HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Government & Elections » Election Reform (Group) » Precinct-by-precinct vote...

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:20 PM

Precinct-by-precinct vote totals in Republican primaries show...

...a statistically impossible pattern.

But one you might expect to find if you thought votes were being flipped:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Rigged-Elections-for-Romne-by-Michael-Collins-121022-13.html

Wisconsin, for example, is represented in the graph below. Moving from the smallest to largest precincts, you can see Romney's percent of the vote takes off and those of the others drop after about 7% of the votes are counted. Romney's percentage of precinct votes goes up (the upward slope of the green line) while those of the three other candidates decline.





The steady increase in Romney's percent of the vote and steady decline in Santorum's represents a statistical anomaly. In this case, the anomaly is amazing according to the researchers. They argue that the probability of this happening by chance alone is so small it exceeds the capability of statistical packages to handle. Their software says Romney's share of the vote, increasing with precinct size has zero probability of occurring by chance alone.

The significance of the Wisconsin analysis is of grave concern. Presuming the use of appropriate statistical measures and analysis, human intervention is the most likely available explanation.

Vote flipping gave Romney a 57,000-vote victory over Santorum in Wisconsin. Absent vote flipping, Santorum would have won over Romney by about 54,000 according the group's analysis.

Was Wisconsin the only state where Romney's share of the vote increased in this way as precinct size increased?


Click the link at the top to read more.

24 replies, 3663 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 24 replies Author Time Post
Reply Precinct-by-precinct vote totals in Republican primaries show... (Original post)
mojowork_n Oct 2012 OP
Binders Keepers Oct 2012 #1
mojowork_n Oct 2012 #7
southern_belle Oct 2012 #2
LineReply K
gateley Oct 2012 #3
silverweb Oct 2012 #4
beac Oct 2012 #5
siligut Oct 2012 #9
mojowork_n Oct 2012 #12
beac Oct 2012 #6
mojowork_n Oct 2012 #8
DollarBillHines Oct 2012 #10
mojowork_n Oct 2012 #11
DollarBillHines Oct 2012 #15
mojowork_n Oct 2012 #16
ThoughtCriminal Oct 2012 #13
mojowork_n Oct 2012 #14
siligut Oct 2012 #17
autorank Oct 2012 #18
siligut Oct 2012 #19
livvy Oct 2012 #20
TheNaimSadik Oct 2012 #21
NolanDvorak Dec 2012 #22
Cliff Arnebeck Jan 2013 #23
mojowork_n Jan 2013 #24

Response to mojowork_n (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:47 PM

1. We all need to send this to Maddow.

And just when I was starting to feel a sense of ease about this election . . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Binders Keepers (Reply #1)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 06:40 PM

7. Hey, welcome to D.U.

I don't know if anyone -- on either side -- can feel that great about what's going on.

After having lived through the bombardment of TeeVee commercials (Guernica) during the recall
election, here in Wisconsin earlier this year, I think that's part of the marketing program.
The same way that the Spanish Civil War was a warm-up, or a pre-season or exhibition game
forecasting WWII, the recall last June was a trial run for this presidential election.

I think the TeeVee commercials and the outrageous stuff we're going to see in "major media" --
or that will be ignored by the "major media" (where the heck is coverage of the Sensata story?) --
is just going to get more intense, day by day, until that First Tuesday.

I'm honestly afraid that the outcome will be the same. That they'll keep telling us "it's neck and neck"
all the way through the afternoon of election day. Then somewhere around 3 or 4 pm they'll do
what they did here and declare the election already over, with the polls still open. Then the
vote (excuse me, I mean the tabulation) results will come out not too long after the polls close,
and it won't show an even race at all. (Despite earlier evidence from exit polls, that had been
showing just that.)

......I'm halfway through Greg Palast's book, "Billionaire's & Ballot Bandits" and he referred to
the Wisconsin Recall as a warm up, a trial run for this November.

One positive thing he emphasizes in that book -- that makes election theft more difficult -- is to
make sure you go out and vote early, in person, at your local municipality. (City hall, or town
or village hall.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mojowork_n (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 06:09 PM

2. kick n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mojowork_n (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 06:10 PM

3. K

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mojowork_n (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 06:12 PM

4. K&R

Hope to see this on TRMS soon.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mojowork_n (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 06:24 PM

5. Wonder of those votes were flipped by machines owned by Romney son and would-be

Obama-assaulter Tagg???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beac (Reply #5)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 07:01 PM

9. Wisconsin did use the SEQ-AVC Edge II 5.0.24 voting machine

Made by Hart InterCivic. Interesting that the SEQ-AVC Edge II 5.0.24 was the one voting machine approved for future use in California after the 2007 election. But some changes needed to be made.

http://gab.wi.gov/sites/default/files/page/voting_equipment_by_municipality_2_pdf_15114.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to siligut (Reply #9)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:15 PM

12. It was the "new lamps for old" (the old Aladdin con) that...

...had people talking.

