Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    8:05 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Zero vote for Romney Back to Topics
jacka123

Champion Author
Maryland

Posts:11,953
Points:1,281,565
Joined:Nov 2005
Message Posted: Nov 13, 2012 12:54:09 PM

Just heard on the radio, then read in on the internet, that 59 precincts in Philadelphia, had zero votes for Romney. There were people out of some of those precincts on the radio that said they voted for Romney. It is quite clear that a lot of Rommey votes were thrown out. There is no other explanation that would explain this. The count was around 19,000 to 0 in favor of Obama. Could anyone really believe that to be a true count? I also heard that Cleveland, Ohio, the same thing happened.
REPLIES (newest first) Topic is locked
Profile Pic
EKEugene
All-Star Author North Carolina

Posts:589
Points:12,175
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2012 4:15:58 PM


Oh, he understands it. So do Nick and RJ and NEGuy, and pretty much everybody else here, even the entire Houston Astros and a room full of 19,000 blonds. You seem to be a Denial Army of One.
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2012 4:08:47 PM

Zimcity: "Just for fun...."

I'm glad you had fun, because you proved absolutely nothing. You don't even understand the problem. Now, go away.


[Edited by: turbosaab at 11/16/2012 4:13:17 PM EST]
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,585
Points:3,165,445
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2012 3:26:58 PM

>>Except that it's not "19,000 votes". It's the votes in 59 out of 1,687 precincts. Your logic is like collecting 19,000 blue-eyed, blond-haired men together, then complaining that there are no red-headed, green-eyed women in the crowd. Of course not. You initially selected for blue-eyed, blond-haired men. Likewise, those 19,000 votes (out of 656,000) were initially selected for not having any for Romney.<<

Exactly, rjhenn. But no matter how many times it's explained, it will never be understood by someone who is either incapable of understanding or simply doesn't want to understand. For example:

In 162 games this year, the Houston Astros were shut out 14 times, allowing 56 runs in those games. They lost those 14 games, on average, 4-0. But are you going to say "They lost 56-0" and then claim that it's a statistical anomaly, that the odds are so low that a team could not score at least 1 run over the course of 126 innings? Of course not. Why? Because those were the ONLY games you chose to look at - AFTER THE FACT - the ones where they got shut out. You never counted the 29 games where they scored only 1 run, or even 2 runs.

The Astros averaged only 3.6 runs per game. It's not a statistical anomaly that they got shut out 14 times; in fact, it's to be expected (in 2011, the two lowest-scoring teams - San Diego and Seattle - were shut out 19 and 16 times, respectively). In 14 wards comprising 321 precincts, Mitt Romney coincidentally averaged 3.6 votes per precinct. And guess what? He got shut out 35 times in those wards. He also got 1 vote in 56 precincts, 2 votes in 61 precincts, and 3 votes in 51 precincts. So, really, nothing out of the ordinary; no more "zero votes" than could be expected given the other numbers.

As PopcornPirate said, "Numbers do not lie." If only the rest of his post were as accurate.
Profile Pic
Zimcity
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:70,726
Points:4,251,150
Joined:Aug 2001
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2012 3:16:47 PM

Just for fun I selected a random UNBIASED sample of 59 precincts from Philly and came up with these totals

Obama 21,508 (89%)
Romney 2,508 (10%)
Stein 73
Johnson 87
Write-in 16

As far as the number of Romney votes there were

5 0's (although 2 of these had votes for the other 2 candidates)
4 1's (perhaps these were errors)
2 2's
5 3's
2 15's - the median

District 9 of ward 26 actually went for Romney.

[Edited by: Zimcity at 11/16/2012 3:22:48 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Zimcity
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:70,726
Points:4,251,150
Joined:Aug 2001
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2012 2:41:46 PM

I understand completely that you can't admit that you are wrong and, yes it is kind of sad.
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2012 1:40:59 PM

Zimcity: "No it's not."

