Vote Flipping: How Republicans win Elections - Polidicks

[url]http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2008_2012_ElectionsResultsAnomaliesAndAnalysis_V1.51.pdf[/url] It's a long pdf file that I do not expect a lot of Fpers to read so I will leave you guys with tl;dr. Also, all information I cite is present in the pdf, if this interests you then definitely read the entire thing, it reveals a lot. Vote Flipping: "An exchange of votes between candidates, while keeping the total number of votes intact." First evidence of vote flipping began in the 2008 Presidential election between Barack Obama and John McCain. Voting graphs in elections are able to be statistically measured in a linear fashion, but in elections where Republicans have been concerned recently, the graphs have been skewed in favor of a single candidate. In 2012 it was John McCain who made a rapid rebound against Obama closing a 17% gap to within 6% as votes were continually tallied. Votes generally tend to straighten out and form a horizontal line with minor spikes and dips, but this graph continued to show McCain gain on Obama until the very final vote which has never happened in a presidential election before. Another instance was Maricopa County, AZ which is a strong democratic area in the state of Arizona with some 5 million people. Barack Obama was looking to steal Arizona from McCain until a sudden and swift non linear trend began which reduced Obama's lead from 57% of the vote to 44%. In 2012 the evidence has come out far sooner in the Republican nomination. This time it favored Mitt Romney who gained votes from Newt Gingrich in the states of South Carolina, Florida and Georgia. As well as Ron Paul and Rick Santorum in the state of Iowa helping him secure the Republican nomination. Again, the graphs look the similar to instances in the general election between Obama and McCain with just as sharp of a change of votes over a short period of time. What's worse is that it has been indicated that this vote flipping occurs in instances where Republican victory is not entirely clear and in places that are heavily populated as smaller precincts in these close elections states still get the linear-flat-line that is indicative of a normal election. [b]Implications[/b] This election is far closer than 2008's with Romney 1% behind Obama in the popular vote compared to John McCain who held a sizable disadvantage throughout the election. Here vote flipping could be lethal to Obama's second term through no fault of his own, but rather from a malicious virus implanted by Republican supporters in voting machines thus simulating last minute rallies by a candidate who would ordinarily lose. Watch for scandal this election and vote flipping could be revealed following a Romney win.

If Obama owned voting machines, the country would be in arms.

[QUOTE=lulzlalz;38144546]If Obama owned voting machines, the country would be in arms.[/QUOTE] There's no proof here, though. It's just alarmist propaganda. It ignores the political reality, the entire paper is based around wild ignorant assumptions from graphs.

[QUOTE=scout1;38144674]There's no proof here, though. It's just alarmist propaganda. It ignores the political reality, the entire paper is based around wild ignorant assumptions from graphs.[/QUOTE] The only assumption in the paper is how the votes are being tallied. There is a clear anomaly that is not explainable by the order the votes are tallied unless there were huge majorities of Republicans voters coming in later.

[QUOTE=Evilan;38144707]The only assumption in the paper is how the votes are being tallied. There is a clear anomaly that is not explainable by the order the votes are tallied unless there were huge majorities of Republicans voters coming in later.[/QUOTE] Which would also implicate that Romney could win this election easily if those voters were to come out of nowhere again...

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;38144828]Which would also implicate that Romney could win this election easily if those voters were to come out of nowhere again...[/QUOTE] Probably not Romney (unless he is a chairman or some sort of partial owner of an electronic counting machine company), but rather the private companies that create the electronic voting machines or the electronic counters that do the actual vote flipping. I want to believe that both Republicans and Democrats are in the dark about this otherwise there could be domestic crisis on the Federal government's hands.

[QUOTE=Evilan;38144902]Probably not Romney (unless he is a chairman or some sort of partial owner of an electronic counting machine company), but rather the private companies that create the electronic voting machines or the electronic counters that do the actual vote flipping. I want to believe that both Republicans and Democrats are in the dark about this otherwise there could be domestic crisis on the Federal government's hands.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/10/20/romney-family-investment-ties-to-voting-machine-company-that-could-decide-the-election-causes-concern/[/url] here you go friend!

[QUOTE=Evilan;38144707]The only assumption in the paper is how the votes are being tallied. There is a clear anomaly that is not explainable by the order the votes are tallied unless there were huge majorities of Republicans voters coming in later.[/QUOTE] It is completely explainable by the "dead heat" of the last parts of elections. Just think back to the McCain election and how his appeal was coming on strong right up till the end. People thought he was going to win. I thought he was gonna win. [QUOTE=Evilan;38144902]Probably not Romney (unless he is a chairman or some sort of partial owner of an electronic counting machine company), but rather the private companies that create the electronic voting machines or the electronic counters that do the actual vote flipping. I want to believe that both Republicans and Democrats are in the dark about this otherwise there could be domestic crisis on the Federal government's hands.[/QUOTE] You want to believe there's a conspiracy, it seems. I mean I could conjecture about how the democrats are evil alien overlords, but that's not true just because there's a LACK of explanation. Lack of evidence is not evidence, no matter what the conspiracy theorists scream about the world being flat, 9/11 being a holographic missile filled with thermite, or the nazis being timelords.

