Evidence of Vote Flipping in GOP Primary Elections

reply to post by Masterjaden
If there taking historical base line than these charts do have some legs. But, I dont think Outkast will look past his Obama re-election campaign to actually see that.

What I do see is some recent threads that are starting to "shed some light" or dare I say PROOF that some on this site have been constantly asking for. This is a good trend as proof is in the pooden as they say so it all depends on people having an open mind and actually try to see someones input which has been requested over and over again.

These graphs may mean nothing at all in this particular campaign and most dont want to create too much trouble as the real battle will be in the local races which in the last few months are being DOMINATED by "Paulites" (I dont really care for labels but there it is). Basically in 4 years the Rupublican Party will be changed from the inside out as well as the Democratic Party as this Logic is going "across the isle" as well. Hopefully.

I seen and read through a similar thread about SC with Romney's votes and Paul's votes being similar negative and positive. I can understand the logic behind Romney doing better in higher populated areas but what I don't understand is that this is the same thing in NH...so is the proof behind the fact that this data shows in two or more states or is that the result of bad math as well?

reply to post by Masterjaden


When it comes to an election you cannot make assumptions based on previous elections. Your variables change every time and as a result your conclusions will change. Romney is a more moderate candidate than any other candidate that was on the GOP ticket. It's a fact that the majority of Americans are moderates. Now if we follow the law of averages the more data you add the closer your data will match the actual numbers for the population. This means that when you look at higher population precincts the more voters you will see that vote moderate. Ergo, Romney will do better in higher population precincts while he may not necessarily do as well in lower population precincts.

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
The way that the numbers correlate between Romney and Paul, but for the most part the other candidates seem unaffected, is the smoking gun here. It seems during preliminary counts when the GOP saw that Paul was in the lead, or had a chance, they stole his votes and awarded them to Romney. I cannot think of another logical explanation for what we are seeing here..

This is blatant fraud, and while I doubt anything will ever come of it (See G. Bush 2000/2004) people need to know their GOP candidate is a liar and a thief.

Thanks very much for posting this!

People - this is an important thread, pleeease try to get it on the front page by flagging and responding. Everyone needs to see this. Post the analysis on your FB, Twitter, ATS, MS Live status, whatever..

It unfortunately goes further than that. Rothschild is in deeper than people realize. Sociopaths that perfect their masks, are the most deadly, and a "Religion" whose purpose is to breed the highest grade sociopath as tribute to their 'god' is more deadly than them all and will sink to EXTREME depravity as a matter of religious belief.

Rothschild was awarded a "Natural Monopoly" (an oxymoron, I know) for all the news and media outlets, by Supreme court decision-I think that was the 70's and after that, I believe it was 1986(?) when the outlet that handled the direct and impartial counting of election votes, was surreptitiously replaced by the "Voters News" which is actually--the media corporations owned by Rothschild. So you have CNN and FOX, etc. as the corporations responsible not for reporting, but for the actual count of the votes.

When the Iowa fraud occurred, it was being reported that the Governors were threatened. It should be noted that the only way that precincts get shut down and their votes thrown away and uncounted, is by gubernatorial authorization.

The reason for the fraud is apparent, he knows that he cant stop Paul from shutting him down without an all out visible war involving England and other crowns. Which would lead to the public finding out about the whole sorry truth. The truth is SO BAD...and I do mean that it is so HORRIFICALLY bad...that there isn't a single human being on the entire planet who would not try to kill this group.

For those saying that the assumption being made is ok because of past elections

If elections were PREDICTABLE...we wouldn't need to have elections.

There are so many variables it is ridiculous that anyone thinks they can compare results from one election to the next to find any sort of trend.

This primary is different...It's basically been a race to see if they can find someone else besides Romney...there have been more ups and downs and frontrunners in this primary than in any that the author compared to. And you have a very large gap between their policies.

Romney is more moderate than any of the other candidates...he is more moderate than Bush...he DOES do much better in urban areas than any of the other candidates.


The fact is there is no proof of fraud in any state in this primary...just a bunch of crying from Ron Paul supporters who obviously aren't very educated in mathematics and statistics.


You can't point out why an analysis is wrong when the people you are talking to don't have the necessary knowledge to know the difference.

reply to post by hoochymama

If there taking historical base line than these charts do have some legs. But, I dont think Outkast will look past his Obama re-election campaign to actually see that.

The thing is, I just can't be that intellectually dishonest.


If I wanted to be a shill, and if I had any delusions about what is said on this message board actually mattered in real life, I would be trying to shill this type of story all over the place to try to show how corrupt and fraudulent the GOP is.

So please explain to me why you think me defend the election results benefits Obama?

reply to post by Xcalibur254


That's only from sample to sample. The population is the entire voting populace of the state. The sample is also the entire voting population of the state. It would basically be multiple binomial tests compared to each other to determine if there is a trend for a difference in the mean between larger population precincts and lower population precincts.They organized the chart in order of smaller to larger precincts. They did that historically to analyze any correlation. The resulting graphs showed almost NO correlation.

The current election graph showed a direct inverse correlation that is entirely contrary to historical analysis. That is significant and needs to be looked more deeply into.

What they are postulating is that this is due to fraud in the larger pop precincts, and what you are postulating is that this is due to a specific candidate being so different from the norm that people were adverse to voting for him, but it was only affected in larger pop. precincts.

