Affa posted:
This is a summary of a thread on this board that now is over 1,000 posts -- far too many for people to 'catch up on', especially considering some of it is rather complicated statistical analysis.
We are at a crossroads. We NEED to bring more people on board, especially those with statistical backgrounds and others well suited to figuring out the best path forward. (Our eventual goal, hopefully, to produce another consolidated report, perhaps a website, and break this story in the media).
Where we are - it appears we have statistical proof of vote flipping in the Primary. Much of the research focuses on South Carolina, but we have extremely suspicious data on most other states as well, though we need to be careful since some states are primaries and others are caucuses, which need to be kept separate, even if both end up being fraudulent.
******
from Liberty:
A candidate's cumulative score should gradually converge with reducing volatility towards his final result. This is an absolute mathematical law. Romney's score goes there in straight slanted line with no volatility. This is simply entirely impossible in an un-rigged election.
******
This research began as a result of a study posted to the dailypaul (by a user now here, named The Man) and has been furthered by several here, most notably user Liberty1789.
The original 1000+ post thread can be found here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...South-Carolina
The original study which began this thread can be found here:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&p...U2ZGU1OWZkZjhk
I will now cut and paste the most relevant posts from the 1000+ thread. If I miss any, those familiar with the thread should feel free to post.
PLEASE NOTE THAT DIFFERENT CHARTS MAY APPLY TO DIFFERENT STATES, and that some states are primary and some are caucus. I will do my best to post relevant charts and analysis in order. Please don't post till I post a 'go ahead', I have quite a bit I need to repost.
If you want detailed info on any of this, the original thread has massive discussion. Feel free to post here as well, but this is mostly meant to be a summary thread for those new, because we NEED more people involved pronto.
This is a summary of a thread on this board that now is over 1,000 posts -- far too many for people to 'catch up on', especially considering some of it is rather complicated statistical analysis.
We are at a crossroads. We NEED to bring more people on board, especially those with statistical backgrounds and others well suited to figuring out the best path forward. (Our eventual goal, hopefully, to produce another consolidated report, perhaps a website, and break this story in the media).
Where we are - it appears we have statistical proof of vote flipping in the Primary. Much of the research focuses on South Carolina, but we have extremely suspicious data on most other states as well, though we need to be careful since some states are primaries and others are caucuses, which need to be kept separate, even if both end up being fraudulent.
Quote:
The basic summary:
1) Romney is always the only benefactor.
2) There is evidence of vote flipping going back to the 2008 primary.
3) The algorithm(s) being used are rather crude, often basic 1:1 flipping.
4) Votes are often, but not always, siphoned from a single candidate. This candidate is often Ron Paul, but has also been Gingrich, Santorum, and even Huckabee in 2008.
5) Romney benefits as precincts increase in size, and this increase is algorithmically 'clean' with little or no 'white noise' common to non-altered candidates. For example, we might see a steady 10% rise in Romney's votes from precincts sized 50% to 80%, at which point it increases to a steady 15% (far after any differences in size should matter).
6) Demographics are not at play, though this is the 'debunk' most often brought up by people new to the thread.
The basic summary:
1) Romney is always the only benefactor.
2) There is evidence of vote flipping going back to the 2008 primary.
3) The algorithm(s) being used are rather crude, often basic 1:1 flipping.
4) Votes are often, but not always, siphoned from a single candidate. This candidate is often Ron Paul, but has also been Gingrich, Santorum, and even Huckabee in 2008.
5) Romney benefits as precincts increase in size, and this increase is algorithmically 'clean' with little or no 'white noise' common to non-altered candidates. For example, we might see a steady 10% rise in Romney's votes from precincts sized 50% to 80%, at which point it increases to a steady 15% (far after any differences in size should matter).
6) Demographics are not at play, though this is the 'debunk' most often brought up by people new to the thread.
******
from Liberty:
A candidate's cumulative score should gradually converge with reducing volatility towards his final result. This is an absolute mathematical law. Romney's score goes there in straight slanted line with no volatility. This is simply entirely impossible in an un-rigged election.
******
This research began as a result of a study posted to the dailypaul (by a user now here, named The Man) and has been furthered by several here, most notably user Liberty1789.
The original 1000+ post thread can be found here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...South-Carolina
The original study which began this thread can be found here:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&p...U2ZGU1OWZkZjhk
I will now cut and paste the most relevant posts from the 1000+ thread. If I miss any, those familiar with the thread should feel free to post.
PLEASE NOTE THAT DIFFERENT CHARTS MAY APPLY TO DIFFERENT STATES, and that some states are primary and some are caucus. I will do my best to post relevant charts and analysis in order. Please don't post till I post a 'go ahead', I have quite a bit I need to repost.
If you want detailed info on any of this, the original thread has massive discussion. Feel free to post here as well, but this is mostly meant to be a summary thread for those new, because we NEED more people involved pronto.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?363915