Where 46 Wisconsin County Clerks traded ONE old,
used (but paper ballot-scanning optical units) for
TWO brand New touchscreen (no paper trail) voting
machines. Three thousand of them:

http://wcmcoop.com/2012/05/22/meet-command-central-the-people-in-charge-of-wisconsin-voting-machines/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mojowork_n (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 06:26 PM

6. May I also suggest you cross-post this in the Politics 2012 forum where it will

get more eyes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beac (Reply #6)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 06:42 PM

8. I actually have to shut off this computer -- right now -- to go home.

But if you'd like to create separate thread, linking to the same story -- or a different one,
if you can find another -- please, help me out. Go for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mojowork_n (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:10 PM

10. That graph is just not right.

The eerie parallel down-graph of the other three candidates seems to be impossible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DollarBillHines (Reply #10)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:51 PM

11. I'm thinking of it this way....

Let's pretend we're talking about cookies instead of votes.

And instead of precincts, we have a whole bunch of cookie jars.

There are thousands of precincts in the state, so there are
thousands of cookie jars. But they're not all the same size.
So of course you can't flip the same number of votes from
every precinct.

But if you take a few more cookies from the bigger jars,
and a few less from the smaller ones, that's a "normal"
pattern.

Only this statistical analysis is looking for just that. It
doesn't matter how many or from where, all they're doing
is looking for that "normal" pattern of theft.

More cookies missing from the bigger jars. Fewer taken from
the smaller ones.

And that's exactly what the data shows. Also -- since he
was the closest challenger -- it looks like more Santorum
votes had to be flipped, to ultimately reduce the total
number of cookies that needed to be messed with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mojowork_n (Reply #11)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:09 PM

15. My take on it is slightly different

I believe votes were flipped - in equal percentage measure - from all three opponents, not just Santorum.

Thus the parallel downturns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DollarBillHines (Reply #15)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 11:51 PM

16. You might be right.

That was my first thought, too. But going back to the taking-cookies-away comparison, it
just looks like there's a slightly steeper slope to the Santorum line. And the math needed to
reduce his actually winning the election might add up to a few more cookies having been
swiped off of his totals. ...Either way, it would be good to have a better and easier to follow
breakdown of the numbers.

Adding an overview of the "overall pattern" of crying foul on vote fraud, GOP columnists
coming out today attacking early, in-person voting (not the same as requesting a mail-in
absentee ballot and sending one of those in, which is something you shouldn't do), the
struggles in courts all over the country....

This poster at dKos summarized it nicely:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/21/1148037/-GOP-Controlled-VSBE-REFUSES-to-Prosecute-Election-Fraud

The GOP has endorsed election fraud as a means to winning in Virginia. This calls into question EVERY state where the GOP controls the mechanisms of prosecution and running the election....The GOP has its October Surprise and that "surprise" is saying this:

We will lie, cheat, and steal to win this election and there's not a damned thing anybody can do to stop us!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mojowork_n (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:15 PM

13. I do think you have to examine alternative explanations

To make a stronger statistical case for vote flipping.

For example, are the larger precincts in urban areas? Was Romney polling better in those areas?

Did this pattern show up elsewhere?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThoughtCriminal (Reply #13)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 10:02 PM

14. This pattern showed up in *EVERY* other Republican primary.

There's a table in the article that has data and percentages.

....And besides the actual vote tabulation, there was also a pattern of
behind-the-scenes arm-twisting and manipulation. Santorum actually
won Iowa, by a slim margin, but it wasn't revealed until days or weeks
later.

I remember some other business in Maine, where Ron Paul was going to
win delegates in the caucus balloting, but came away with many
fewer than he should have. Don't have the details but the Paul-ites
were loudly crying foul. (And being generally ignored.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mojowork_n (Original post)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 12:37 AM

17. A poster already posted that there was a problem with the E-Ballot in Texas

Shenanigans in Texas

This morning I read the following account from a Facebook friend in Texas. I removed the name of the person who had a problem with the machine for their protection:

"First day of early voting in Texas and already we're in trouble. I don't tweet, but can somebody please pass this on? These electronic machines are NOT to be trusted. This morning (name removed)'s ballot review turned up a significant list of candidates for whom he had NOT voted, and (surprise, surprise) they all were, shall we say, significantly to the right of his positions. The election judge was summoned, she discarded that e-ballot and (name removed) started over, but needless to say, if he had not gone over the ballot in detail before he pushed "Vote" he would have cast votes for people he did not choose. BE CAREFUL OUT THERE; CHECK EVERYTHING!!! And no, we are not making this up. It really happened."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021601200

Some counties in Texas use the Hart machines.