You're adding in a second variable which makes it more complex and subject to Occam's razor.

It would take a deeper analysis to see which one is more plausible, but the anomalous nature of this result cannot be just dismissed because YOU say so.

Jaden

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


WOW!!! Can you EVER make an argument without resorting to logical fallacy???

Jaden

Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

WOW!!! Can you EVER make an argument without resorting to logical fallacy???

Jaden

And my logical fallacy is?

reply to post by Masterjaden


Answer me one question.

Is this Primary just like all the other primaries in the past?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

If elections were PREDICTABLE...we wouldn't need to have elections.

There are so many variables it is ridiculous that anyone thinks they can compare results from one election to the next to find any sort of trend.

There are always mathematical features which should be roughly the same when you are examining the same type of data. For such HUGE and anomalous inconsistencies to be so apparent is not normal no matter how you try to spin it.

According to your logic every single scientific theory is completely invalid and baseless because they are developed by quantifying statistical data. But according to you all complex statistical data acquired over time is completely unpredictable and useless.

[SNIP]

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

There are always mathematical features which should be roughly the same when you are examining the same type of data. For such HUGE and anomalous inconsistencies to be so apparent is not normal no matter how you try to spin it.

Prove this is the same type of data.

Are the exact same candidates running? Is the country in the exact same situation? Was Obama the current POTUS before?

I'll ask you the same thing...is this Primary exactly like all the previous primaries?

According to your logic every single scientific theory is completely invalid and baseless because they are developed by quantifying statistical data. But according to you all complex statistical data acquired over time is completely unpredictable and useless.

What do scientific theories have to do with elections?

And no, not all theories are developed using statistical data.

And no, I never said statistical data is unpredictable. I said ELECTIONS/PRIMARIES are unpredictable...not statistical data.


I can see why you are so easily convinced with pretty charts and colors.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Prove this is the same type of data.

It's the "same type" of data because it's measuring the same type of campaign process. I didn't say it was "exactly the same data". Stop twisting the argument to your requirements like you seem to do so eloquently.

And no, not all theories are developed using statistical data.

Actually yes they are. All scientific exploration begins with a MEASUREMENT. Only when one repeats the experiment and conducts a sufficient amount of measurements can one begin to quantify the data and produce a theory based on the underlying mathematical trends.

And no, I never said statistical data is unpredictable. I said ELECTIONS/PRIMARIES are unpredictable...not statistical data.

You said "There are so many variables", you were implying complex data is too unpredictable because there are too many factors which needs to be taken into consideration. Read what I said carefully. Most scientific data is complex data and involves countless variables. So again, according to your logic, most scientific theories are baseless.

PS - your phrase "ELECTIONS/PRIMARIES are unpredictable" would imply the RESULT of said primaries are unpredictable. We are talking about the overall picture formed by the data behind those primaries. And the data is statistical data. So your claim is completely invalid, you can't say statistical data is predictable and then ignore the fact we are dealing with statistical data acquired over time.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


In the one I quoted it was appeal to authority combined with inferred ad hominem. You established yourself as an authority and made a carte blanche ad hominem against anyone who didn't agree with you...

Jaden

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


HAHAA!!@!@!!!

When we do statistical historical analysis on businesses, were the same CEOs in charge??? Were the same customers buying the products???

Your argument is ridiculous on its face.

Jaden

Despite if these charts are true or false, I am a firm believer that no person's vote matters anyway. IMO, I think that the government lets people vote so that we can feel important, so we can feel like we have a say-so in our politics. But in reality, it's just a show; what if not one single person voted for anybody? What do you think would happen? I'll tell you what would happen, the same person would become president that would have become president if everyone voted anyway. These things are already set up and planned ahead of time by those at the top of the hierarchy. These charts, just like the presidential debates held on TV, are mere illusions.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
For those saying that the assumption being made is ok because of past elections

If elections were PREDICTABLE...we wouldn't need to have elections.

There are so many variables it is ridiculous that anyone thinks they can compare results from one election to the next to find any sort of trend.

This primary is different...It's basically been a race to see if they can find someone else besides Romney...there have been more ups and downs and frontrunners in this primary than in any that the author compared to. And you have a very large gap between their policies.

Romney is more moderate than any of the other candidates...he is more moderate than Bush...he DOES do much better in urban areas than any of the other candidates.


The fact is there is no proof of fraud in any state in this primary...just a bunch of crying from Ron Paul supporters who obviously aren't very educated in mathematics and statistics.


You can't point out why an analysis is wrong when the people you are talking to don't have the necessary knowledge to know the difference.

Computer programmer admits to rigging vote machines... (VIDEO)

reply to post by freakjive


This would seem to match the recording someone posted on here at ATS of Obama saying that the Republican PTB (powers that be) don't want Ron Paul in there to which i pointed out at the time that it's obvious that the Republican primaries are fixed to a certin extent and this proof you posted would seem to follow along with that.


Good find S&F.....

Vote switching would imply, there is a candidate favoured by the old boys in the back rooms, he needs help, votes will be switched to that candidate.
Do the charts imply this is happening, that votes are being systematically driven to one candidate.

Then Do the charts imply one candidate is having votes systematically removed.

YES it does, both questions answer in the affirmative.