Claimed evidence of algorithmic vote flipping in Republican primaries

[H'ethetheth]

I'd like to see this kind of analysis for Obama vs. McCain, ordered from small to large counties. That could look similar for Obama.
Also, the problem with this line of reasoning is that if you order the counting from large to small counties, it will look as though the fraud were perpetrated on behalf of Paul.

[Beerina]

Bah can't look at the pdf at work because the pdf viewer on Android, whether under the default browser or Opera, has clearly been designed by a chimpanzee who knows about as much about usability testing as a neon tetra with his tail caught in the filter intake.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by H'ethetheth

I'd like to see this kind of analysis for Obama vs. McCain, ordered from small to large counties. That could look similar for Obama.
Also, the problem with this line of reasoning is that if you order the counting from large to small counties, it will look as though the fraud were perpetrated on behalf of Paul.

I'm perfectly open to alternative hypotheses where the effect benefits Paul rather than Romney. However if the claim in the pdf is correct that it's always Romney doing better in the larger electorates, but that the "victim" candidate who appears to be losing votes in those electorates varies from place to place, it seems likely that the most conservative explanation is going to involve something that either benefits Romney or harms Romney.

If Romney is the only constant factor in all the oddities, then it's logical to focus on Romney as the closest thing to a causal agent. So vote flipping hypotheses like "vote flipping is costing Romney votes in small electorates" or "vote flipping is gaining Romney votes in large electorates" are more parsimonious than hypotheses involving Paul, Gingrich or Santorum specifically.

Similarly non-vote-flipping hypotheses are also going to be more parsimonious if they focus on characteristics of the Romney vote.

[marplots]

This story is interesting: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/c...163023599.html

It talks about votes coming in late (after a concession) which may have changed the results of the election.

I'm not saying it's evidence of fraud, but perhaps "pattern voting" is a real phenomenon.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

So we need an effect which correlates very strongly with the size of an electoral precinct, but which is independent of whichever of Romney's opponents happens to suffer in any given race, because the opponent suffering the loss seems to vary while the effect remains similar.

Well, the exit polls in NH show that Romney got more votes in cities and suburbs (42-43%) than rural areas (33%). Similar result in SC. City slickers like Romney more than country folks.

There's also a strong correlation of Romney's votes with income: he does best among high earners, and that seems to be consistent from state to state. And high earners tend to live in more populated areas.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

And high earners tend to live in more populated areas.

Really? That sounds counter-intuitive to me.

Rolfe.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

In a court of law, when an expert witness comes in to testify about something which may be outside the comprehension of the laypeople on the jury, his qualifications and possible conflicts of interest or ideological motivations are fair game to be brought up by the opposing attorney. I'm not saying the fact that they are Ron Paul supporters automatically makes what they are saying wrong, but it is one piece of evidence to be considered.

re the bit I bolded.....



Er, no.

The evidence should be examined on it's own merit. Where it came from doesn't matter a jot once you've established that the evidence is accurate and reliable.

Stop poisoning the well.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

I stopped reading here. I would suggest others do the same. Folks, this is a bunch of loonies who just can't get over the fact that W won the election in 2004, and who don't understand that opinion/exit polls and election results are not the same thing.

Mods, please move this to the Conspiracy section ================>

You were asked in the OP not to do that. Did you read it?

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Here is a longer version of the "layman's executive summary" PDF in the OP.

Right in the first paragraph I see a red flag. Can you tell what it is?

Quote:

This document is a summary of posts from members of The Ron Paul Forum investigating possible voter fraud in the 2012 GOP Primary. The threads were a work in progress and all postings were kept in order. The data shows so far:

Ya know, I'd love to see he results of an experiment where guys like Ron Paul were in charge, and compare and contrast results over several centuries.

You don't know. Perhaps you would talk about seeing "red flags" whenever someone mentioned socialism or regulation, given after those centuries, the libertarian, free-market society could have had fewer deaths due to any cause, including starvation, due to more powerful economies advancing more rapidly.

Having said that, you are still right in your quote.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by 3point14

re the bit I bolded.....



Er, no.

The evidence should be examined on it's own merit. Where it came from doesn't matter a jot once you've established that the evidence is accurate and reliable.

Stop poisoning the well.

And that's why it does matter. Nothing here has been established as "accurate and reliable" evidence for the proposition in question.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Ya know, I'd love to see he results of an experiment where guys like Ron Paul were in charge, and compare and contrast results over several centuries.

You don't know. Perhaps you would talk about seeing "red flags" whenever someone mentioned socialism or regulation, given after those centuries, the libertarian, free-market society could have had fewer deaths due to any cause, including starvation, due to more powerful economies advancing more rapidly.

Having said that, you are still right in your quote.

