Proof Ron Paul is the GOP Frontrunner

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ificant-evidence-of-Algorithmic-vote-flipping

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 mathematical analysis.

We are at a crossroads. We NEED to bring more people on board, especially those with math/data analysis 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 strong evidence of vote flipping in the Primary. Or at least, anomalies have been discovered that are incredibly difficult to explain away, though a simple algorithm would explain them.

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.

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.

IMPORTANT:

*****This is not a case of the 'urban'/'rural' divde, which is the 'go to' explanation some new to the thread jump to.
a)We see the same algorithmic rise in Romney votes even within precincts of a single city, all urban. Furthermore, in 'unaffected' counties, all precincts within a city are flatlines for all candidates. More on this below.
b) examination of 'untouched' (no anomaly) counties shows no such divide.
c) we see the algorthymic rise when evaluating sets of precincts that are practically the same size; that is, if we look at say, Clark County, NV, we see the same rise between precincts of 60 then 65 then 70 voters, as we do in a state where precincts differ by 500 or more. There is no reason to suspect such a causal demographic difference between precincts of the same size that differ only in a handful of votes.

*****EXPLANATION OF X AXIS OF MOST CHARTS
Most, but not all, charts on the following pages show 'cumulative votes sorted from smallest vote precinct to largest'. In what those working on this consider to be examples of non-affected Counties/states, you'll see all candidates quickly flatline at an early percentage point tallied. In affected counties, you'll see a distinct 'slope' for 2 (in a few cases, more) candidates, in which Romney is always the upwards slope. These slopes show less 'noise' than even the flatlines, and often are practically 1:1 siphons from the 'victim' candidate.


***** Liberty1786 has now detected same anomalies in 2008 Democratic primaries!!! 2004 appears clean. More charts added below.

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.

EDITED TO ADD: Response to person wanting a better explanation of graphs:

Originally Posted by affa
I suggest starting with the report linked to in post 1. That's the essay that started it all. It's focused on specific counties in SC where, when charted, the data looked particularly manipulated. From there, we've (mostly Liberty at this point) have been trying to move the research forward by analyzing the data in various ways.

From there, advancements in the theory have been made. For example, originally, it was determined that only precincts of a certain size (in SC's case, 277+) were affected. That lead us to believe it might be based on vote size. However, further research showed that in fact, it seems to only occur when the % of votes in that precinct represent a certain amount of votes in the county.

Almost all charts shown represent cumulative vote across precinct size. That is, small to large. Now, areas where no data manipulation is detected follow what might be expected -- by the time you're at a reasonable amount of votes included in the cumulative total, the results 'flatline'. We see this often, and it matches what one would expect. There are plenty of non-anomaly counties where all candidates flatline early.

 

However, in many counties, we're seeing distinct anomalies. Specifically, these anomalies are sloped linear increases across entire spectrums of precincts (say, from 20% through 90%) in which one candidate (always Romney) increases votes at an algorithmic rate, almost always at the expense of a sole victim. The slopes are clean, with little to no noise that can be found in the results of candidates unaffected. That is, even the flatlines show noise. These anomalies do not.

The slope is generally, but not always constant. We feel demographics do not play a role because this is not happening in jumps -- that is, we're not seeing differences between small, medium, and large, but rather, a steady, consistent rise between any two affected data points -- for example, from precincts sized 20% through 30%, or 80% through 90%.

Just as odd, we find this same algorithmicly smooth (we suspect) rise regardless of whether we're talking about precincts that differ by 5 votes or 500 votes (see post 27 for the best example/explanation of this). That is, we see the same algorythmic rise in Clark County, NV where deciles are measured by handfuls of votes, verses NH when examining precincts that differ by thousands.

The linear rise is clean and algorithmic in all cases, sapping votes based on the % of total votes that the precinct represents. The percent rises, cleanly, from 0% in precincts that show no anomaly (due to small size) to upwards of 9% in the largest counties. Again, this is a smooth rise across size... there aren't jumps at certain sizes representative of say, cities.

In fact, a recent poster did a precinct evalation of a single city:


So we see this odd anomaly even with an entirely urban environment, all based on relative size.

The benefactor is always Romney.
It usually only affects one victim, though there are some more complex cases where we see it involve one victim from one decile through another decile, then switch to a different victim (but still a clean algorithmic rise) at a later decile... usually just enough to give Romney the win. In other cases, where he's getting trounced by Gingrich, we see just enough to give him a solid second, rather than, say, 3rd (this is often where he siphons from Gingrich).

