UNDENIABLE Mathematical Proof the South Carolina Primary was RIGGED!

This video should be part of EVERY election fraud thread. Diebold machines hacked.



and this one...

I went to my first ever caucus this year and was absolutely stunned at the disorganization. The fact that they count people's votes by having people just raise their hand and count. The guy who was the head guy of our group got the count wrong SEVERAL times, but his daughter was there and she was counting too. Every time he counted wrong she would shake her head and say "that's not what I got". So he would count again, but all too often he seemed like he didn't want to recount and had that general attitude that it didn't really matter if it was exact.

Of course there is fraud, the whole thing is set up so screwy that it is damn near impossible to not have fraud. After going to this, I don't trust a damn thing about elections.. not a damn thing! It all makes me angry just thinking about it. There is nothing secure or even organized about how the caucus is run. Bunch of crooks the lot of them!

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
From Ron Paul's own site we can see that in 10 different polls from 7 different organisations he got numbers between 4% and 11% for Arizona. In the end he got 11.6% - actually better than one might have expected.

Now if you think there is massive fraud at the polls, then you must think there is massive fraud across all 7 polling organisations as well. Not to mention that all the candidates (including Paul) will be running their own private polling, and if the final result didn't broadly match their polls, then at the very least they will start asking questions.

Sooo...to make this conspiracy work, you will have to include not only all the people who work for the pollsters, but Ron Paul himself....which makes it kind of confusing.

edit on 29/2/12 by FatherLukeDuke because: (no reason given)

Text from the bottom of "Ron Paul's own site" (RonPaul.com)

Copyright © 2008 - 2012 RonPaul.com. This website is maintained by independent grassroots supporters. It is not paid for, approved or endorsed by Congressman Ron Paul.

As you can see this is not his "own" site. Also who's "Independent grassroots supporters"? This site is loaded with content that it would be too much HTML and code work that one person or group would be willing enough to support and maintain. Could this person or group be shills being paid with MONEY?

ALSO, when you click their 'Contact' page, nothing loads or shows up.. Too suspicious.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

The only thing that is clear is that people manipulated statistics and a lot of people who are looking for "proof" eat it up without question.

In this very thread, it has been shown by many people why these analysis are 100% false...but you don't seem to acknowledge any of that.

I have read the threads, links and other info and I am not convinced that this has been debunked 100%. There are good arguments against this manipulation "theory", and the need to be considered, but it does not satisfy my curiosity and leaves the possibilities wide open.

Now I know what you are thinking: "Ron Paul supporters will support any theory as long as it helps out Ron Paul". While I do support RP and would love to see him get the nomination, my motivation is to have fair elections without outside interference...regardless of the outcome.

I believe that election manipulation is alive and well, but we do not have the clear evidence to prove it yet. While the info provided by the OP and others is still in debate, it allows us to take what evidence we do have and push the conversation to a new level in which more people can join in on the conversation and take part in the debate.

That's why I said we need to take it to that next level and contact people that have the means to do so.

And let's be honest.....you don't support RP. Even if this thread contained information proving without a doubt that the vote was manipulated against RP, you would not agree with it.

So we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


I would absolutely accept proof of fraud. I just haven't seen it yet.

You are of the thinking that some voter fraud must exist because there have been so many accusations.

I'm of the thinking that since there have been so many accusations that have turned out to be false...it makes me doubt any fraud exist.

But if someone has proof...I'd love to see it.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I'll admit that I do not fine this analysis to be 100% proof of voter fraud, but it does seem to offer some interesting insights.

My question to you though is can you blame people for being skeptical after the Maine and Iowa debacles? This in light with the mistreatment of Paul in the media and by many higher ups in the party would cause people to question their motives.

So people like the OP looked at the election closely and found what they percieved to be inaccuracies. I applaud the OP for at least trying to make sense of this mess.

