Reply #174

Using the method of Cumulative Vote Tally to statistically detect anomalies would have discovered the problem in 5 minutes, well before the vote was certified and the resulting embarrassment.

Please believe in statistical analysis of elections. Such a process MUST be done before certification of any election.

Look at the chart that I produced from the original data published on 4/6/2012:


It's clear to see that the machine was flipping votes as a function of precinct size in favor of Al Paglia, depriving Matt Willhite of the votes he earned. My chart clearly shows that Matt should have been the winner.

Was it intentional fraud? I don't know, but you can clearly see that the machine was miscounting votes. In non-partisan elections, those lines should settle to horizontal and not have an obvious slope. A little bumpiness, especially in small elections is OK.

If you don't believe me, you can download the data here: http://www.pbcelections.org/ERSummary.aspx?eid=130

Here's the Excel procedure to make the charts:

If you want to learn more about this method and it's success, read what we found in the Republican primaries with it:
2008_2012_ElectionsResultsAnomaliesAndAnalysis_V1.5.pdf
https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_7610771

Republican Primary Election Results Amazing Statistical Anomalies.pdf
https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D150257_4054156_6445638

Romney is likely to win in 2012 if this vote flipping is as active as it was in the 212 primaries.