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.