The 2012 GOP Primary: Unmasking the Vote Manipulation
Upon reviewing the Greenville County Precinct election vote data from the 2012, a disturbingpattern arose: Ron Paul averaged 24% in precincts where less than 250 people voted; he averaged lessthan 12 percent in precincts with more than 800.
A spreadsheet was created to help me understand
how this could be. Why was Ron Paul’s percentage in large precincts half of that in small precincts?
This brief will show in convincing fashion that a large portion of Ron Paul’s votes in South Carolina were stolen from him and given to at least one other candidate, Mitt Romney. In order to keep this as brief as possible, a single county- in this case Anderson County- will be used to easily show the obvious electronic manipulation. For the record, I found blatantly obvious numerical manipulation unnatural to say the least- in the largest SC counties: Anderson, Charleston, Beaufort, and Greenville as well as Hillsborough and Merrimack counties in New Hampshire. In no way am I claiming that this one algorithm is the extent of the manipulation. I am attempting to convey, as simply as possible, a
single algorithm that was used multiple times to alter the results of the SCGOP Primary January 21st, 2012.
Arranging the Votes So That the Obvious Manipulation is no Longer Hidden
In order to see the vote theft, we need to establish some obvious assumptions, or rules:
1. The perpetrators, for the most part, do not alter the votes in low vote count
precincts. It’s too easy to get caught and there are few votes to gain.
2. The perpetrators don’t want to get caught.
3. The manipulation is being implemented by algorithms in electronic voting machines
and/or by algorithms in the Vote Tabulation Software.
4. Any election can be accurately predicted/ projected after a certain minimum
percentage of precincts from diverse areas in a county have reported its vote
results.
5. In a four candidate Primary where there is a legitimate reason one of the candidates loses votes in (a) particular precinct(s), the gains will be spread amongst the other 3 candidates in a fairly consistent manner.
6. In a four candidate Primary where there is a legitimate reason one of the candidates gains votes in (a) particular precinct(s), the losses will be spread amongst the other 3 candidates in a fairly consistent manner.
7. The vote percentage received for a particular candidate, in general, should not vary significantly from low vote total precincts to higher vote total precincts.
Eachcandidate’s vote will obviously vary between precincts. But there is no direct
relationship between total votes cast at a precinct versus vote percentage received
by a particular candidate.
8. Large counties do exist in almost all US states where urban areas differ greatly from Rural regarding the candidate they most favor; Anderson County is not one of those.
See the whole study here:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/The%202012%20SC%20GOP%20Primary.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment