Evidence of Vote Flipping in GOP Primary Elections

Originally posted by freakjive

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by freakjive

 

Anybody who has taken even an introductory statistics course should be able to point out the egregious errors in this "analysis."

Have you taken an introductory statistics course? Can you help me see the egregious errors?

That's what I asked for in the OP.

I have, and I would love to help you.

What if I conducted analysis on favorite desserts. I went around asking a bunch of poor children what their favorite desserts were. I then took that information and said I can now tell you what the favorite dessert for rich adults is. Anyone who thinks rich adults and poor children share the same favorite dessert needs a logic check.

This person took the small RURAL precincts and decided heavily populated large URBAN areas would vote the exact same way. It's akin to polling Massachusetts and expecting Georgia to vote the same way, and if they don't its fraud. Different people have different things that are important, rural and urban areas have different needs, and them supporting different candidates is not a surprise.

This analysis was purposefully designed to create fraud. In fact, I can use his SAME analysis to show you how Ron Paul is stealing votes!

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


I don't know what this analysis has to do with rural areas and small areas. It seems to me like you are referencing a different analysis, I haven't payed attention to all of them. But this one is simply showing statistical anomalies compared to historical data... there's no away around that unless you try to propose it is simply random like OutKast Searcher is attempting to do. But all of us with common sense know it's not random because it has happened at several different precincts and it completely defies the past data derived from every single one of the areas... quite frankly it stands out like dogs balls. It is also highly unlikely that in all these cases the results would show a pattern which imply votes were being taken from one candidate and increasing the number of votes for another candidate in direct proportion to the loss of the other candidate, meanwhile all the other candidates remained completely unaffected. Anyone with the tinniest inkling of knowledge in statistics and probability should be able to see the ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS indications of fraud here.

INTERESTING THREAD: Election Fraud Revealed Against Ron Paul - Interview with an Arizona Congressional District Delegate

VIDEO:

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Without knowing it you've actually brought up the very point we've been trying to make. The reason scientific theories are valid is because they control for every variable that is not being tested. As a result they can say X causes Y (unless they're doing a regression study, in which case they can say X is correlated to Y). There's none of that going on with these election analyses. They make the assumption that the variables they are not accounting for remain the same. This simply isn't true. That's why we can't use data from old primaries to predict data from new primaries.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

That's why we can't use data from old primaries to predict data from new primaries.

I never said we could predict exact data from new primaries, am I saying we should be able to predict patterns in the data. If you honestly believe some weird new variable is causing the data to go haywire and produce whacked out inconsistent results like we are seeing here then you are only deluding yourself.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

This primary is different...It's basically been a race to see if they can find someone else besides Romney..

That comment is so absurd, I have to wonder if you're even talking about the elections taking place on the planet Earth.

How can you expect us to take you seriously with some of the stuff you've posted in this thread today?

You are too much. I really mean it.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

The author makes many very bad assumptions...but the worst is that he starts counting votes in the smallest precincts, get's a percentage, and assumes the candidate should get the same percentage state wide. The problem is...everyone knows that Romney does better in urban areas.

I believe your wrong. If I'm not mistaken, the graphs shown listed the counties by ALPHABETICAL order, not precinct size. Your confusing this study with the one in the previous thread about South Carolina, but clearly that doesn't apply.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
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.

Again, this is not what this study is doing. It is listing precincts alphabetically, not by precinct size.

However, as I argued on the previous post there are still problems with your argument here. I note that you and Outcast tout your apparent succesful debunking of the previous study, yet I encourage the people to go to that thread and make up there own mind. I feel I made great points that both of you neglected to answer.

I only bring it up because this study in addition to the other one show a pattern of this primary season having huge anomalies that seem to basically only positively affect Romney and negetively affect Paul, leaving the other cansidates untouched.

Given these studies, allegations in Iowa and Maine and other states of fraud, tons of stories about delgate lists being changed, the medias undercoverage of Paul, leaders in the party threatening people for voting for Paul, and other things like the enormous size of Pauls rallys compared to other candidates but the seemingly low turnout fro him; at what point can we say that it seems like something fishy is going on?

Originally posted by Grambler

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

The author makes many very bad assumptions...but the worst is that he starts counting votes in the smallest precincts, get's a percentage, and assumes the candidate should get the same percentage state wide. The problem is...everyone knows that Romney does better in urban areas.

I believe your wrong. If I'm not mistaken, the graphs shown listed the counties by ALPHABETICAL order, not precinct size. Your confusing this study with the one in the previous thread about South Carolina, but clearly that doesn't apply.

This is exactly what this analysis is doing.

The first graph in the OP shows it by alphabetical order in an attempt to show that the candidates lines go "flat" once the majority of the vote is counted. Then he re-orders it by precinct size to show, expectantly, that when you count the small precincts first that there is no flat slope.

It is exactly what he did with the SC vote.

Vote flipping? Nah, never! Doesn't happen! Our elections are fair, the media reports the truth and there is no bias towards any of the candidates.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

This is exactly what this analysis is doing.

The first graph in the OP shows it by alphabetical order in an attempt to show that the candidates lines go "flat" once the majority of the vote is counted. Then he re-orders it by precinct size to show, expectantly, that when you count the small precincts first that there is no flat slope.

It is exactly what he did with the SC vote.

Ok, I see now where he does indeed switch. Thanks for clearing that up with me. (I even double checked before posting but still missed it, I blame it on midday PBR consumption).

I still think that as I discussed on the SC thread that this doesn't disqualify the study, and if you like you could read my last posts there, but I won't rehash it unless someone asks me (or I get bored).

