rigorousintuition.ca

Posted: **Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:32 am**

This looks legitimate, but I don't know if any other statisticians have signed onto it. I can do simple cipherin' and it seems to make perfect sense to me, but I've never had any statistics training. Folks who remember Autorank know that he's a serious guy.

OpEdNews – Michael Collins – Rigged Elections for Romney? – 22 October 2012

A group of independent researchers caught a pattern of apparent vote flipping during the 2012 Republican primaries that consistently favored Mitt Romney. A form of election fraud, vote flipping occurs when votes are changed from one candidate to another or several others during electronic voting and vote tabulation.

Vote flipping is difficult to detect because the vote totals remain the same for each precinct. In one of several possible scenarios, an instruction is given to a precinct level voting machine or to a county-level central tabulator. The corrupted totals from precincts are sent from county election officials to state elections board and published as final results. (Primary documents for this article: Republican Primary Election 2012 Results: Amazing Statistical Anomalies, August 13, 2012 and 2008/2012 Election Anomalies, Results, Analysis and Concerns, September 2012).

>>>snip

The findings showed a consistent pattern of increasing votes and vote percentages for Romney in the precinct vote tally. The pattern emerges when precinct vote tallies are presented by candidate based on the size of a county precinct.

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.

>>>much more

And there's also:

http://www.ukprogressive.co.uk/breaking ... 20598.html

and:

from:http://www.davidpakman.com/

Posted: **Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:29 am**

The Wisconsin numbers are evidence, but not proof. Proof would be producing the code that actually did this, assuming it could be definitively confirmed as having been used in the counting software on the day. I'm thinking the article's thesis is supported by the evidence and a serious possibility. But it's not proof.

There is another possibility for the small vs. large precincts discrepancy: that determined small organizations with ground game (like Santorum and Paul) can have more of an impact in the small precincts, while the larger numbers in the large precincts are more influenced by the greater media spending (and corporate news media support) that Romney had. (Also keeping in mind that in a Santorum vs. Romney contest, many people bizarrely think of Romney as the sane one, and they may be more prevalent in more urban areas.) You may disagree with that, but in the absence of proof it can be argued.

Posted: **Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:44 pm**

As they state in the paper, the remoteness of that possibility is beyond the capabilities of their system to calculate.

And, the identical anomaly occurred in at least a dozen races, with the Mittster always gaining, no matter who he was competing against.

Did you look at the other states besides WI?

rigorousintuition.ca

Proof of GOP Vote Flipping - Forensic Evidence?

Proof of GOP Vote Flipping - Forensic Evidence?

Re: Proof of GOP Vote Flipping - Forensic Evidence?

Re: Proof of GOP Vote Flipping - Forensic Evidence?