I hope this is a basic enough summary to get you to better understand the charts. I am not a statistician, but I'm pretty sure this is a solid explanation of what we are seeing. It is our contention that these rises are so clean and algorithmic, based on definable factors, that it's a clear cut case of a rather rudimentary vote flipping technique. The technique tends to hide gains in ways that seem easy to explain (oh, Romney does better in cities!) but upon closer look the stats win out and prove these demographic debunk attempts flawed and incomplete.

If we're correct, then in fact, Romney is being rejected state after state. Ron Paul voters actually do vote. And other candidates, such as Santorum and Gingrich, are also doing better than reported.

EDITED TO ADD: Summary of findings from Liberty1789

Originally Posted by Liberty1789
I would like to rephrase/reiterate the following.

(affa, you might want to consider adding it to the front post)

The data shows so far:

1. In some counties, Romney's cumulative shares of vote increases linearly from a given point only when the precincts are sorted by vote tally.
2. The linear segment surge binarily kicks in at any decile from the 2nd and sometimes binarily stops before the 10th.
3. The volatity of the linear surge segment is significantly lowered ("white noise reduction").
4. Romney's surge binarily affects other candidates, simultaneously or in sequence in a county.
5. The affected opponent(s)' cumulative lines exhibit the same straightness and reduction of volatility.
6. Romney's surge is correlated to cumulative % votes cast, not precinct population.
7. Counties representing a low % of the total ballot are always unaffected.
8. Romney's surge binarily affects some counties and not others.
9. In counties without Romney's surge, the cumulative score of the candidates tends to follow the mathematical law of hypergeometric distribution. That relationship is totally broken when Romney surges, affecting identically at least one other candidate.

The hypothesis of an algorithmic vote flipper switching a % of the final score(s) to precincts proportionately to their shares of total county vote tally, from 1, 2 or 3 candidates to Romney, would explain ALL the data properties from above in one stroke.

And this is what needs to be debunked.
ONE EXAMPLE OF MANY:

Originally Posted by Liberty1789


Beautiful 1-for-1 vote flip in 2008.

What's the best explanation for this anomaly? Demographics or victim name update in a piece of software?

IMPORTANT:

The 'go to' debunk attempt by people unfamiliar with the data seems to be that Romney simply does better in urban areas. This does NOT explain the anomalies being detected. User Aden has been mapping out all precincts within city limits for cities in South Carolina. That is, all precincts within the following graphs are not only 'urban', but within the same city.

We are finding the same anomalies here for counties that are 'affected', while counties that show no signs of the statistical anomalies show flatlines for all candidates within city limits. Examples:

All precincts within city limits in a county where anomalies were detected:

Originally Posted by Aden

All precincts within city limits in a county where NO anomalies were detected:


Originally Posted by Aden

This is NOT something so simple as 'Romney does better in urban areas'. There are hundreds of posts evaluating this claim, and it's been shown to be a false premise in several different ways (the above graphs being perhaps the best).

Affected counties show a systematic, no-noise algorithmic increase in Romney's votes from a specific hinge point to a specific hinge point, with the votes coming from different opposing candidates in different counties (sometimes neighboring). This is not based on the rural/urban divide, for we see this same precise incline even when looking at precincts within a specific city (in affected counties)... counties that show no evidence of anomalies have the expected, flat results for all candidates.

Has this always happened?

Well, here is a historical look at a couple counties in NH. Note that, no, this has not always happened. In fact, we get flatlines going back to 1996... except for Romney in 2012.

 

Mar 3 - Carol Paul: Election fraud confirmed. Ron Paul Votes Being Tossed Away
http://slumz.boxden.com/f5/mar-3-ca...med-ron-paul-votes-being-tossed-away-1715115/
By Ahura - 03-03-2012, 07:03 AM - Boxden > BX Daily Bugle - news and headlines

Carol Paul breaks her silence and tells a WTPN activist that half of Ron Paul’s votes are being thrown away during a post-AZ GOP debate viewing party appearance backstage.

The normally very quiet, Carol Paul, wife of Republican GOP candidate, Dr. Ron Paul, was seen here on tape blaming election fraud as the culprit behind some of Ron Paul’s caucus losses in the 2012 race for the Republican nomination.

After last week’s Presidential debate, an activist for the “We the People Network” found a way through security to make it backstage, just prior to a scheduled speech Ron Paul was due to make at the New Life Bible Church in Mesa, AZ, minutes after the final GOP debate on Wednesday, Feb. 22.

