidates seeing a near exact "vote flip" in many different areas just isn't
good...

And this is another ASSUMPTION the author is making.

He pulled that straight out of his ass with no facts to back that up...he just claimed it as truth because he can't prove that.


It's clear you and others have already made up your mind before even seeing these graphs...confirmation bias is a weakness...not a benefit.

This whole thing is a moot point. Outkast and all his Soros loving friends will get their freedom they are asking for, total tyranny, woo hoo sounds like fun! Who cares if there is cheating, who cares about who counts the votes, as long as their guy wins it's all good. Voter fraud has been proven time and time again, but so what the country is riddled with corruption, its the new American way! Who will count the presidential elections coming up this year? George Soros, so it's not about what we want or even Outkast wants or thinks, he and his views are irrelevant. Stupid is as stupid does... We are so retarded we can't even count our own votes now....

www.nowtheendbegins.com...

occupywallst.org...

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

And this is another ASSUMPTION the author is making.

It's not exactly an assumption because the statistics from the past show nothing absurd like that happening.

He pulled that straight out of his ass with no facts to back that up...

No, he pulled it straight out of the part of his brain which is responsible for common sense.

Just be glad there is no rock solid proof to back it up, even though we all know it's true.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

That chart is a smoking gun...

Yes...if you don't know a thing about mathematics and you are easily swayed by pretty colors and graphs.


You can use statistics to prove anything when you start with incorrect assumptions. And this is entirely based off the assumption that the percentage a candidate wins in small precincts are the percentages they should get State wide....which is just ridiculously false.

Actually, Outkast in this case you are wrong...

They are NOT making the assumption that size of precinct doesn't matter, they are using historical analysis to postulate that it doesn't matter, that is ENTIRELY different than just assuming that it doesn't matter.

Yes, if you do a historical analysis of democrat versus republican you will find that republicans will tend to win larger numbers of small precincts and smaller numbers in larger precincts, but this is due to likelihood of democrat voters being in urban areas.

There is no reason that republican candidates should have differences between larger and smaller precincts as is shown by their historical analysis.

If you have studied statistics, you should know this. He is not ASSUMING anything, He is doing trending analysis based on historical results.

Jaden

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Beware the man citing "simple math" as proof.

The flaw in your argument is the existence of the historical correlation, your assumption that Romney would have won the larger precincts (are we talking geographical or by population here) and the fairly simple logic suggesting that if there was cheating in certain states, this would be the way it would look like.

This doesn't mean you are wrong, it doesn't mean there was cheating. But your arguments are not as watertight as you seem to imagine, because the one thing these charts certainly and unequivocally DO indicate is that cheating CANNOT be ruled out.