/sci/ - Science & Math

sorry, it's statistical evidence of vote fruad

Yurofag reporting in.

Isn't he actually the coolest guy of the republican candidates?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?363915-We-NEED-more-hands-on-deck.-Significant-evidence-
of-Algorythmic-vote-flipping./page2&s=92353104105be5c9f6350e8000df0ddf

full link to the forum thread showing county by county analysis

>>4419872

Yeah. Way better than Obama. Obama's such a damned politician. Disappointing.

>>4419873
>Significant-evidence-of-Algorythmic-vote-flipping
>Algorythmic-vote-flipping
>Algorythmic
>Al Gore ythmic

Saw this and thought of a previous election.

come-on stat nerds if the allegations are true, they are not specifically targeted at paul. rather, algorithms were used in electronic voting machines to consistently favor romney. If we debunk it, all well and good, But if it's true and we crack it, this will be big.

I'm not done with the paper but their thread is not off to a good start. They make an extraordinary claim (voter fraud) but their extraordinary evidence is lacking. Disclaimer: I actually like Ron Paul too.

"And then? The mathematically impossible happens:Romney's score jumps by 1%,"
>This is perfectly possible. Romney's average vote % in larger precincts is higher and there are fewer precincts that deviate from this average or they deviate by less.

"Are demographics of 50-vote precincts different from 70-vote precincts? No way."
>Citation needed. I suspect that there are significant socio-economic differences between small and large precincts. I am, however, too lazy to do an analysis of Iowa voting precincts.

"The impossibly large systematic linear deviation is the mathematical smoking gun."
>LOL

"Because the algorithm's trigger is not base on precinct population.
It is based on precinct vote tally as % of county vote tally."
>Believe it or not campaigns spend a ton of time and money analyzing numbers too. It is highly likely that Romney, with his overwhelming fundraising advantage, dumped progressively more money into precincts/counties with a larger effect on state vote percentages. The smaller counties, receiving less campaign money per person, would more closely reflect public opinion before the effect of campaign advertisement.

>>4419959

Interesting point. You think their numbers could be that specific though?

>>4419932
>favor romney
the shit are you talking about... the fat fuck is always in the lead... why is he even still in the race???

>>4419865
News flash!

Mit Romney wins republican primary

Barack Obama wins re-election

\2012 election

>I don't "drink the kool-aid"
yes you do
anyway, reported

My money would be on the demographic explanation. Has anyone checked whether this effect appears in polling data?

>>4420005
fucking, why does this happen all the time? People are all like: well, shit, i voted for him... i didn't really want to, but he was gonna win anyway...

what's wrong with this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE

It sounds good to me, but what are the long-term ramifications?

>>4420046
Barack Obama would still win in an alternative vote system.

All the republican candidates are fucking laughable this election. THEY HAVE NO FUCKING CHANCE. America is stupid, but it ain't that fucking stupid. These candidates actually made Bush look like fucking Einstien.

There will be a fucking record turn out this year, specifically to make sure these morons don't get fucking elected.

>>4419959
Me again. Their paper is just full of things I would disagree with. On the front page alone we have:

In order to see the vote theft, we need to establish some obvious assumptions, or rules:
1. The perpetrators, for the most part, do not alter the votes in low vote count precincts. It’s too easy to get caught and there are few votes to gain.
> What is the evidence that cheating is harder in larger districts.
3. The manipulation is being implemented by algorithms in electronic voting machines and/or by algorithms in the Vote Tabulation Software.
> This directly conflicts with #1 because I see no reason why this would be more or less difficult for any district. Also they speculate on how it is accomplished without any evidence.
4. Any election can be accurately predicted/ projected after a certain minimum percentage of precincts from diverse areas in a county have reported its vote results.
> DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN
5. In a four candidate Primary where there is a legitimate reason one of the candidates loses votes in (a) particular precinct(s), the gains will be spread amongst the other 3 candidates in a fairly consistent manner.
6. In a four candidate Primary where there is a legitimate reason one of the candidates gains votes in (a) particular precinct(s), the losses will be spread amongst the other 3 candidates in a fairly consistent manner.
>These two are blatantly inaccurate. It is common for supporters of a given candidate to have similar preferences for a "second best" candidate. Many multi-round election processes such as those in Europe support this statement.


Don't even bother reading it.

>>4419959
I'm with this guy. The evidence is not compelling. The statistical analysis looks like basically a fishing expedition, groping around until they find *something* they can say they have a 95% confidence interval on and then trumpeting it. The "evidence" from the graphs looks like pareidolia to me.

>>4420060
That's what they said about Bush. That's what they said about Nixon. That's what they said about Reagan.

Never underestimate the voters' ability to fuck up.

>>4420046
The alternative vote is a good system, probably better then out current system.

Ron Paul will never win though, he is too fucking out there. Ron Paul basically wants to dismantle the whole fucking federal government. Very few people actually want that. Most rich people fucking love the feds, most poor people depends on it. The whole "middle class" was developed because of fed intervention in capitalism. If capitalism goes unchecked, you get an elimination of the middle class (what we are seeing today).

