Statistical evidence of Republican voting fraud?

[Stattick]

I don't have the grounding in statistics to say if there's anything to THIS PAPER. But what it's asserting, is that in larger voting precincts, Romney gained unexpected votes. What's asserted is that as the size of the precincts increased (this has nothing to do with rural vs urban precincts, but rather the number of people voting at those precincts), that the percentage of people voting for one particular candidate should remain fairly flat - size of the district shouldn't matter. Instead, what was found was that in elections that had nothing to do with Romney (like Democrat primaries), that indeed, the line stayed flat, but that in elections that did include Romney, that as the size of the precinct went up, that a larger and larger percentage of people "voted" for Romney. It's proposed that what's actually going on is something that's called "vote flipping". It's where you take votes for one candidate (say, for Obama), and then illegally "flip" that vote to Romney.

Like I said, I don't have the grounding to say if this is a real thing. I don't know if anyone else has looked at this issue. I can't say that this wasn't some sort of methodology error that's producing false results, or a claim that was manufactured whole-cloth.

But it worries me. A lot. And if this turns out to be real, that there's been a large scale election fraud scheme going on across the country to falsify things in Romney's favor, I'm going to be really pissed.

[Serephino]

While it certainly is something to be concerned about, I think you're hearing hoof beats and thinking zebras on this one. 

[Callie Del Noire]

I think the base of evidences is a bit shallow myself.  Two elections seem a bit light as proof. 

[Inari]

Well I saw this coming a mile off. Also just to add to this; Rommey has links with at least one polling company (Through certain means) so there is a high possibility that cheating will take place in at least one state.

[Callie Del Noire]

Oh yeah.. I'm sure if he fails to win (or if he does but they dont' take Congress over) there WILL be investigations done.

[Inari]

I damn well hope so.

[Stattick]

Well, that's the weird thing. The evidence showed the same exact pattern in every state. Except Utah. In Utah, there was no evidence of tampering.

[Inari]

Correct me if I am wrong... but aren't Utah citizens Republican purists? Or am I think of another state? Sorry if I am wrong.

[WildCat]

Correct me if I am wrong... but aren't Utah citizens Republican purists? Or am I think of another state? Sorry if I am wrong.

Well, obviously no state is made up entirely of any ideology. There are latte liberals and Occupiers in Utah. There are corporate conservatives and Tea Partiers in Massachussetts.

Anyway, I'm dubious about these reports. Though I must say it did disturb me a bit the first time that I voted after having moved somewhere new and instead of any physical evidence of anything the computer just said 'thank you' and that was it.

Meanwhile though, I'm far more interested in the utterly fictitious 'fake voters' that are used to justify statewide policies to keep the poor away from the polls.

[Callie Del Noire]

Well, obviously no state is made up entirely of any ideology. There are latte liberals and Occupiers in Utah. There are corporate conservatives and Tea Partiers in Massachussetts.

Anyway, I'm dubious about these reports. Though I must say it did disturb me a bit the first time that I voted after having moved somewhere new and instead of any physical evidence of anything the computer just said 'thank you' and that was it.

Meanwhile though, I'm far more interested in the utterly fictitious 'fake voters' that are used to justify statewide policies to keep the poor away from the polls.

I agree.  There are all kinds. I am particularly depressed with the ID laws of late.

[Inari]

Well, obviously no state is made up entirely of any ideology. There are latte liberals and Occupiers in Utah. There are corporate conservatives and Tea Partiers in Massachussetts.

Anyway, I'm dubious about these reports. Though I must say it did disturb me a bit the first time that I voted after having moved somewhere new and instead of any physical evidence of anything the computer just said 'thank you' and that was it.

Meanwhile though, I'm far more interested in the utterly fictitious 'fake voters' that are used to justify statewide policies to keep the poor away from the polls.

Thank you for clearing that up for me. :3

I agree.  There are all kinds. I am particularly depressed with the ID laws of late.

ID laws have been here for years. Although, nothing has stopped the accusations of cheating every time Labor or Tories get in. No one bothers checking. But what pissed a lot of people off, a few years ago, is the fact a lot of people didn't get to vote because they were working or ques were too long. =/

[WildCat]

Thank you for clearing that up for me. :3

No problem. I live to serve. :P

[Tamhansen]

Well, obviously no state is made up entirely of any ideology. There are latte liberals and Occupiers in Utah. There are corporate conservatives and Tea Partiers in Massachussetts.

Of course there are tea partiers in Massachussetts, It's where the party was at after al. (sorry couldn't resist that one)

Look Voter fraud is kind of the GOP's way of doing business. Whether you take the way Jeb Bush took care of democratic voters in the 200 and 2004 elections in Florida, or even the way 100.000's of dead people managed to vote in every single election in the last 50 years.

Problem is, the donkeys aren't much better.

Simple solution. Voter ID. Wanna vote, bring your drivers license. Just make every legal resident eligible for a cheap or even free ID card and make them bring it with them. It's how the rest of the 21st century actually helps prevent voting fraud.