I can't be the only one that's seen this, it's not a matter of debate IF it's being done anymore. the charts don't really matter at this point

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

Without knowing it you've actually brought up the very point we've been trying to make. The reason scientific theories are valid is because they control for every variable that is not being tested. As a result they can say X causes Y (unless they're doing a regression study, in which case they can say X is correlated to Y). There's none of that going on with these election analyses. They make the assumption that the variables they are not accounting for remain the same. This simply isn't true. That's why we can't use data from old primaries to predict data from new primaries.

This makes it more obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. They don't and CAN'T isolate every variable and they don't EVER say X causes Y, you CAN'T... You can only show correlation, NOT causation.

They attempt as best as possible to devise trials that isolate the variables, but in the real world you can't and real scientists KNOW this and try to account for it.

You postulate a potential for causation from heavy correlations....

Jaden

Originally posted by OmegaLogos

Explanation: S&F!

Personal Disclosure: Just at a glance that last chart in the OP is BOGUS! My dad worked as HEAD of IT dept for Australian Bereau of Statistics and I am completely sure he would agree with me!

Bumping this thread for JUSTICE [who is blind and needs to loose the blindfold ok] !!!

Wow, you've really presented a compelling argument. Lemme see if I understand what you've said here... You "glanced" at the final chart of the document, concluding without a doubt, that it's "bogus". You base this on your father being the head of IT for the Australian government's Bureau of Statistics (which somehow qualifies him as a statistician). You haven't checked with him, but you're POSITIVE that he would agree with you. Finally, you're posting these comments in the name of justice.

I'm sorry, but you have ZERO credibility in this matter and have presented ZERO evidence contradicting the content of the analysis. Your entire premise that the OP is presenting "bogus" information is based on a) you glancing at the final chart of the document, b) the completely irrelevant speculation that your "dad" would agree with you, and c) your supposition that your father is somehow a qualified statistician because he works in IT at a governmental statistics bureau.

Here's some reality for you. You are not a statistician. Your dad is not a statistician. Your dad hasn't weighed in on this, so your speculation on what he might think is as irrelevant as his job. I bet the Bureau of Statistics has a lunch-lady and a janitor too, but that doesn't qualify them as statisticians simply because they work there. Finally, governmental agencies are not known to have the best and brightest on staff, so even if your dad DID give his opinion on the matter, it would have be taken with a grain of salt because HE'S NOT A STATISTICIAN and in all likelihood, probably only possess the bare-minimum of technical ability given that he has chosen to put his IT skills to work at some BS government statistics agency.

In short, you are now a candidate for the biggest troll of 2012. Good luck in the finals!

reply to post by draco49


Draco...

I believe you may have missed the point of OL's post.
He is agreeing that the stats look bogus. Not that the analysis is bogus.

Either way, is it really necessary to try and berate someone and downplay what their father does for a living?

It was extremely rude to make personal comments about him and/or his father.

Do you care to comment on the OP?

Originally posted by freakjive
reply to post by draco49

 

Draco...

I believe you may have missed the point of OL's post.
He is agreeing that the stats look bogus. Not that the analysis is bogus.

Either way, is it really necessary to try and berate someone and downplay what their father does for a living?

It was extremely rude to make personal comments about him and/or his father.

Do you care to comment on the OP?

He brought his father into the discussion and is, therefore, fair game. My comments directly addressed his comments and broke them down into logical segments, based on what he said. I don't know him or his father personally, and my comments were not personal attacks; they were responses to the claims he made. If someone is going to waste my bandwidth with nonsensical, irrelevant drivel, devoid of any sort of intellectual content, they can be prepared for a harsh breakdown of reality based on logic, intellect, and commentary addressing their remarks.

Regarding the OP, I found it interesting and at least worthy of further exploration by people more qualified than me. I can't speak to accuracy or validity of the OP because, like his dad, I am not a statistician. I look forward to further educated analysis of the OP. I am a supporter of RP, but without personally understanding all of the facets of the statistical analysis, I have no opinion on the content of the OP other than a belief that voter fraud is a reality, and that such fraud is a deliberate manipulation for the purpose of propping up one candidate in favor of another.

Originally posted by Grambler

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

This is exactly what this analysis is doing.

The first graph in the OP shows it by alphabetical order in an attempt to show that the candidates lines go "flat" once the majority of the vote is counted. Then he re-orders it by precinct size to show, expectantly, that when you count the small precincts first that there is no flat slope.

It is exactly what he did with the SC vote.

Ok, I see now where he does indeed switch. Thanks for clearing that up with me. (I even double checked before posting but still missed it, I blame it on midday PBR consumption).

I still think that as I discussed on the SC thread that this doesn't disqualify the study, and if you like you could read my last posts there, but I won't rehash it unless someone asks me (or I get bored).

Don't be so quick to listen to OutKast....

He does switch, but the last three graphs are from the same ordering and show that historical analysis shows that it should be flat and the current one is skewed...

Jaden

WOW Mitt is even flip flopping the votes..............WOW too @ outkast for still trolling the Paul threads,,,hahaha must suck to be Outkast.

Can someone explain why, when you look at the 4th (buchanan vs bush) and the 6th (bradley vs gore) charts tilted 90 to the right they look like they are the same chart just mirrored? I can bet you if I got off my butt and fired up photoshop I could prove to you they were identical but in reverse. I also see strange patterns in the rest of the charts and I don't even need to know what they mean to know that's odd behavior.

They look like a rorshach test, is nobody else seeing this and find it strange? It's like a bad cut and paste job to me, but I just look for visual patterns and this complete opposite correlation may make sense, I just don't see it yet.