Little did the activist know that simply finding a way to talk with Mr. and Mrs. Paul backstage would turn into such a potentially huge story, with Mrs. Paul coming forward, without being prompted, to explain her thoughts on the final results of some of the caucuses that have taken place during the campaign season.

To the average Ron Paul supporter, gaining access to speak in person with the Congressman and his family on video is one thing, but what ensued may have instead turned into quotes by Carol Paul that could very well end up being an international story for both the activist and the Ron Paul campaign.

After finding out the activist was a member of the “We the People Network” Mrs. Paul must have felt more comfortable and began openly talking about her own views on how the votes have been counted thus far, in the caucus states in particular, hoping to somehow get someone to help the Pauls expose vast election theft taking place in many of the state elections.

Becoming too loud about total rampant US election hijacking actually taking place, however, could be very dangerous for the Paul campaign, possibly giving the est@blishment’s media ammunition to use against Paul, in order to further cement the Ron Paul conspiracy “theorist” paradigm they’ve tried to instill into public debate since he first ran for President back in 1988.

Exclaiming her displeasure with the amount of votes that vote-counters are allowing Ron Paul to receive, Mrs. Paul told the WTPN activist, “They throw out half of the votes,” referring to the unfolding national election fraud scandals surfacing across the country, as the race itself continues to unfold.

Mrs. Paul went on to say, “They said, well, they just wrote them on paper, and they can’t recount them, so they just threw them out.”

Mrs. Paul was simply noting facts about the blatancy of the est@blishment’s efforts to quell any potential candidacy momentum that would have likely happened from obvious wins that were simply stolen from Paul, through open election fraud, in many of the caucus states.

The biggest momentum theft thus far likely being Iowa’s Caucus.

Stealing Iowa from Paul was like stealing guaranteed momentum from a victory that would have likely been tough for the other candidates to overcome.

As it turns out, stealing Iowa instead gave that momentum largely to Romney, then some to Santorum after they were forced to admit mistakes, yet still hiding the real results in favor of Santorum instead.

Nothing can take the place of that initial win, however, and the boost a candidate receives from winning the famous Iowa Caucus has been traditionally huge for any candidacy. The very reason they couldn’t afford to let Paul take the state.

The media would have definitely had to work much harder to get people to believe the most common est@blishment talking points about Ron Paul, like the one everyone’s heard, “he’s not electable.” Despite the fact he was officially in second place in delegates prior to the Michigan and AZ caucuses, according to Paul and CNN, even picking up a few more on Wednesday in MI.

The most ironic aspect of the situation, however, may be the fact that even though they’ve openly stolen at least 3 caucuses from the Ron Paul campaign and the American people, mostly attempting to give the people the false impression that he isn’t as popular as he actually is, he still continues to poll well enough to threaten winning many of the states, forcing pro-status quo minions to keep openly committing election fraud anyway…a true testament to how popular he truly is and would be if the est@blishment and it’s media were treating these elections fairly and being honest with the people.

Although it’s unclear as to which state or states Mrs. Paul is referring to in particular, what is clear is that fact that many of the caucus states thus far have turned out such poor performances by state party officials that many of the states are still in question as to who the actual winners truly are.

In Iowa, for instance, 8 precincts from the early January, “First in the Nation” caucus still shows outstanding and permanently unverifiable results, some of which were heavy Ron Paul favorites, as was the case in Nevada.

And while Nevada had very similar circumstances play out there, state party officials in both of those states stepped down in humiliation after each state turned out results that would leave the most sinister of election thieves jealous of the mayhem created by the official election hijackers during this campaign season.

Maine, however, ended up possibly being even worse, if it’s possible that one stolen election can be worse than another, as unable to steal the election outright, like Iowa and Nevada in particular, party officials in Maine simply postponed the entire caucus for an entire week in some counties. Yet still found it necessary to declare Romney the winner that evening, even though it was too close to call with only 84% of the precincts reporting and less than 190 votes seperating the two.

Not only were the postponed counties in Maine likely Ron Paul wins, it also bought more time for pro-est@blishment party officials to alter the totals before submitting them to the public…just as they did in, at least, Iowa and Nevada.

What’s also clear is that the Paul campaign is aware of the circumstances, and although not yet saying too much about the incredible situation unfolding right under many American’s noses, both Ron Paul and now his wife have stepped up to the plate for the truth about the est@blishment’s outright willingness to thwart the wishes of the American people.

