UNDENIABLE Mathematical Proof the South Carolina Primary was RIGGED!

reply to post by bhornbuckle75


Eh.. those aren't his true goals. You and I both know it. That is about as close to pandering to the GOP as RP comes. I would bet that if he were president he doesn't even touch on the abortion issue. Meanwhile you have people like Santorum that campaign on mostly that issue. Santorum wouldn't let his own daughter get an abortion if she were raped (HIS words, not mine).

Paul is the only candidate that wants to keep us out of Iran. He is the only antiwar candidate so he gets my vote.
I am pro choice, but I am also pro common sense. So I can see when people are enthusiastic about a topic or not. You have to make informed decisions on candidates that means sifting through their true intent and sometimes voting for them even when you disagree on certain topics.

I know that if there wasn't a checklists of stances you HAD to take in order to be a real candidate for either party RP wouldn't even touch on abortion. Unfortunately, if he doesn't say what they want to hear he REALLY has no chance. Being astute is why ex Dems like me are voting for him.

This process is controlled by the "party" system and we all know the party system of both Democratic and Republican partys are controlled by the same group of elistists!

If the allegations of voter fraud turn out to be true, my question is why?
Why does the GOP fear a Ron Paul America? Out of the four, it's Paul who seems to stand a better chance at beating Obama. I know a lot of '08 Yes We Can voters who are now Paul supporters.

Lastly, why do anti-Paul members on ATS feel the need to post on a pro-Paul thread? What is there to fear?!
Someone please explain if you could.
Thank you.

Click here for more information.

Go ahead. Someone ask me if I'm going to waste my time voting.

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 don't need a graph to know primaries and elections are rigged, they didn't work for Ross Perot. The reason why I know that the N.G. win in SC is a farce is because I happen to live for the moment in SC and saw local news. When the affair story of the ex-wife came out people here in SC were done with newt. Local reports kept reporting that Newt had to keep skipping venues because no one was showing up. He rented a foot ball stadium roughly 30 people showed up and 20 of them were reporters. This continued the whole time he was here. SC hates Romney too he dicked over so many SC workers it isn't even funny. Ron didn't even show up, hell he didn't need to knowing that SC wouldn't want a serial serial cheater elected that goes for both Newt and Romney. If anyone wants to see the true face of Romney just look look at the youtube video of Romney laughing in this paraplegics face when he asks him about medical cannabis. www.youtube.com... this is not meant to start a off topic about cannabis. Just to say see who this guy really is, a monster

I think what is most interesting about the graphs and what "common sense math people" fail to explain (maybe I havent understood) is that mit ends up at the projected total of ron and ron ends up close to the projected total of mit. To me that is what is most interesting the fact that he seems to be taking votes away from paul yet the other 2 remain the same and it appears not to be random. Maybe I am ignorant but wouldn't there be differences in the other candidates to? wouldn't we see the other candidates taking votes away in other areas?

reply to post by ms898

If the numbers were legitimate you would riggers can't think of everything

reply to post by ms898


It all depends on what demographic the candidate is appealing to. If they're appealing to a demographic that represents a consistent percentage throughout the state then they're numbers are going to remain fairly consistent regardless of the other candidates. On the other hand if your the people voting for you only represent a select demographic throughout the state your numbers are going to fluctuate. This is what you see with Paul and Romney. Paul played well in the rural areas. Romney played well in the urban areas. The way the person from the OP did their analysis only involved looking at the more rural areas and then extrapolating their projection from this data. This however ignored Romney's appeal in urban areas and Paul's decreased appeal in urban areas. As a result it could not be reflected in the projection.

I beg to differ Paul has way more pull and draw in urban areas where people are a bit more educated than out in the boondocks. Every major city i've visited since primaries began, think Newt and Romney are huge corporate machine loving idiots.

reply to post by Darkchemistry


That's not what the numbers show. Paul's stance on a limited federal government is something that has great appeal for people in rural areas. Whereas Romney's moderate stance is something that always plays well in population centers.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by ms898

 

It all depends on what demographic the candidate is appealing to. If they're appealing to a demographic that represents a consistent percentage throughout the state then they're numbers are going to remain fairly consistent regardless of the other candidates. On the other hand if your the people voting for you only represent a select demographic throughout the state your numbers are going to fluctuate. This is what you see with Paul and Romney. Paul played well in the rural areas. Romney played well in the urban areas. The way the person from the OP did their analysis only involved looking at the more rural areas and then extrapolating their projection from this data. This however ignored Romney's appeal in urban areas and Paul's decreased appeal in urban areas. As a result it could not be reflected in the projection.

I find it hard to believe that people who chose to not vote ron would mostly (99% from the look of it) only vote for mit. It is VERY strange they end up at eachothers projected outcomes. to me it seems too black and white almost dare i say it computer like. I would be interested to know about the voting practices in the different areas and see if computer voting is involved (not sure about it i dont live in the USA) . But anyway don't you think the projected outcomes flip is starnge?

reply to post by ms898


I was going to attempt to explain this before but I was having trouble putting it into words. I'll try again though. Before I start one thing you must remember is that regardless of whether you're looking at the actual or projected data you're still going to have the same overall total number of votes. Now on to the actual explanation. It's not that the people who didn't vote for Paul voted for Romney. It just appears that way. Gingrich's and Santorum's percentage of the vote stayed more or less the same throughout the county. As a result there is very little difference between the projected and actual data. Since Paul and Romney are the only ones who fluctuated much between precincts that fluctuation will only be reflected in their data. As a result you have a "flip." It doesn't mean that Romney is only "taking" voters from Paul. He's "taking" voters from all the other candidates, just like they're doing with him. It's just that Gingrich and Santorum were more consistent in the number of votes they "took" from the others.

Put another way, Paul and Romney had a greater amount of variation in their results from precinct to precinct. This variation then gets reflected in the difference between their projected and actual data. If creator of this document had done a proper analysis (i.e. random sampling) the variation between actual and projected data would be minimized. However, because of the way he did do it the variation is just going to become exacerbated and appear to be getting worse with time.

I still don't think I explained this well, but I tried. I know that if we were face to face I could explain this no problem but without the aid of visuals it becomes a little tricky.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Wow i think i just lost 5 IQ reading that. That post made absolutely no sense at all. But at least you tried.

Political trolling? You got a talent for this

reply to post by NeoVain


No trolling whatsoever. I'm quite ambivalent when it comes to politics. In fact Ron Paul is the closest I've come to supporting a candidate and have got a number of friends interested in him. However, I do see numerous fallacies being committed by his supporters. These deserve to be called out. Just because this is a conspiracy site and Ron Paul is the biggest fringe candidate doesn't make him, his campaign, or his supporters immune to criticism. I have taken it upon myself to help make ATS a more discerning place. Much too often topics are created based on limited, false, or no data whatsoever. And despite this these topics find great success because they appeal to the majority of the site's worldview. If people on here want their theories to be taken seriously by the mainstream they need to start presenting objective data collected using a legitimate methodology.

The document from the OP is the perfect example of what not to do. It contains numerous premises that have no kind of evidence to back them, the methodology is flawed, and the conclusion is based on large jumps in logic. Yet there are numerous people that by into due to both lack of background in statistical analysis and because it supports their worldview. Yet these same people ignore the fact that the results are consistent with entrance and exit polls. Not to mention that Paul himself wasn't expecting to do well in the state. Thus the reason he didn't campaign there since it was winner-take-all. I have tried to explain the flaws as best as I can, but as I said I'm somewhat limited without being able to use visual aids in real time. However, I do hope my own statistical analysis using the method as the author of document has shown that the model is flawed. I do what I do on this site because I desire the truth just as much as anyone else, however I see the methods people are using to find it and I see that they are flawed.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


I appreciate your analysis...and it makes perfect sense.

But you aren't going to convince people who live in a fantasy world that Ron Paul is losing fairly. They have convinced themselves that Ron Paul has a huge majority of the vote and that there is a huge conspiracy to bring him down.

When in fact...no one spends one cent campaigning against him because he just isn't a threat to any of the candidates.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


The way I see it Outkast, you and your Obama drones can have your victory. You are obviously not on the home team. If you want tyranny cool. Whatever have it your way...Just don't start crying later on when things start becoming worse. We already told you so. I am done with all these political threads. If you don't want to learn the easier way you can learn the hard way...Do us a favor stop lying to yourself and think everything is going to get better.