In addition, I still think there are areas of this study taht no one has successfully answered. If the OP is correct, the fact that Romney does better in urban areas doesn't answer the fact that he did poorer in small precinct urban areas and did well in large precinct rural area. Also, I have failed to see any explanation of why only Romney went up in these areas and only Paul went down.

Perhaps I missed these posts so if you can show me where they are I would really appreciate it, because I do want to see all of the evidence before making a judgement.

After all these years of election and the experiance of the people who became POTUS, why are there still americans who believe there will be an elected president.

I've got news...presidents of the USA are SELECTED...

With other words....every vote count that will produce an unwanted winner will be rigged.

Now I am going to bed and tomorrow I will wake up again....goodnight to you all.

reply to post by Grambler


The reason we only see this for Romney and Paul is because their appeal fluctuated throughout the state. Gingrich on the other hand was consistently supported throughout the county while Santorum had a consistent lack of support. The reason why Romney does better in larger areas regardless of it being rural or urban is because of a political law of averages so to speak. The majority of the population, whether they identify as Republicans, Democrats, or Independents, are moderates. Out of the Republican candidates Romney is seen as the most moderate. Now in smaller areas you may not see this majority emerge. Much in the same way if you take a small sample of data you may not actually see the real trends. As you increase the sample size however you are going to see this moderate majority emerge more and more.

This also explains why you primarily see these differences between Paul and Romney. Both of their platforms are designed to primarily play to a person's political sensibilities. Paul's positions are based on his classic conservatism while Romney bases his positions on his moderatism.

Santorum on the other hand seems to be primarily playing to people's religious sensibilities. His positions are based on his beliefs. In this way he can draw in people regardless of where they are on the political spectrum as long as they agree with his Christian values. It will be interesting to see how well he fairs as we start getting more primaries from the coastal states, as these areas aren't as well known for their religious homogeneity as the midwest.

I haven't really paid much attention to Gingrich but it seems like he's more of a wild card. He's not really appealing to any one sensibility and as a result he hasn't been able to make any kind of consistent gains between states. He may appeal to the sensibilities of one state (such as South Carolina) but then fail to connect completely with another (such as Michigan).

Of course there are exceptions to each of these but this is my hypothesis on why your are seeing the numbers that you are seeing.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

You are of the thinking that some voter fraud must exist because there have been so many accusations.

Not exactly. I believe there is a strong case of voter fraud due to the shear number of "coincidences" that seem to be trending within the current election, the behavior, actions and statements made by the GOP representatives and the shenanigans with the last Bush election. Add to that a little bit of gut instinct and you have a conspiracy.

Unfortunately, we have no way to get our feet in the door within the inner echelon of the GOP to actually see what is happening. Therefore, we have to go on little tidbits like what we see in the OP.

Let's get real here. If this sort of crap was happening in a third world country, the US and the UN would force that country to accept election monitoring. Hell, look at the fit the US threw over the elections in Iran!

Fact is that these elections, whether they are rigged or not, are not open and transparent. That alone is cause for concern. Regardless of our political affiliation or candidate of choice, we should be up in arms over the crap that is happening!

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Thanks for trying to help me understand this. Ill admit that stats and math aren't my strong suit, so I'm trying to hear everyone out on this.

I do understand what your saying about large and small areas. However, unless Im misreading the author of the study, the results were overwhelmingly more in favor of Paul in almost all small precincts, and Romney in the large ones. It seems to me that if your observation was true, these would be more random.

If the rural, urban argument is out, then no matter what the size of the precinct they should somewhat follow the trend. I could be wrong but heres how Im seeing it:

Lets say 10 percent of the state was going to vote for Romney, and 10 percent for Paul. You would expect to see these small districts come close to those numbers overall, unless there is some demographic reason (ie rural area are usually the smaller precincts and they are more likely to vote for Paul).

However, your saying that is not the case. Granted because of the smaller numbers, it is more likely a single precinct would not directly follow this, but overall the numbers should be close to 10 percent for each candidate. Instead what we see according to the author is more like small precincts voting 15 percent for Paul and 5 for Romney, and the reverse in the larger precincts.

This massive change in addition to the fact that neither Gingrich nor Santorum change at all seems to show that this is more than just coincidence. To me this means there are only two possibilities:

1: There is some reason that the larger precincts feel equal about Gingrich and Santorum with the small precincts, but massively favor Romney over Paul, and the opposite for the small ones. However, its has already been shown this isn't a rural, urban reason as there were small urban precincts and large rural ones, and both followed the pattern outlined above. So there has to be another reason that no one has mentioned yet (or I missed).

or 2: There was tampering either with the small precincts or the large precincts. As the author mentions, it seems more likely it would be easier to tamper with the large precincts, but I leave that up to the audience to decide for now.

Again this isn't 100 percent proof, but given this I find it to be reasonsble for a person to conclude that there may have been vote tampering.

Of course, all of this is assuming the numbers given in the study are accurate, which I haven't seen anyone claim yet, but I'm trying to look into myself to make sure.

reply to post by NeoVain


Seems to be a tradition. Check out this old thread from 2004: The Diebold Factor.

2nd line:

reply to post by Grambler


What I'm saying is that it doesn't necessarily have to do with rural or urban. Granted Romney does tend to better in urban areas and Paul does tend to do better in rural areas. It simply has to do with size of the precinct. As the size of the precinct increases you can expect it come closer to reflecting the voter population as a whole. Almost think of the distribution of voters as a normal curve. As you get closer to the middle you have more and more voters subscribing to those political ideologies. As you get farther from the middle you have less people subscribing to those ideologies until you have very few people who are on the far edges of the fringe. This normal curve represents voters a s whole. If you take a small sample of the voter population you might get a different looking curve but the more people you add to your sample the closer it comes to matching up with the curve as a whole

This is why Paul does better in smaller precincts regardless of it being urban or rural. As I mentioned above a small sample's distribution isn't going to match the distribution of the whole. Let me try to explain it with an example. Say you want to find out the favorite ice cream flavor of your town. So you start by going into a small store. Say there are only two people in the store. They might give different answers or they could give the same answer but it's different from the opinion of the rest of the town. Either way this is not representative of the town as a whole. Now say you go to a larger store like a Wal-Mart. You're going to get a lot more opinions and while they're going to be more varied you will probably start to see a pattern start emerging as you are asking a larger portion of the town.

Now for this example let's say Paul's classic conservatism is represented by a flavor with a niche following like Rocky Road. And let's say Romney's moderate views are represented by the time honored favorite, vanilla. If you go into a small store with two people it's quite possible that they'll both say Rocky Road. However, if you go into Wal-Mart you're bound to start seeing a lot more people answering with vanilla.

Now this analogy doesn't really work with Santorum and Gingrich as they don't really fit into one school of political thought. Santorum is guided more by his religious beliefs which causes his political platform to be all over the place. He may have some moderate policies while others may be far right. Gingrich is similar, although not for religious reasons. He just seems to be trying as many different positions as possible and seeing what fits. This is why they don't really fit into this same model that you see with Romney and Paul. They're pulling people from all over the place while Romney is pulling primarily from moderates and Paul is pulling primarily from classic conservatives.

Dismissing everyone who disagrees with you as a paid troll is a pretty clever mind trick you play with yourselves. Convince yourself of something and it becomes hard to believe that anybody could possibly disagree.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


I still think your logic is off. Sorry in advance for the long winded post.

Lets take your ice cream example (btw, as a chubby man this helps me). To anyone else reading this I apologize for the repititiveness, and for sounding like fat man.

A niche flavor like Rocky road may have let say 1 percent of the total people like it most, whereas maybe vanilla is liked most by 50 percent. You are right that in a small store or sample size it is more likely to get results that don't exactly match up with the overall data. But your asserstion that they would more likely be rocky road supporters is false. It would be equally likely you would see no Rocky road supporters.

Regardless of the store your polling people at, the more people you poll, the closer you would get to the actual trend. So polling one Wal Mart with 50 people would be the same as polling 25 small stores with 2 people a piece. This is unless there is a differnce in the types of people that go to these stores.

However, when we switch now to the election, there is no difference in the precincts other than some have a lot of people in them, and some have few. I don't see why that changes how people would vote, which you seem to be asserting. The demographics seem to be the same no matter the size of the precincts, in other words there are large rural precincts and small urban ones.

So instead of looking at wal mart vs speciallty stores, this example would be more apt. Some people were polled at wal marts that a lot of people shopped at, some at wal marts few people shopped at, some at specialty stores with a lot of people, and some at specialty store with few people shopping. In this example, wal marts are like urban precincts and the other stores are rural. Just like with the precints, despite rather its urban or rural, both types have some stores with a lot of people, and some stores with few.

Whew, ok. Now what would've happened is that at all the stores with a few people, regardless of if they were a specialty store or wal mart, miraculously had tons of rocky road supporters. If you were just looking at this data you would say "Ok, despite the different types of stores, people seem to really like Rocky road". Then when you move on to the stores with a lot of people, all of the sudden almost no one likes rocky road.

In fact, the number of people that liked it would have to be significantly lower than the overall percentage of the total people who like rocky road in order to make up for the large amount the liked it previously. This makes no sense.

Now back to the elections. Regardless of political ideology, there should not be significant changes in a candidates votes purely because of precinct size. If there were changes based on urban areas vs rural areas, taht would make sense, people in the country have different views than city people. But this was not the case. The change was all based on size of precinct, not demographics.

Lets say a large precinct was large and had 500 people vote, and it was in an urban area. In the same urban are there also happen to be 10 smaller precincts, which had 50 people a piece vote. There both in the same area, so in that vote, one would expect the results of the larger precinct to be very similar to the surrounding precincts combined.

Both the one precinct and the ten precincts combined are from the same area demographically, and both have 500 people total, so the numbers for each candidate should be around the same. Granted, an individual small precinct might stray from the curve, but as your sample size increases by adding more small precincts, this should work itself out. In other words there is a good chance one small precinct would have an unusually large amount of Paul supporters, but there would be an equal chance there would be one with a high amount of Romney supporters.

The only way your model works is if there is some reason small precincts and large precincts have inherently different types of voters, but seeing as how they are from the same areas (again large urban precincts and small ones, same with rural), I don't see why this would be the case. As shown in my previous post, without and explanation for this, the most likely explanation is vote tampering.

On a side note, I really appreciate the conversation and look forward to your reply.

What about the electrical voting boots? If they are rigged shouldnt it be revealed in the code of the software running on them?

Does it really matter? Obama is going to win a second term anyway...even if its true, which im sure it is. What could anyone do about it?
reply to post by NeoVain

I hate to be real simplistic about this, but the solution seems real simple to me. Dump the gizmos and gadgets for voting and just return to the straight out punch or..even better...the open arrow you fill in with ink to indicate a choice. All on paper, all across the nation and without exception. What else is there? If technology leaves any questions, it's too many when the stakes are the control of a nation with the power or threat (if out of control) of a nation like the United States.

Oh...and dump the caucuses already. What a silly concept. It's always struck me as a back smokey room type approach. My state does a primary and it's run like every other election always is. Oh, and it's done on paper. 100%, at least in Southern Missouri. I believe it's statewide on that part. caucuses aren't even something I'd feel comfortable with attending. The whole thing just reeks of party insider...and I'm definitely not. Primaries are as open as anything and carry local issues to vote on at the same time here. It encourages people to come, not the opposite.

Just my thoughts...

reply to post by Grambler

However, when we switch now to the election, there is no difference in the precincts other than some have a lot of people in them, and some have few. I don't see why that changes how people would vote, which you seem to be asserting. The demographics seem to be the same no matter the size of the precincts, in other words there are large rural precincts and small urban ones.

That's just not true.