I can do this all day, but I won't. I'm sorry that you don't understand, and I don't think I can explain it to you any better than I already have. So, let's just leave it alone; it is moot anyways.
Profile Pic
Tru2psu2
Champion Author Winston-Salem

Posts:17,638
Points:2,113,160
Joined:Feb 2004
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2012 12:55:07 PM

You tell 'em Popcorn...

The fact is there are reports in various areas of bias's in the voting machines.....

and in a small town in North Carolina, my wife encountered it first hand...with her own eyes..she even tried the machine with the voter present and verified the error....

Anyone's guess how much this dirty, underhanded, activity went on around the country...bet there's Acorn people involved, too!!!!
Profile Pic
Zimcity
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:70,726
Points:4,251,150
Joined:Aug 2001
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2012 12:45:25 PM

"It is unbiased."

No it's not. An unbiased population would take in 19,000 votes from random voting districts. How can you possibly continue to make such false claims?
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2012 12:32:42 PM

Zimcity: "If it were an unbiased population, you would be right,...."

It is unbiased. Each voter, regardless of who they are voting for, has the same chance/opportunity/probability to make an error. One may argue that the probability increases with age, education, IQ, etc., but overall, there is a probability that can be assigned to making that error. The probability doesn't change with sample size, but the likelihood of actually finding a small probability event *increases* with sample size. The question in this case is whether a voting population of 19,000 is big enough to expect to see a voting error. If it is not, then the "spidey sense" is wrong. If it is, then it is reasonable to question how/why the 59 precincts were able to go 19,000 - 0.
Profile Pic
Zimcity
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:70,726
Points:4,251,150
Joined:Aug 2001
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2012 10:08:05 AM

"My, my. I thought it was basic knowledge in statistics that the larger the interrogated population the more likely it is to see a low probability outcome or event. If you don't understand the simple stuff......"

If it were an unbiased population, you would be right, but this isn't as already explained to you by both NichHammer and rjhenn. What we have here is 59 sub-populations where there were no Romney votes.

I already also mentioned that in at least a couple of those 59 there were in fact, votes cast for other candidates, perhaps they were errant votes or perhaps some of the 1 or 2 votes for Romney in other precincts were the errors.
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,508
Points:1,518,565
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2012 10:02:53 AM

OK??
Are you two guys done whipping it out to show whose is bigger????

Numbers do not lie.
Statistics are a generalization of numbers.
Statistics have proven that the chances Obama got 100% of the votes in those 59 districts is beyond calculations.

That little "Spidey Sense" we ALL have says there was something wrong here.
Prove it?
Well from our stand point no one can & no one will even try since it is a Democratic District & they see no reason to question the outcome...

PATHETIC

Stop the bickering at each other & discuss the situation like normal people.
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,585
Points:3,165,445
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2012 9:54:21 AM

>>We HAVEN'T seen an authentic birth certificate!

The certificate that was posted is a flagrant forgery and you and your ilk are trying hard as you can to make the rest of us believe it is genuine!

Obozo's past records are kept secret for obvious reasons.<<

It was not my intent to make this into a birther thread, but that does kind of prove my point about birthers and their ilk - i.e., those who make up their minds beforehand and no facts will ever dissuade them.
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2012 7:43:31 AM

NickHammer: "I have facts and intelligence on my side."

Perhaps, but you haven't demonstrated either of them here.

rjhenn: "Except that it's not "19,000 votes". It's the votes in 59 out of 1,687 precincts."

No. It *is* actually 19,000 votes. I am only questioning the probability that *those* 19,000 votes were cast without error. (The votes in the remaining 1,628 precincts are irrelevant for this analysis!) I am also assuming that errors are rare. So, what is that probability and is it reasonable that 19,000 votes were cast without error? My initial post was simply to raise that question. Thus far I haven't seen any intelligent responses.

rjhenn: "Showing, once more, that your understanding of mathematics is seriously deficient."

My, my. I thought it was basic knowledge in statistics that the larger the interrogated population the more likely it is to see a low probability outcome or event. If you don't understand the simple stuff......
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,285
Points:3,830,265
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2012 7:26:44 AM

"We HAVEN'T seen an authentic birth certificate!
The certificate that was posted is a flagrant forgery"

Ridiculous blather! You are ultimate proof that he should never even have released his short form to the public. You are in the same class of non-believers as flat-earthers, moon landing conspiracy theorists, almost as rabid in your denials as Achmadinawhackjob.
You do realize how many people would have to be in on the scam if BOTH certificates were forgeries? It is IMPOSSIBLE to have kept that level of scam a secret.

As far as his other records go, anything he hasn't shown you is NONE of your business. It is protected by the same privacy laws that protect your information,
You can view his marriage certificate.
You can view his selective service registration.
You can view the public birth registry.
You can view the law society disciplinary records.
I repeat, nothing is EVER going to be enough, so he should just continue to ignore the ridiculous rabble. Do you really think, if there was something untoward to find regarding his birth, that John McCain wouldn't have found it? Do you really think, if there was something untoward to find regarding his birth, that Hilary Clinton wouldn't have found it?
The hair trumpet, with all his purported millions and his public blatherings, had nothing to show us.
The pink underwear sheriff, with all his "investigations" and allegations, had nothing to show us.
You put yourself in the same silly crowd as Orly Taitz.
Profile Pic
jeskibuff
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:10,638
Points:2,038,750
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2012 6:59:17 AM

NickHammer said: "You're like the birthers who have already made up their minds and say, "We need to see the birth certificate". Then, when they see it, they say, "We need to see the LONG FORM birth certificate." Then, when they see that, they say, "No, it's a fake", "We need to see his college applications", "He's not a Natural Born Citizen", and on and on and on ad nauseum."

And you're like a used car salesman, trying to convince us that this 1973 Chevy Vega is the hottest car on the market.

We HAVEN'T seen an authentic birth certificate!

The certificate that was posted is a flagrant forgery and you and your ilk are trying hard as you can to make the rest of us believe it is genuine!

Obozo's past records are kept secret for obvious reasons. He's afraid that his history is far more damaging than what we already know about him. I don't know what he's afraid of...after all, he's failed at EVERYTHING he's done so far...we all know of his Communist/socialist/criminal associations with all the unsavory people in his life: his mother, grandparents, Frank Davis, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, etc. You've given him a free pass on everything else, why doesn't he go ahead and let the world know he's ineligible for the post? What's ineligibility to worry about when gross incompetence doesn't get you booted from the job?
Profile Pic
Tru2psu2
Champion Author Winston-Salem

Posts:17,638
Points:2,113,160
Joined:Feb 2004
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2012 5:20:03 AM

Bottom line....prove it
-------------------------------
Set up a toll free number and have the folks in those precincts that voted for Romney call in....
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,310
Points:2,796,670
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2012 3:30:05 AM

turbosaab - "Did I ever even hint at that? Instead of being so intent on attacking me, your time would be better spent actually reading what I wrote."

Your real problem is that I do read what you write.

Yes, that's pretty much what you said. And what you say in your next statement:

"I never said it was impossible. I said there was a low probability that 19,000 votes would be cast without error. I stand by that. Is it possible? Sure."

Except that it's not "19,000 votes". It's the votes in 59 out of 1,687 precincts. Your logic is like collecting 19,000 blue-eyed, blond-haired men together, then complaining that there are no red-headed, green-eyed women in the crowd. Of course not. You initially selected for blue-eyed, blond-haired men. Likewise, those 19,000 votes (out of 656,000) were initially selected for not having any for Romney.

And I made an error in my previous post. The average number of votes is Philly was about 380 per precinct.

"The higher the number (whether by more voters in a single precinct or by a group of precincts), the less likely it is that zero votes would be made for Romney, either intentional or not."