Ironically, just as that est@blishment continues to try to sell the [rip]s of millions of innocent people and soldiers around the world, in the name of “spreading democracy,” those same est@blishment ‘officials’ here at home are literally taking that democracy and “throwing it away” themselves.

 

Total Election Fraud Against Ron Paul Documented!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HknyfdoW8cE"]Total Election Fraud Against Ron Paul Documented! - YouTube[/ame]

 

22 states have now voted. None for Paul. If the Republican party had not gone to proportional delegates, Paul would have NO delegates.

Of the popular vote, Paul has 11%. Of the proportional delegates he has 8%.

It is far past time for this charlatan fake "candidate" to drop out AGAIN, and go home.

 

Yeah, okay. Uhh Huhh... If ever there was a doubt that the Ron Paul Zealots are crazy, it has been erased.

 

Requirements for posting in this thread:
You must read the 1st 3 posts.

Stay on topic please.

 

I read the header, "Paul is the GOP frontrunner." That is wrong, ridiculous, and comical. I then knew all I needed to know about this ridiculous dream.

When the delegates are counted, Paul will be DEAD LAST, just as he is now.

 

So never mind that Paul has not won a state and has a tiny share of delegates -- you've got a chart!

I've never seen someone work so hard to deny plain reality. And I've seen a *lot* of that over the years on this board.

 

Paul isn't the frontrunner and never was. He also doesn't have a shot of winning the nomination. I agree with most of his policies, but it's ridiculous to say he's the frontrunner.

BTW, your links aren't working for me and I'm not going to read through your multiple walls of text.

 

I guess that didn't happen in MN and ND.

The only 2 states where ROMNEY finished BEHIND PAUL.

If you had a 8 hour primary in MN I would bet a thousand credits Paul would not finish ahead...neither would Santorum.

 

this confirms what I have been suspecting that he is the candidate they want in office.He is the CFR'S poster boy.Karl Rove headed a secret vote count for him in the Iowa primarys where it was discovered vote fraud was done for him in that state so you just know,they are doing it everywhere else for him around the country.They will probably pull another florida to make sure their man Romney gets in.

 

Ron Paul is irrelevant. The last time he was relevant was before Iowa and what happened? He got beat by Rick Santorum.

I'm sure Paulbots will (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) once this thing is finished but Ron Paul had every chance to win the nomination and he blew it for one obvious reason: he never went after Romney! Don't give me this BS about knocking everyone out for a one on one.

 

Yes its all a big conspiracy. Do you know WHO are the most unbalanced people on the planet??

Conspiracy Theorists.

 

Wow "lolcatz", if I didn't know better I'd say you rather like Paul. That's an awful lot of typing to push a loser. Are you the guy who keeps hanging signs on I-64 overhangs?

 

Ron Pauls strat has been geting his supporters to be delegates since early 2011. if Newt and Santorum keep Romney from his magic number then anything could happen during a brokered convention.

 

Unrealistic looniness.

 

For anyone interested...

The Wall Street Journal ~ 2012 Delegate Tracker

 

CNN
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/scorecard/statebystate/r


RCP
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html

NYT
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates

NBC
http://www2.nbc17.com/news/politics/national/delegates/

We could go on and on and get the same info. Paul is OUT, he was never in it. But mindlocked Paulobots live in a world as unrealistic as liberals.

 

now your catching on,hell yeah its a conspiracy.well that would be you then because im not conspiracy theorist,Im a conspiracy REALIST.its not my fault people like you wont look at the evidence.Next thing your going to say is that they did not fix it for Bush to get elected both times.

 

ah the corporate controlled media as sources.great sources there.

 

Another conspiracy theory.

And there is no such thing as a Conspiracy Realist, since you would first have to have some inkling of REALITY to be one. Thus all conspiracy theorists are automatically eliminated from consideration.

But a conspiracy is a wonderfully convenient place to hide one's own responsibility for their own failures.

 

They're like walking Zombies. Only they dress a little better.

 

I believe you have insulted Zombies.

 

thats all you consist of without doing research and you just proved my point that you have been brainwashed by the government,thats what THEY coined for people who dont get brainwashed by their propaganda and you swallowed it hook,line and sinker and your still avoiding the question about Bush,if you say no.well that just says it all about you and proves how easy you are for them to do that to you. sure there is,its just again you have been taken in by their propaganda into believeing there isnt.deal with it.