[WildCat]

Of course there are tea partiers in Massachussetts, It's where the party was at after al. (sorry couldn't resist that one)

Look Voter fraud is kind of the GOP's way of doing business. Whether you take the way Jeb Bush took care of democratic voters in the 200 and 2004 elections in Florida, or even the way 100.000's of dead people managed to vote in every single election in the last 50 years.

Problem is, the donkeys aren't much better.

Simple solution. Voter ID. Wanna vote, bring your drivers license. Just make every legal resident eligible for a cheap or even free ID card and make them bring it with them. It's how the rest of the 21st century actually helps prevent voting fraud.

No, THAT is the GOP's way of doing business. Cite some anecdotal voter fraud without a shred of evidence and then use it as an excuse to make it harder for people to vote, especially people who are likely to vote against you.

[Stattick]

The Republican Modus Operandi over the last few years has been to accuse the Democrats of things that they themselves are either doing or about to do. That way, it looks petty if the Democrats say anything about the shit the GOP's doing.

[Oniya]

Simple solution. Voter ID. Wanna vote, bring your drivers license. Just make every legal resident eligible for a cheap or even free ID card and make them bring it with them. It's how the rest of the 21st century actually helps prevent voting fraud.

The problem with that is the red tape.  Drivers licenses: Not everyone drives (case in point).  Licenses cost money and time - even if you handed them out for free, a person would need to get to the registration place (gas money) and wait around to get it (lost wage money), which may not even be possible while working two jobs to support a family, unless the registration place is open on weekends.  If they are handed out for free, who is really paying for the materials, and the staff required to produce them?  Taxes?  State or federal?  Can you get the money allocated?  What services will lose out on funding if you do?

Not so simple after all.

[WildCat]

...and beyond gas money--if you don't drive, and don't have someone to drive you then getting there's all the more difficult. And the higher you raise the bar the more people fall through the cracks. (Is that a mixed metaphor? *shrug*) And who ends up falling through the cracks, who they would have voted against and who pushes the laws that keep them from voting cannot plausibly be considered a co-incidence.

Of course, I suppose the same could be argued about my own support for measures to make voting easier. But I really think the case for protecting the right to vote is stronger than the case for denying that right.

[Inari]

This is why the US needs something like this:

http://www.citizencard.com/

I got IDed when buying Fallout 3 and New Vegas on Saturday. I have also used it when I voted a few years ago. Only cost me getting my photo done, photocopy of my birth certificate, getting both signed by my now ex-support worker,  and £8. (Roughly $15?)

[Oniya]

Of course, I suppose the same could be argued about my own support for measures to make voting easier. But I really think the case for protecting the right to vote is stronger than the case for denying that right.

In statistics, we (I'm a math dweeb.  Hi!) often talk about Type I and Type II errors, and which has the worst consequences.  Type I (also known as a 'false positive') is when the data suggests something is going on, when it's really not going on - like voter fraud where no voter fraud exists, an innocent person getting convicted or a critical circuit being faulty when it's actually fine.  Type II (also known as a 'false negative') is when the data suggests nothing is going on when something really is going on - like a guilty person getting acquitted, or a faulty circuit not appearing broken.  Unfortunately, testing limitations often make it impossible to minimize both types of errors.

The end result is that a choice has to be made, based on the consequences of 'getting it wrong.'  Would we rather disallow people who should be allowed to vote, or possibly allow people to vote who shouldn't.

[WildCat]

(I like dweebs. Hi.)

Neat way of looking at it. And even if one were to accept the two types as potentially existing at anywhere near equivalent levels (which is not a case which I feel can be credibly made), it comes down to whether we take something away from actual people (You can't vote!) or fold damage into the cusion of the system which no individual has to significantly weather (There's a stray vote or two somewhere.).

Actually I really like that perspective, because I want to think the best of people and I don't want to get all cynical about GOP motives. And to me that seems like a good match for one of the major divides between parties. Protect the individual (social safety net, etc.) vs. object to systemic cusions (why should my tax dollars be paying for welfare!)

[Callie Del Noire]

The thing is.. voter fraud is a BULK issue. You stuff boxes.. not hire sixty dozen folks to come in to each precinct to vote. The folks who suffer for Voter ID.. are the poor folks who can't afford a photo id.. or don't have a constant physical address to do it. During the primaries.. there was a minor furor over a congressional medal winner being turned away because his VA card and social security card weren't enough.

[Stattick]

The story of the GOP election fraud is slowly starting to catch on.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/10/27/gop-rigging-elections-for-romney/

[Vekseid]

I'd like to point out that this argument depends on more populated precincts not being correlated with voting in a specific direction.

Since the graphs are showing cumulative and not per-precinct numbers, it's not easy to see how good the correlation fit is. The proper way to analyze this would be to do geographical checks on precincts and their neighbors, across the country for multiple elections. This should actually be relatively easy, if we can grab nationwide data and precinct areas from somewhere.

[Chris Brady]

Also, remember statistics do not show cause and effect, despite seeming to.