Showing, once more, that your understanding of mathematics is seriously deficient.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 11/16/2012 3:31:48 AM EST]
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,585
Points:3,165,445
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 11:14:36 PM

>>Michael, it doesn't matter if we prove it or not, whose listening to us?<<

I'm listening, jacka. So, prove it.
Profile Pic
jacka123
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:11,953
Points:1,281,565
Joined:Nov 2005
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 10:01:26 PM

Michael, it doesn't matter if we prove it or not, whose listening to us?
Profile Pic
jacka123
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:11,953
Points:1,281,565
Joined:Nov 2005
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 9:59:43 PM

I just hope all the people who voted for Obama in Philadelphia get what they wanted. If they want more Food Stamps and more Welfare, they will have no problem getting that. But if they want a job or cheap gas, they won't get either of those. Some people only learn the hard way, and some people don't learn at all, "not ever".
Profile Pic
michaelphoenix2
All-Star Author Tucson

Posts:887
Points:12,080
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 9:56:32 PM

You guys can make all the accusations about statistical anomalies and stolen elections you want.

It comes down to one thing and one thing only.

Physical proof. Without physical proof all you have are tin foil hat conspiracy theories.

Bottom line....prove it
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,585
Points:3,165,445
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 9:32:50 PM

>>Do you really think you've demonstrated some statistical prowess here?<<

No, I think you've demonstrated a lack of one.

>>Do you think that throwing around terms like mean and mode and calculating averages indicates some high level of understanding?<<

"Mean" and "calculating averages" are the same thing. Obviously, you don't know that. Again, this points to your lack of understanding.

>>Clearly, you misunderstood my first post...<<

Which "first post"? Your "first post" of this thread, or your "first post" containing an unprovoked personal attack?

>>Now you've further reduced yourself to the frothing at the mouth demonstrated above.<<

Sorry, I'll leave the "frothing" to you, along with your right-wing rantings, personal attacks, reporting me for same, and denial. I don't need "frothing" - I have facts and intelligence on my side.
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 8:59:33 PM

NickHammer: "I only "blabbered on needlessly" and my response was only "nonsensical" in YOUR mind because my explanation is obviously way beyond your understanding of statistics, or even logic."

ROFLMAO!!! You've lost it. Do you really think you've demonstrated some statistical prowess here? Do you think that throwing around terms like mean and mode and calculating averages indicates some high level of understanding? Are you kidding me? Clearly, you misunderstood my first post and then continued to diminish yourself from there. Now you've further reduced yourself to the frothing at the mouth demonstrated above. What's next?
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,585
Points:3,165,445
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 8:33:07 PM

>>R-i-i-i-i-ght. OK, you've once again proved that I was right about my characterization of you, and you've once again blabbered on needlessly about nothing.<<

>>In your nonsensical response...<<

Your "characterization of" me was as ridiculous as you claiming that you could ever pass a statistics course. I only "blabbered on needlessly" and my response was only "nonsensical" in YOUR mind because my explanation is obviously way beyond your understanding of statistics, or even logic. I would make another attempt at an explanation, but I've already explained it at least 3 different ways, and all I get is crap from you like "Are you kidding?", "It appears that your capabilities are far less than you think", "blabbered on needlessly", and "nonsensical response". In the meantime, you have explained NOTHING, as usual.

You're like the birthers who have already made up their minds and say, "We need to see the birth certificate". Then, when they see it, they say, "We need to see the LONG FORM birth certificate." Then, when they see that, they say, "No, it's a fake", "We need to see his college applications", "He's not a Natural Born Citizen", and on and on and on ad nauseum.

Things can be proven to you six ways to Sunday and you will still make up reasons not to believe it. So, are you that obstinate, or are you just afraid to admit that you're bad at math, logic, and/or reading comprehension? Funny thing about your "characterization of" me - it fits you to a tee.
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 11:09:56 AM

NickHammer: "Just because you're not smart enough..."

R-i-i-i-i-ght. OK, you've once again proved that I was right about my characterization of you, and you've once again blabbered on needlessly about nothing. The higher the number (whether by more voters in a single precinct or by a group of precincts), the less likely it is that zero votes would be made for Romney, either intentional or not. In your nonsensical response, as the number of total votes decreases, I would actually expect that the probability would increase that the zero vote for Romney is real. Certainly your assumption (and thus understanding) of my position is totally wrong. But, I now expect that from you.
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,585
Points:3,165,445
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 9:05:17 AM

>>It was meaningless and explained nothing.<<

Just because you're not smart enough to understand it doesn't mean it explained nothing. But I'll try a different way.

Let's assume that you are right (let me stop laughing first - OK, I'm good). Let's assume that in one of those 59 precincts - where the vote totals were 19,650-0 - someone *accidentally* voted for Romney. We'll use Precinct 3 from my earlier post that you did not understand.

Precinct 3 had 324 votes for Obama and 0 votes for Romney. Had someone from that precinct *accidentally* voted for Romney, then the vote would have been 323-1. Then, instead of it being 59 precincts and 19,650-0 it would have been 19,649-1. But wait - we're only counting precincts that had 0 votes for Romney. So now we'd be at 58 precincts and 19,326-0. And you righties would be claiming that 58 precincts and 19,326-0 is a statistical anomaly.

So, let's take out Precinct 6 (389-0), assuming again that at least one person *accidentally* voted for Romney. Now we're down to 57 precincts and 18,937-0. And what happens? You simply use the same argument.

And on and on and on.

Heck, we can take out ALL BUT ONE precinct (Precinct 15, perhaps), and you'd still use the same argument - "251-0? Not one person in that precinct made a mistake and *accidentally* voted for Romney? That's a statistical anomaly!!!"

But the REAL statistical anomaly would be how so many precincts had just 1 or 2 votes for Romney with only 1 precinct having 0 votes for him.
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 7:35:59 AM

rjhenn: "As usual...."

From someone who hasn't had a clear thought in years, that's a strange one.

rjhenn: "They weren't "cherry picked". They were the only ones of the 1,687 that had zero votes for Romney."

You'll note that "cherry picked" is in quotation marks. That means that I was quoting someone else.

rjhenn: "Are you trying to tell me that you expect every one of those precincts to have had at least one vote for Romney?"

Did I ever even hint at that? Instead of being so intent on attacking me, your time would be better spent actually reading what I wrote.

rjhenn: "That seems well within possibility."

I never said it was impossible. I said there was a low probability that 19,000 votes would be cast without error. I stand by that. Is it possible? Sure.

[Edited by: turbosaab at 11/15/2012 7:41:46 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Tru2psu2
Champion Author Winston-Salem

Posts:17,638
Points:2,113,160
Joined:Feb 2004
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 7:22:08 AM

confine myself to the factual.
--------------------
factual?
Profile Pic
jeskibuff
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:10,638
Points:2,038,750
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 7:03:59 AM

EKEugene said: >if you or I were going to "fix" an election count, would we be so stupid as to give the other guy ZERO votes? Like that wouldn't be noticed?<

That's like saying "if either you or I were to publish our forged birth certificates on the internet, would we be so stupid as to leave dozens of blatant clues on the document that indicated beyond a doubt that it was fabricated? Like, wouldn't everybody be in an uproar if such fraud occurred?"
Profile Pic
RogerB
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:20,865
Points:3,218,320
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 2:31:10 AM

South Park Reveals the truth!: Romney really won the election, but Cartman stole the election for Obama.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,310
Points:2,796,670
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 2:15:20 AM

turbosaab - ""I agree that a lopsided vote tally would be expected for those "cherry-picked" precincts. *But*, as others have pointed out, the unexpected aspect of the 19,000 to 0 count is that there were no mistakes. Not a single person accidentally voted for Romney. That's a statistical anomaly. That anomaly makes the vote count suspicious."

As usual, you haven't even tried to think this through, but jumped straight to your desired result. Those 59 precincts were 59 out of 1,687. They weren't "cherry picked". They were the only ones of the 1,687 that had zero votes for Romney. The average number of votes for each of the 1,687 precincts was 54.5. Are you trying to tell me that you expect every one of those precincts to have had at least one vote for Romney? After all, Obama got 85% of the vote in those 1,687 precincts. It would be a statistical anomaly if none of them had zero votes for Romney. As it is, only about 3.5% of the 1,687 precincts had zero votes for Romney.

