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.

Scarne posted:

---

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?363915

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.

Romney is getting statistically "impossible" vote breakdowns.

---

Taliesihne posted:

---

The irony of Ron Paul supporters crying foul is too much to bear, considering how outright shady they are about the delegate process.

---

Modeeb posted:

---

Gore was a far superior choice to Bush-Cheney. You guys got your way and look at the historical futz up he put us in.

---

ZigmundZag posted:

---

Scarne posted:

---

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?363915

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.

Romney is getting statistically "impossible" vote breakdowns.

---

Interesting. So what's your take on it, Scarne? Is this more craziness from Apaulogists or is there something to it? I see two likely causes other than vote siphoning.

1) Demographics do play into it, despite their claims otherwise, and
2) The effect of having a bigger media budget than your competitors.

I think the latter is the most likely. If I had the time, I'd sift through the original thread to see how the analysis was done.

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

If election fraud happened in Florida, why hasn't anyone gone to jail over it?

Did Obama forget to tell the DOJ to investigate it?

---

Modeeb posted:

---

He is as crooked as a dogs back leg.

---

Eradiani posted:

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

If election fraud happened in Florida, why hasn't anyone gone to jail over it?
Did Obama forget to tell the DOJ to investigate it?

---

because the election fraud was 12 years ago?

---

imaloon1 posted:

---

Well after the Maine and Ohio recounts it turns out Ron Paul actually won both states outright (iirc) but there is zero mention of that in the press either...

So you tell me if you think the process is shady. I sure as hell think it is and to be quite honest I don't care if Dr. Paul gets the nomination or not I just hate the idea of the process losing its integrity. If we've lost our vote then we're so well and truly fucked it's not even funny. And deservedly so imo, we've allowed our morals to be compromised in exchange for.. well at this point absolutely nothing.

---

Eager_Igraine posted:

---

If this is being done electronically, one might be led to believe that any manipulation is being perpetrated by the folks in control of the software and might have nothing to do directly with the politicians themselves. Maybe the software designers just realize what nuts the GOP candidates are, and they are jiggering their stuff to elect the lest nutbaggy option?

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

I've seen some stupid rationalizations and deflections in my day. But this?


Damn, just damn.

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

Eager_Igraine posted:

---

If this is being done electronically, one might be led to believe that any manipulation is being perpetrated by the folks in control of the software and might have nothing to do directly with the politicians themselves. Maybe the software designers just realize what nuts the GOP candidates are, and they are jiggering their stuff to elect the lest nutbaggy option?

---

I've seen some stupid rationalizations and deflections in my day. But this?


Damn, just damn.

---