I used to react quickly to what I identified as partisan bias. Now I'm less quick because I figure the people who notice and investigate things are usually the ones directly affected. So you get people concerned about the environment looking into pollution, or people who are worried about national energy matters looking into peak oil. Sure, they have an ax to grind, but those without an agenda aren't really interested.

That's not directed entirely at your post, but reflects a kind of bias bias I run into a lot on this forum where the messenger sometimes becomes the focus. (I do agree in this case that posts on a forum might not be very solid research.)

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

And that's why it does matter. Nothing here has been established as "accurate and reliable" evidence for the proposition in question.

Correct. So study the data. Don't dismiss it out of hand because it came from somewhere you don't like. You know, all that skeptic stuff...

[Kevin_Lowe]

I've found in previous threads touching on vote security issues in the USA that there have always been at least a couple of posters whose sole interest seemed to be finding some basis, however flimsy, to dismiss the possibility of a problem. If the basis they found was to attack the messenger, or appeal to authority ("they wouldn't let it happen") or appeal to popular beliefs ("the USA is the most awesomest democracy, it couldn't happen here") that didn't seem to bother them.

They aren't interested in participating and on balance it's probably best to just ignore them.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Really? That sounds counter-intuitive to me.

Rolfe.

Sure. Check out how much it costs to rent an apartment in Manhattan. Much cheaper to live in the suburbs, and even cheaper to live in the country.

The same is true in Japan for sure.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Well, the exit polls in NH show that Romney got more votes in cities and suburbs (42-43%) than rural areas (33%). Similar result in SC. City slickers like Romney more than country folks.

There's also a strong correlation of Romney's votes with income: he does best among high earners, and that seems to be consistent from state to state. And high earners tend to live in more populated areas.

There's cities in NH?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Sure. Check out how much it costs to rent an apartment in Manhattan. Much cheaper to live in the suburbs, and even cheaper to live in the country.

The same is true in Japan for sure.

In Australia I think wealth concentrates in the nicer inner suburbs which have relatively large block sizes, and high-density developments are mostly home to poorer people. However the cost of living and housing does go down as you get further from the middle of a major city. I don't think the relationship between population density and wealth is going to turn out to be a simple one, although in general I do expect most wealthier people to be in relatively populous areas.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

I've found in previous threads touching on vote security issues in the USA that there have always been at least a couple of posters whose sole interest seemed to be finding some basis, however flimsy, to dismiss the possibility of a problem. If the basis they found was to attack the messenger, or appeal to authority ("they wouldn't let it happen") or appeal to popular beliefs ("the USA is the most awesomest democracy, it couldn't happen here") that didn't seem to bother them.

They aren't interested in participating and on balance it's probably best to just ignore them.

I've found that it isn't worth talking about voting irregularities with Paultards. They seem to believe that online polls are more reliable than offline points.

And I agree with Scrut; what the heck is this post doing in Social Issues and Current Events? It belongs in the Conspiracy Theory section.

[Kopji]

So, out of curiosity I checked the data for Arizona.

Page 11 of the 'big pdf' lists the data sources - non primary sources. The rub is, there is no reason for it. For Arizona, there is a certified official count that could have been used. Instead of that, they take data from a copy of an unofficial results page.

Arizona official certified results:
http://www.azsos.gov/election/2012/p...ass2012ppe.pdf
Paul: 43,952
Romm: 239,167

Unofficial results used for the data analysis:
http://results.enr.clarityelections....n/summary.html
Paul: 43,952
Romm: 239,167

So, good. The unofficial numbers matched the certified ones. But if your intent is to be honest and accurate, why not use the official data from Arizona? It only took me a few extra seconds to locate the certified results.

So how about the other State's results? Why not use certified sources for that data? What possible reason can there be for using the secondary sources they use?

This kind of sloppiness is what calls into question this kind of analysis. If you don't expect me to be OFFENDED by long distance armchair accusations of election fraud in the US, then DON'T BE SLOPPY. It makes the intent look like more of the usual US bashing instead of legitimate interest.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by Brainster

I've found that it isn't worth talking about voting irregularities with Paultards. They seem to believe that online polls are more reliable than offline points.

And I agree with Scrut; what the heck is this post doing in Social Issues and Current Events? It belongs in the Conspiracy Theory section.

Please stick to the topic of the thread. Review the OP if you aren't sure what that is. The topic is not calling supporters of any political party names, nor is it sharing your opinion of where this thread belongs. There are plenty of other threads if that's the level of discussion you want.

[Brainster]

It's a bunch of statistical masturbation by the Paultards. Let's take a look at New Hampshire. In January, Rasmussen polling found the following in New Hampshire, prior to the primary:

Romney: 37%
Paul: 17%
Huntsman: 15%

The actual primary results weren't far off that:

Romney: 39.3%
Paul: 22.9%
Huntsman: 16.9%.

In fact, Paul actually did much better than the pre-primary polling had indicated. Romney and Huntsman both did a little better than predicted. But for Paul to have actually won the primary, Rasmussen would have had to have been way, way off. And there were plenty of other polls, all basically showing the same result.

Suffolk University showed Romney 37%, Paul 18%, Huntsman 16%. American Research Group had it Romney 37%, Huntsman 18%, Paul 17%. Public Policy Polling came up with Romney 35%, Paul 18%, Huntsman 16%.

So all this BS about how if you order it from smallest to largest precincts is, as others have pointed out, just somebody searching for an "anomaly" to "prove" their ridiculous point.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by Brainster

It's a bunch of statistical masturbation by the Paultards. Let's take a look at New Hampshire. In January, Rasmussen polling found the following in New Hampshire, prior to the primary:

Romney: 37%
Paul: 17%
Huntsman: 15%

The actual primary results weren't far off that:

Romney: 39.3%
Paul: 22.9%
Huntsman: 16.9%.

In fact, Paul actually did much better than the pre-primary polling had indicated. Romney and Huntsman both did a little better than predicted. But for Paul to have actually won the primary, Rasmussen would have had to have been way, way off. And there were plenty of other polls, all basically showing the same result.

Suffolk University showed Romney 37%, Paul 18%, Huntsman 16%. American Research Group had it Romney 37%, Huntsman 18%, Paul 17%. Public Policy Polling came up with Romney 35%, Paul 18%, Huntsman 16%.

So all this BS about how if you order it from smallest to largest precincts is, as others have pointed out, just somebody searching for an "anomaly" to "prove" their ridiculous point.

Okay. So why does the anomaly exist this year but not in previous years?

Also if we pretended for a minute (and I emphasise there is no clear evidence to support this) that the vote proportions in NH at the 40% point were the "real" vote proportions, that would put the "real" Romney vote at about 35% and the "real" Romney vote at about 26%, which is not so far off the final result or the predicted result either.

In any case, anomalies (and I could point to apolitical examples like the Voyager anomaly or the neutrino speed anomaly) are fun to solve even if you know ahead of time that odds are the solution isn't going to be new physics. Graphs doing weird things is interesting. Do you have anything interesting to say about the topic?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Okay. So why does the anomaly exist this year but not in previous years?

I'm sure you could find such anomalies in any election if you loook hard enough.

I know Down Under you see America only through the internet, but trust me IRL very few people support the racist, isolationist, anti-free trade nutter known as Ron Paul.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by WildCat

I'm sure you could find such anomalies in any election if you loook hard enough.

...but not sure enough to check, I imagine? Okay. That's a great contribution.

Quote:

I know Down Under you see America only through the internet, but trust me IRL very few people support the racist, isolationist, anti-free trade nutter known as Ron Paul.

Looks like somewhere between a sixth and a quarter of Republicans like his style. However as I said earlier, I have little idea about the relative merits or Presidential chances of the various candidates in the primaries and it's not an issue that's pertinent to this thread as far as I can see.

Do you have anything to contribute that's on topic?

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Okay. So why does the anomaly exist this year but not in previous years?

I'm not sure that it doesn't exist in any previous years, but I thought I offered a pretty good theory when I pointed to the exit polls and the fact that Romney gets more support in cities and suburbs than in the country. Why isn't that a good enough explanation?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I'm not sure that it doesn't exist in any previous years, but I thought I offered a pretty good theory when I pointed to the exit polls and the fact that Romney gets more support in cities and suburbs than in the country. Why isn't that a good enough explanation?

As I see it, that only explains half of the anomaly. Romney gets more votes in the city than the country, fine. But why does he benefit at the expense of Paul but not Santorum in some places, and Santorum but not Paul in others, and someone else again in others?

(Of course it could be the reverse, and Romney is in fact losing votes to Paul/Santorum/whoever in less-populated areas. It's not implausible to think that if there's mischief afoot it's mischief intended to benefit Romney since his vote total is always one of the one's that're skewed, but nothing I can think of rules out an anti-Romney conspiracy to divert his votes to other candidates, or a weird but non-conspiratorial anti-Romney explanation).

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

But why does he benefit at the expense of Paul but not Santorum in some places, and Santorum but not Paul in others, and someone else again in others?

Probably just down to different voting patterns in different states.

In the Northeast, Paul was more popular with country folks. In the South, Gingrich. In the Midwest, Santorum.

I would look carefully at the exit polls for each state and see what the pattern was in terms of city/suburb vs. rural voting for each candidate in that particular state.

Certainly, one cannot say that algorithmic vote flipping is the only possible explanation without first looking carefully at the exit poll data to see if an answer lies therein.