Media markets play a huge role in the different precincts. For example, in Michigan...the precincts that were within the Detroit media market...voted largely for Romney. Here is a better example...NE Indiana that is in the Chicago media market votes democratic...even though Indiana is generally a Republican state.

Another big factor in the differences in precincts is demographics...you can't try to claim that precincts across the state have identical demographics.

Another factor would be candidate campaign stops. We saw this happen in Iowa...Santorum made it a point to visit every county and stop and talk with people...that makes a difference.


It is just illogical to say that percentages should stay consistent across the state. These people doing these analysis are making many assumptions...and one of them is that they are applying statistical methods that should only be applied to completely random events (think picking different colored balls out of a bag)...and they are trying to apply them to non-random events...which are votes.


The whole analysis is rubbish.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I understand that not all precincts have the same demographics. I was responding specifaclly to Xcalibur who had said that he understood the studies claim that the rural/urban argument doesn't apply here as rural areas with high turnouts went more to Romney and urban areas with small precincts went to Paul. Therefore the claim that city folk like Romney and rural folk like Paul doesn't explain it.

My point is that if there wasn't fraud, then there had to be some demographic difference other than the rural/urban one that was unique to precinct size, and I'm not sure what that would be. I do think you might be on to something when you mention candidate phone calls, etc. Perhaps Romney spent more energy than Paul in the larger precincts which explains the numbers. I still don't understand why Gingrich and Santorums numbers wouldn't have also decreased though.

As far as the whole study being garbage, I disagree. Granted, the idea of using just one county doesn't prove much. But the author does give stats on the whole state if I'm not mistaken that shows overall the large precincts completed flip flopped with the small for Paul and Romney, while it stayed the same for Gingrich and Santorum.

You claimed earlier that this was just cherry picking data to fit a hypothesis, but I don't neccessarily agree. While I don't think this is 100 percent proof, it does show some major differences in outcomes based merely on precinct size. There has to be a reason for this, and vote tampering seems as likely as a possibility as any explanation given.

The rural/urban argument doesn't work as was shown in my above posts. The idea that romney specifaclly targeted large precincts makes more sense, but it doesn't explain why he didn't steal votes from Gingrich or Santorum. Also, no one has given any evidence as to Romneys calling strategy, theres no more evidence for this as there is for vote tampering.

I haven't heard any other explanations of that would explain this differnces, and given the Iowa and Maine situations, plus the party and medias desire to right Paul off, vote tampering seems as good as explanation as any.

Lastly, this study is not all that different from studies done all of the time. For example, one might think santorum is likely to get the majority of the evangelical vote. So they look at his results in heavily evangelical precincts vs. ones that aren't. In this instance, the data seems to fit the hypothesis. You then have to ask if there are any other factors aside from evangelicals that could explain this. Although there may be some other explanation, most people seem to agree that it is very likely that Santorum does indeed get the evangelical vote, based on the study and past "circumstantial" evidence, ie church leaders supporting him, etc.

Perhaps the author of this study saw the things I mentioned above, parties and media treatment of Paul, Maine and Iowa fraud allegations, and came up with a hypothesis. In precincts with few voters where fraud would be difficult to detect, Paul would probably do better. So they looked at the data and it showed that only Paul and Romenys numbers were affected by precinct size, which seemed strange and fit the hypothesis.

They then asked if something other than fraud could have caused this. The urban/rural argument is out seeing as how the data showed that this didn't change the results, only precinct size. So what other reason could there be.

Despite your claims to the contrary, I don't think anyone has proven these conclusions to be crap. If the data given in the op is true, then voter fraud seems to be the most likely explanation at this time. However, I am definitely open to hearing alternative explanations which is why Im glad there are people like you who find this very unlikely. Perhaps you will be able to come up with a more likely explanation, but as of now I havent heard it.

Again, this is all contingent on the actual data of the study being true. If your argument is that the numbers are wrong then obviously that changes things and I would definitely be interested in you showing me evidence of that..