We actually need more fed intervention in capitalism, else the middle class will become quickly eliminated. No one wants to see that but the very rich, and the people who work for them (republicans, fox news, etc).

>>4420075
You got to admit that Bush is no where near as bad as these dumb fucks though. Seriously, it is like a big joke. I keep waiting for the republican party to say "gotcha, here are our real candidates, you really didn't think these were the best we had, did you? We were just fucking with you."

>>4420086
not so much more than "better" intervention. Shit's fucked up because the people that need to be checked in regulated capitalism figured out how to play the governmental system to their advantage rather than it being used against them.

>>4420097
>>4420097
Agreed, maybe not "more intervention", but "better intervention". Capitalism is basically "greed incarnate". Greed isn't a good thing in itself, but can be a useful tool for a country or it's people to improve there living conditions.

If taken to an extreme, greed can also be a tool to bring down the living conditions of the majority, while boosting the living conditions of say %1 of people to ridiculous levels (what is happening today).

>>4420101

I wont admit that.

Bush was just plain stupid and inept. You might disagree with Romney or Gingrich, but you cant say they dont know what they are doing.

>>4420116
But they don't know what they are doing.

Romney could actually win, if he was running as a democrat.

Gingrich is literally fucking retarded...literally. The shit that comes out of his mouth is comic gold. Anyone with a functioning brain would not say the shit he said, especially given the shit he has done.

They are both pandering to the extreme right, this is a fucking big mistake. It makes them totally unelectable to the voting majority (center-left or center-right). I know tons of republicans (I live in texas), who will be voting for Obama because they are fucking ashamed of the republican candidates. I would be fucking ashamed as well.

The republicans have made themselves look fucking disgusting by embracing the extreme right.

>>4420112
Human beings are basically "greed incarnate", capitalism is our way of dealing with that.

>>4420149

I disagree with you on everything, and I think you are dumb based off all these stupid Mr. T pictures I am seeing on /sci/.

I am not going to address what you said, because politics is dumb, and I think to criticize you would be to just be throwing around the subjective poop that is political perception.

I feel bad for even bringing it up to begin with.

>>4420165
this was going to be the last thing I was going to read in this thread... and it mirrors my thoughts exactly.
>note email

>>4420165
>extreme right in my /sci/

Shouldn't you be watching Fox news?

>>4420189

What makes you think I am extreme right?

>>4420196
You disagree with him. Welcome to all politics in the United States. It would be the same if he was republifag, you'd just be the "extreme left idiot" in that case.

>>4420163
>Human beings are basically "greed incarnate"

Most Americans, yes. All humans, no. There are plenty of people who's life is not dominated by greed. For instance some people have devoted there life to art, literature, law, or even science. Alot of people aren't so fucking materialistic/capitalistic, and are capable of happiness through other means. We need more people like that in america.

>>4420206

I disagreed with him regarding his analysis and all the other stupid shit he said. It has nothing to do with whether certain policies or ideologies are right or wrong. Just that his perception of these policies and ideologies is wrong.

I am not "extreme right."

>>4420196
>you are not offended by the extreme right
>you don't think Gingrich is literally retarded

These are signs you might be in the extreme-right.
Did you even watch those republican debates, shit was sickening.
They boo'ed the golden rule! The Golden Rule? WHAT THE HOLY FUCK?

>>4420209
>art, literature, law,
>science

no need to group the mentally ill with scientists

>>4420243

Okay well, I am not okay? I never meant to give a political statement, and I dont believe I have. You cant make any of these crazy assumptions regarding my personal beliefs that you have.

>you are not offended by the extreme right
>guis this guy hasnt approved of my scientific witch hunt circle jerk, he must be one of them christian neocon morons

>>4420243
>boo'ed
I want you to die.

>>4420230
The statements listed were pretty reasonable:

1) Gingrich does say some very stupid shit, you fucking know he does, don't try to deny shit.

2) The republicans are pandering to the extreme right. Do you really try to deny this? You really think all republicans are as bat-shit crazy as santorium or gingrich? Really? You must not think very highly of republicans then.

3) There are a lot of republicans ashamed that we couldn't produce better candidates. Republicans aren't very strong this cycle though, and they aren't really running on any new or great "ideas". The republicans are all basically running on the "Obama must lose/I'm still kinda racist" platform, and fear mongering. All they do is fear monger (the perfect way to deal with the extreme right). It is pretty weak to anyone with a brain.

>>4420046

I suspect that the problem there is that most people don't care enough to actually learn about the candidates. So the result is that the two-party system will continue to dominate, because they have the most money to throw around, inserting themselves into the public consciousness. So when it comes time to fill out the ballot, it's their party candidate first, the other party's candidate last, and everybody else just filled in in some random order.

>>4420259
>incoherent nonsense
>thinks he is making sense

You are in the extreme right bro, sorry.

>>4420259
If you aren't offended by the extreme right, then you are in the extreme right. The shit they do is disturbing to all americans (but themselves).