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/forms/sysexam/voting-sys-bycounty.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mojowork_n (Original post)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 03:07 AM

18. Mojowork => Many thanks for posting this <=

This is as jargon free as I could make it (I'm the Collins guy who wrote it). The intent was to make the case in a serious way and link the pdfs. The article has gotten beau coup hits and very good placement. In addition, some kind person posted the first pdf, the basic outline, and it has several thousand views. More importantly, over 3,300 Reddit users downloaded the first paper, Republican Primary Election 2012 Results: Amazing Statistical Anomalies, August 13, 2012

PDF URL http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Republican-Primary-Election-Results-Amazing-Statistical-Anomalies_V2.0.pdf


There is a sequel coming soon.

Some other articles on election fraud

http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/stolen-election-2004-plus-the-voter-fraud-scam-series/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to autorank (Reply #18)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 08:47 AM

19. Thank you Michael, your article is clear and persuasive

There is much obfuscation and misdirection surrounding the electronic voting machines. You have provided both confirmation and clarity with sound data and analysis.

Whether the buzz regarding election fraud might actually work in our favor is yet to be shown; did you see the post regarding the international election monitors who are in Texas now?

International Vote Monitors Warn Texas: Don't Mess With Us. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014278414


And, not to insult you, but if you actually look like your photo, you could pull an Ian Murphy and make history and/or die an agonizing death by impersonating Tagg Romney and informing E-ballot programmers in key states that the fix was off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mojowork_n (Original post)

Fri Oct 26, 2012, 12:36 AM

20. There is this article that a FaceBook friend posted along the same lines.

Updated: Retired NSA Analyst Proves GOP is Stealing Elections

By Denis G. Campbell and
Charley James
(c) 25 October 2012

UPDATED: Why is Mitt Romney so confident?

In states where the winner will be decided by less than 10%, of the vote he already knows he will win. This is no tinfoil hat conspiracy. It’s a maths problem. And mathematics showed changes in actual raw voting data that had no statistical correlation other than programmable computer fraud. This computer fraud resulted in votes being flipped from Democrat to Republican in every federal, senatorial, congressional and gubernatorial election since 2008 (thus far) and in the 2012 primary contests from other Republicans to Mitt Romney.

This goes well beyond Romney’s investment control in voting machine maker Hart Intercivic and Diebold’s close ties to George W. Bush. Indeed all five voting machine companies have very strong GOP fundraising ties, yet executives (including the candidate’s son Tagg Romney) there is no conflict between massively supporting one party financially whilst controlling the machines that record and count the votes.

A retired NSA analyst has spent several sleepless nights applying a simple formula to past election results across Arizona. His results showed across-the-board systemic election fraud on a coordinated and massive scale. But the analysis indicated that this only happens in larger precincts because anomalies in small precincts can be more easily detected.

more including some of the same graphs in the OP
http://www.ukprogressive.co.uk/breaking-retired-nsa-analyst-proves-gop-is-stealing-elections/article20598.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mojowork_n (Original post)

Sun Oct 28, 2012, 08:47 PM

21. Spam deleted by NRaleighLiberal (MIR Team)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mojowork_n (Original post)


Response to mojowork_n (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 06:38 PM

23. The pattern of major exit poll discrepancies began with the 1988 NH Republican primary

G.H.W. Bush had come in third in the 1988 Iowa caucuses. His dramatic victory in the 1988 NH primary, way out of line with both tracking and exit polls, appears to have been assisted by new computers used in counting the votes and, no doubt, software commissioned by Karl Rove in his role assisting with his client in the primary.

Fraudulent manipulation of Republican primaries makes clear that this is a criminal problem that people of all parties should want to get resolved--most of all Republicans.

Cliff Arnebeck

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cliff Arnebeck (Reply #23)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:02 PM

24. Welcome to D.U.

That leads to an interesting question. When did computer vote tabulation chicanery start?

I found this old D.U. link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x340132

There are some interesting posts/replies down towards the bottom.

I had a computer back in 1988. It was a lunchbox portable with an LCD screen and dual
720k floppies. I used my RAM to run a third, virtual "flash disk."

The guys who sent the Apollo moon missions out (late 60's) would have killed for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread