Republican Vote Tampering
March 24, 2012 6:36 AM Subscribe
It's been suggested that Mitt Romney is the GOP's chosen guy, while the establishment's been hard at work to suppress Ron Paul. Turns out, that may be right. Some savvy internet forum users have discovered significant evidence of algorithmic vote-flipping in the GOP primaries.
For those who want to dig into the nitty-gritty, a 200-page "summary" of the relevant points from the Ron Paul forums
For those who want to dig into the nitty-gritty, a 200-page "summary" of the relevant points from the Ron Paul forums
This post was deleted for the following reason: This needs a lot more info and confirmation than "some Ron Paul forum users say x" -- taz
Back... and to the left. Back... and to the left.
posted by Trurl at 6:39 AM on March 24, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by Trurl at 6:39 AM on March 24, 2012 [1 favorite]
I get a "file is damaged and could not be repaired" message when clicking on the link.
posted by prodigalsun at 6:40 AM on March 24, 2012
posted by prodigalsun at 6:40 AM on March 24, 2012
Why do you think the Repubs are always so concerned about voter fraud.
posted by Max Power at 6:41 AM on March 24, 2012 [3 favorites]
posted by Max Power at 6:41 AM on March 24, 2012 [3 favorites]
Because they are conspiracy theorists with poorly operating bullshit detectors.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:46 AM on March 24, 2012
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:46 AM on March 24, 2012
[citation needed]
Seriously, I see a lot of pretty graphs, but no reference to where the data came from, or how I can get it myself in order to check that those pretty graphs are based on anything real. Is it buried in the 200-page document somewhere?
posted by Dysk at 6:49 AM on March 24, 2012
Seriously, I see a lot of pretty graphs, but no reference to where the data came from, or how I can get it myself in order to check that those pretty graphs are based on anything real. Is it buried in the 200-page document somewhere?
posted by Dysk at 6:49 AM on March 24, 2012
So either paulites are crazy and paranoid conspiracy theorists or the Republican party apparatus is run by a bunch of crooked ratfuckers. Oh wait, both those things are true.
posted by octothorpe at 6:49 AM on March 24, 2012 [5 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 6:49 AM on March 24, 2012 [5 favorites]
I get a "file is damaged and could not be repaired" message when clicking on the link.
That's just what they WANT you to see.
posted by odinsdream at 6:49 AM on March 24, 2012 [1 favorite]
That's just what they WANT you to see.
posted by odinsdream at 6:49 AM on March 24, 2012 [1 favorite]
seriously though I wouldn't be at all surprised at this being true
posted by odinsdream at 6:50 AM on March 24, 2012
posted by odinsdream at 6:50 AM on March 24, 2012
That's just what they WANT you to see.
Dammit, my tinfoil hat has a hole in it!!!
posted by prodigalsun at 6:52 AM on March 24, 2012
Dammit, my tinfoil hat has a hole in it!!!
posted by prodigalsun at 6:52 AM on March 24, 2012
A few flipped votes is a better way to handle a potentially disruptive figure than a small aircraft accident, at least.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:52 AM on March 24, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by Space Coyote at 6:52 AM on March 24, 2012 [1 favorite]
Looks like 2008 in SC was the alpha test launch.
Canada would be a good beta; the US principals would be legally out of reach and there would be no downside to trying it on a national level. Except for those pesky paper ballots. So instead they went to the phones.
posted by seanmpuckett at 6:52 AM on March 24, 2012 [1 favorite]
Canada would be a good beta; the US principals would be legally out of reach and there would be no downside to trying it on a national level. Except for those pesky paper ballots. So instead they went to the phones.
posted by seanmpuckett at 6:52 AM on March 24, 2012 [1 favorite]
sigh... Instead of repeating myself, I'll just refer to my comment from when this got posted to Reddit a few weeks ago: link
tl;dr: The probabilities in this analysis are completely wrong, and based on a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics.
posted by teraflop at 6:52 AM on March 24, 2012 [3 favorites]
tl;dr: The probabilities in this analysis are completely wrong, and based on a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics.
posted by teraflop at 6:52 AM on March 24, 2012 [3 favorites]
Seems kinda timecube-ish.
posted by republican at 6:53 AM on March 24, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by republican at 6:53 AM on March 24, 2012 [1 favorite]
Duckduckgo Ru Paul
posted by panaceanot at 6:53 AM on March 24, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by panaceanot at 6:53 AM on March 24, 2012 [2 favorites]
I can't help with any sort of citations. This stuff came to me via a Twitter friend, and it seemed interesting enough to discuss, but I'm not about to dive head-first into the Ron Paul madness.
posted by explosion at 6:54 AM on March 24, 2012
posted by explosion at 6:54 AM on March 24, 2012
Is this the same as this? Because as I recall, those guys posted their research with the "this isnt politically motivated, please prove debunk this" plea to Reddit's /r/statistics and /r/math subsites... then continued spreading it to other parts of the site after it was repeatedly found to be methodologically flawed.
I wouldn't be surprised there's been "help" provided to Romney at the margins of vote-counting, considering the establishment support he has in state and federal government, but if anything it's been to the detriment of Santorum (just look at Iowa). I doubt Ron Paul has been "suppressed" to the point that he's practically a non-factor in the race, especially since his lagging performance lines up with polling. (And since Paul has appeared reluctant to attack Romney lately).
posted by Rhaomi at 6:55 AM on March 24, 2012 [2 favorites]
I wouldn't be surprised there's been "help" provided to Romney at the margins of vote-counting, considering the establishment support he has in state and federal government, but if anything it's been to the detriment of Santorum (just look at Iowa). I doubt Ron Paul has been "suppressed" to the point that he's practically a non-factor in the race, especially since his lagging performance lines up with polling. (And since Paul has appeared reluctant to attack Romney lately).
posted by Rhaomi at 6:55 AM on March 24, 2012 [2 favorites]
Seems kinda timecube-ish.
Ron Paul? Yeah, pretty much
posted by Rinku at 7:01 AM on March 24, 2012 [1 favorite]
Ron Paul? Yeah, pretty much
posted by Rinku at 7:01 AM on March 24, 2012 [1 favorite]
« Older "There are times you realize how small the place... | I'm sorry! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I know what I'M doing this weekend!
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:38 AM on March 24, 2012 [4 favorites]