Pretty damn sensationalist title OP.

[QUOTE=scout1;38144978]It is completely explainable by the "dead heat" of the last parts of elections. Just think back to the McCain election and how his appeal was coming on strong right up till the end. People thought he was going to win. I thought he was gonna win.[/quote] I'm from Arizona and I voted for McCain in 2008. I thought he had a chance as the South rallied around him in the afternoon, but it all turned moot when a lot of key swing states went against him. I don't want to incriminate the man I voted for 4 years ago and I don't believe I am doing so by presenting evidence of an alternative behind the scenes voting scenario. [QUOTE=scout1;38144978]You want to believe there's a conspiracy, it seems. I mean I could conjecture about how the democrats are evil alien overlords, but that's not true just because there's a LACK of explanation. Lack of evidence is not evidence, no matter what the conspiracy theorists scream about the world being flat, 9/11 being a holographic missile filled with thermite, or the nazis being timelords.[/QUOTE] I present my case with statistical evidence and you call me a conspiracy theorist for doing so. I don't believe there is some vast conspiracy, just an anomaly worth looking further into. The Bush election of 2000 sparked a lot of interest in secure voting and these graphs are from reliable sources. I don't presume to believe there is a Republican conspiracy, but it is weird that there are a lot of controversial voting skews in high population areas or swing states. And that whenever there is a controversy it has directly helped a Republican candidate, except in the case of McCain. [editline]23rd October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=laserguided;38145066]Pretty damn sensationalist title OP.[/QUOTE] Haha, maybe a little overboard, but it gets the point of the paper across.

[QUOTE=Evilan;38145132] I present my case with statistical evidence and you call me a conspiracy theorist for doing so. I don't believe there is some vast conspiracy, just an anomaly worth looking further into. The Bush election of 2000 sparked a lot of interest in secure voting and these graphs are from reliable sources. I don't presume to believe there is a Republican conspiracy, but it is weird that there are a lot of controversial voting skews in high population areas or swing states. And that whenever there is a controversy it has directly helped a Republican candidate, except in the case of McCain.[/QUOTE] This is NOT statistical evidence. It's conjecture based on pseudo-intellectualism. Let me translate: "Earlier this year, a small group of internet analysts discovered a serious statistical anomaly in the Republican primaries that gave an unfair advantage to a particular candidate. We joined this group of volunteers and upon further research we discovered that the anomaly was also present in the 2008 general election." This means "A non-mainstream group of completely unaccountable and unnamed fellows found the biggest coup in history. <and so on>" "Our discovery [whole section]" Not a single piece of real statistics here. They are simply using prose to portray themselves as legitimate. Let me give an example. "This substantial effect exceeds reasonable statistical bounds and we calculate that the probability of such election results happening by chance is beyond typical or even extreme." Reasonable substantial bounds? "beyond typical of even extreme" No fucking scientist will say that. It's not a statistical comparison, it's an emotional appeal. Events are described as "usual" and "unusual" based on their frequency (The threshold is 5% or a probability of 0.05). From there they go on to divide precints into small and large. [b]STOP. Red flag.[/b] YOU DO NOT DO THIS. This establishes clear urbanized and non-urbanized samples. Or rather, it introduces samples with bias towards party, towards ideology, towards issues. The data is fundamentally flawed. And no, it's not flawed by accident. It's flawed very very on purpose, to mislead. Notice how they graph it. There are an incredible amount of ways to illustrate data that I won't bother to cover, but they chose the good old line graph. "Up" is good, and so on. I'll top it off with this quote. "Other demographic arguments were all were rejected as the cause of the unusual slopes favoring candidate Mitt Romney. A mysterious cause could be claimed, but no facts have been presented. " The slopes... are unusual. Also "no facts have been presented" Conjecture. Useless bloody conjecture. Don't be taken in with such drivel.

If Facepunch pooled all the money they spent on giving each other stupid titles we could probably afford to hire fact checkers to scour the news forum and correct everyone.

[QUOTE=1239the;38145451]If Facepunch pooled all the money they spent on giving each other stupid titles we could probably afford to hire fact checkers to scour the news forum and correct everyone.[/QUOTE] Apparently this was posted on reddit not to long ago and people are fact checking it. A lot are in the camp of blind acceptance, some deny the possibility of the study being remotely real and a few are looking at the Secretary of State sites where the information is from. [url]http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/11wryn/the_greatest_case_of_election_fraud_ever_to_occur/[/url]