That seems well within possibility.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 11/15/2012 2:18:11 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,285
Points:3,830,265
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 1:40:14 AM

King County, Texas, 5 votes were recorded for Barack Obama.
To paraphrase - "It is quite clear that a lot of Obama votes were thrown out. There is no other explanation that would explain this."
Makes just as much sense, right?
Profile Pic
PappaVanTwee
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:14,635
Points:714,710
Joined:Feb 2003
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 12:23:13 AM

>>>
It was meaningless and explained nothing. Again, pay attention the last line of my earlier post. Therein lies the truth.
<<<

Weren't you the one that said Gallup and Rasmussen were THE polls to follow? That Nate Silver couldn't hold their water? Well guess what, YOU WERE WRONG! Turns out you are wrong here, too. My proof? Constantly going to the personal insult instead of the statistics that back up your argument... oh wait, there are none.
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Nov 14, 2012 10:26:01 PM

NIckHammer: "I'm sorry you ignored an explanation and 25 lines of numbers explaining why you are wrong."

It was meaningless and explained nothing. Again, pay attention the last line of my earlier post. Therein lies the truth.
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Nov 14, 2012 9:50:07 PM

NickHammer: "Good point. I gave you way too much credit by claiming that you used any logic at all."

Pay attention to the last sentence of my last post. Why do you insist on reinforcing my point?
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,585
Points:3,165,445
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 14, 2012 9:38:31 PM

>>My logic? That doesn't even make sense.<<

Good point. I gave you way too much credit by claiming that you used any logic at all.
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Nov 14, 2012 7:44:49 PM

NickHammer: "Using your logic, it appears that voters *accidentally* voted for Romney 34 times."

My logic? That doesn't even make sense. It appears that your capabilities are far less than you think.
Profile Pic
HOTSKEL
Champion Author Pennsylvania

Posts:11,809
Points:2,215,145
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Nov 14, 2012 7:16:38 PM

In some of these wards the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that there are so few registered Republicans that in one case they tried to get in touch with all 12 only to find that 4 had moved.
Profile Pic
Zimcity
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:70,726
Points:4,251,150
Joined:Aug 2001
Message Posted: Nov 14, 2012 7:04:45 PM

Thanks Any.
Profile Pic
NE Guy
Champion Author Philadelphia

Posts:7,876
Points:1,016,390
Joined:Apr 2003
Message Posted: Nov 14, 2012 6:09:29 PM

To be clear, in Philadelphia, there are 66 voting wards.
They are in size, a few square blocks to several miles wide in the northeast. Many in North and West Philly areas are filled with densely populated row homes.
Within these wards are the divisions as mentioned in the articles. Each ward contains no fewer than 10 and no more than 50 divisions, usually 20 to 29. If a few divisions are cherry-picked from the wards, it is no surprise to find, especially in North and West sections which are overwhelmingly Black and Hispanic, zero votes for Romney.

There are no surprises here.
Profile Pic
EKEugene
All-Star Author North Carolina

Posts:589
Points:12,175
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Nov 14, 2012 6:04:30 PM


>> Got that wrong, bud! <<

I wish. Unfortunately I have agreed to confine myself to the factual. I understand there is a Bubble available but I'm not sure the Bubble Bath is productive. Just look around at this forum.


Good work there, Nick.


[Edited by: EKEugene at 11/14/2012 6:12:26 PM EST]
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,585
Points:3,165,445
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 14, 2012 5:51:56 PM

>>Are you kidding me?!? Even if all 19,000 voters in 59 wards/precincts intended to vote for Obama, which is possible, it would be expected that some small fraction of those votes would have been cast for Romney *accidentally*.<<

No, I'm not kidding you. But are you kidding me? Do you have any understanding of statistics at all? Here are the vote counts in all 18 precincts of Ward 28 (Obama-Romney):
1) 276-5
2) 266-2
3) 324-0
4) 352-1
5) 407-2
6) 389-0
7) 262-2
8) 450-2
9) 466-3
10) 308-0
11) 238-1
12) 345-4
13) 381-3
14) 284-1
15) 251-0
16) 270-5
17) 280-2
18) 381-1

To summarize Romney's votes in this ward:
0 votes: 4 precincts
1 vote:  4 precincts
2 votes: 5 precincts
3 votes: 2 precincts
4 votes: 1 precinct
5 votes: 2 precincts

Mean: 1.89. Median 2. Mode 2. And there were lots more wards just like that one. Using your logic, it appears that voters *accidentally* voted for Romney 34 times.
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 14, 2012 5:28:11 PM

There was one precinct that had zero votes for either candidate.

Turns out the Republican gerrymandering had somehow enclosed a lake.

I guess the fish could not get voter ID cards :o)
Profile Pic
worryfree
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:27,213
Points:2,409,100
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Nov 14, 2012 4:31:49 PM

Snce it was on the internet it must be true. Same for on the radio. Even though it totally defies the most basic thought processes. Oh you cons
Profile Pic
Zimcity
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:70,726
Points:4,251,150
Joined:Aug 2001
Message Posted: Nov 14, 2012 3:47:22 PM

"That those 19,000 voters cast their vote flawlessly is a statistical anomaly and raises eyebrows."

As already mentioned there were a few for other candidates and it is NOT a statistical anomaly when taking the extreme bias already present in those precincts.

If only 1 in 10,000 voters has an errant vote, than you wouldn't expect more than 1 or 2 in ALL Obama precincts to be errantly cast for other candidates.
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Nov 14, 2012 3:27:46 PM

NickHammer: "No, it would be a statistical anomaly only if they randomly selected precincts."

Are you kidding me?!? Even if all 19,000 voters in 59 wards/precincts intended to vote for Obama, which is possible, it would be expected that some small fraction of those votes would have been cast for Romney *accidentally*. That those 19,000 voters cast their vote flawlessly is a statistical anomaly and raises eyebrows.

Zimcity: "There just AREN'T any Philly Wards┬╣ where 19,000 people voted, let alone ALL for Obama."

Nobody is making that claim! The 19,000 votes were the total votes from 59 "wards" or precincts.
Profile Pic
Tru2psu2
Champion Author Winston-Salem

Posts:17,638
Points:2,113,160
Joined:Feb 2004
Message Posted: Nov 14, 2012 3:21:10 PM

I did see the state going embarrassingly red across the board, from the local vote to the POTUS.
-------------------------------
Got that wrong, bud!
Profile Pic
Zimcity
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:70,726
Points:4,251,150
Joined:Aug 2001
Message Posted: Nov 14, 2012 2:54:25 PM

"There were several wards where Romney got less than 1% of the vote, averaging fewer than 4 votes per precinct, in some cases fewer than 2. And there are at least 18 precincts in these wards. In many of these precincts, Romney did receive just one vote; maybe there was a mistake, maybe someone "accidentally voted for Romney"."

I also saw some random votes for the Libertarian and Green party candidates in precincts where Romney had 0 votes.
Profile Pic
Zimcity
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:70,726
Points:4,251,150
Joined:Aug 2001
Message Posted: Nov 14, 2012 2:35:48 PM

In looking at NickHammer's Phillyelection results link, I would highly question the 19,000 to 0 number as well.

It looks to me, like in the 28th Ward I reference below, you know the one with 12 registered Republicans, there were only 5,959 votes cast for President. There just AREN'T any Philly Wards¹ where 19,000 people voted, let alone ALL for Obama.

At the precint level the number shrinks to just 324 votes, all for Obama in Ward 28-Div 3. Also, I note that there were a handful votes cast for Republicans in the Senate and state races.

So, this looks like another case of Karl Rovian math to me.

____

¹ Well Ward 21 appears to have 19,000+ 13,818-6,268 for Obama.



[Edited by: Zimcity at 11/14/2012 2:43:20 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Zimcity
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:70,726
Points:4,251,150
Joined:Aug 2001
Message Posted: Nov 14, 2012 2:26:42 PM

"Obama's dominance was mostly confined to largely African-American areas of West and North Philadelphia. In the third division of Philadelphia's 28th Ward, for example, 94 percent of the residents are black, and the 2010 census recorded only seven white residents. Voter registration lists showed only 12 registered Republicans in the division, none of whom voted for Romney or responded to the Inquirer's requests for comment."
Topic is locked Back to Topics