Difference between revisions of "United States presidential election, 2012"
(→Calculations: Oklahoma added) |
(→Calculations: Oklahoma code works (on desktop) and confirms Choquette results!) |
||
Line 202: | Line 202: | ||
data$Precinct <- as.factor(data$Precinct) | data$Precinct <- as.factor(data$Precinct) | ||
+ | data.ok <- read.csv("c:/temp/PrimaryElection2012OKresults_20120306.csv") | ||
+ | data.ok <- data.ok[data.ok$Race_desc == "FOR PRESIDENT" & data.ok$Race_party == "REPUBLICAN" , ] | ||
+ | data.ok$Cand_desc <- data.ok$Cand_desc[ , drop = TRUE] | ||
+ | ggplot(data.ok, aes(x = County, weight = Total_votes, fill = Cand_desc)) + geom_bar(position = "stack") | ||
+ | data.ok$Precinct <- as.factor(data.ok$Precinct) | ||
+ | Totals <- as.data.frame(as.table(tapply(data.ok$Total_votes, data.ok["Precinct"], sum))) | ||
+ | data.ok <- merge(data.ok, Totals) | ||
+ | data.ok$Support <- data.ok$Total_votes / data.ok$Freq | ||
+ | |||
+ | data.ok <- data.ok[order(data.ok$Freq), ] | ||
+ | for(i in levels(data.ok$Cand_desc)) { | ||
+ | data.ok$Cumvote[data.ok$Cand_desc == i] <- cumsum(data.ok$Total_vote[data.ok$Cand_desc == i]) | ||
+ | data.ok$Cumfreq[data.ok$Cand_desc == i] <- cumsum(data.ok$Freq[data.ok$Cand_desc == i]) | ||
+ | } | ||
+ | |||
+ | data.ok$Cumsupport <- data.ok$Cumvote / data.ok$Cumfreq | ||
+ | |||
+ | fig <- function(candidate) { | ||
+ | out <- ggplot(data.ok[data.ok$Cand_desc == candidate , ], aes(x = Freq, y = Support)) + | ||
+ | geom_point(shape=1) + # Use hollow circles | ||
+ | geom_smooth() + # Add a loess smoothed fit curve with confidence region | ||
+ | scale_x_log10() | ||
+ | return(out) | ||
+ | } | ||
+ | |||
+ | cumfig <- function(candidate) { | ||
+ | out <- ggplot(data.ok[data.ok$Cand_desc == candidate , ], aes(x = Cumfreq, y = Cumsupport)) + | ||
+ | geom_point(shape = 1) + | ||
+ | geom_smooth() | ||
+ | return(out) | ||
+ | } | ||
+ | |||
+ | ggplot(data.ok, aes(x = Cumfreq, y = Cumsupport, colour = Cand_desc)) + | ||
+ | geom_line(size = 1.2) + | ||
+ | opts( | ||
+ | axis.text.x = theme_text(size = 10), | ||
+ | axis.text.y = theme_text(size = 10), | ||
+ | axis.title.x = theme_text(size = 10), | ||
+ | axis.title.y = theme_text(size = 10, angle = 90), | ||
+ | legend.text = theme_text(size = 10), | ||
+ | legend.title = theme_text(size = 10), | ||
+ | title = "Cumulative support of candidates, Oklahoma Primary election, March 6th, 2012", | ||
+ | plot.title = theme_text(size=30) | ||
+ | ) + | ||
+ | scale_x_continuous("Cumulative vote tally") + | ||
+ | scale_y_continuous("Candidate result, %", limits = c(0, 0.5)) | ||
</rcode> | </rcode> |
Revision as of 21:28, 5 November 2012
This page is a encyclopedia article.
The page identifier is Op_en5845 |
---|
Moderator:Jouni (see all) |
This page is a stub. You may improve it into a full page, and then a rating bar will appear here. |
Upload data
|
In August 13, 2012, Francois Choquette and James Johnson published a paper claiming that there are such features in the Republican primary election results that are statistically implausible to occur in an election that has not been manipulated.[1] In Finland, the issue was first raised by the Facebook group Open Democrary Finland on October 31, 2012.
Contents
Websites describing the situation
- http://www.occupy.com/article/retired-nsa-analyst-proves-gop-stealing-elections
- http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2008_2012_ElectionsResultsAnomaliesAndAnalysis_V1.51.pdf
- http://www.publici.com/content/pima-county-election-integrity-activists-seek-accurate-audit-ballots
- http://www.occupy.com/article/retired-nsa-analyst-proves-gop-stealing-elections
Research plan
The reseach question is this:
Based on statistical analysis of the election data, is there evidence of fraud in the US presidential election, 2012?
- Collect large enough a group of volunteers capable of a) data management, b) statistical analysis, c) wiki working, d) dissemination.
- Work with the primary election data until the real presidential election data comes out on Tuesday.
- Develop data management systems for voting data in Opasnet.
- Develop statistical analyses (based on [1]) in Opasnet.
- Agree on division of tasks for the presidential election.
- When the presidential election data becomes available, manage and analyse the data immediately based on the task devision.
- Publish results widely.
Data
Various sources (not evaluated, some not very good)
- http://search.usa.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&sc=0&query=primary+election+results+2012&m=&embedded=&affiliate=usagov&filter=moderate&commit=Search
- http://www.elections.ny.gov/2012ElectionResults.html
- http://apps.sos.wv.gov/elections/results/
- http://www.nvsos.gov/silverstate2012pri/
- http://hawaii.gov/elections/results/2012/primary/ Data: http://hawaii.gov/elections/results/2012/primary/files/media.txt
- http://sos.nh.gov/2012RepPresPrim.aspx?id=12938 Data: sos.nh.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=13168
- Arizona: http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/AZ/36496/75798/en/select-county.html Arizona
- Alabama: http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/AL/38312/86349/en/summary.html
- Counties http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/AL/38312/86349/en/md_data.html?cid=30& (similar system as in Arizona)
- Louisiana: http://staticresults.sos.la.gov/03242012/03242012_Statewide.html
- West Virginia: http://apps.sos.wv.gov/elections/results/download.aspx?year=2012&eid=8
- Counties: apps.sos.wv.gov/elections/results/readfile.aspx?path=OC84LVN0YXRlQ291bnR5VG90YWxzLmNzdg==
- Kentucky: http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/KY/38672/84521/en/select-county.html
State | County-level data | Precinct-level data | Description | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Alabama | AL | [2] | ||
Alaska | AK | |||
Arizona | AZ | |||
Arkansas | AR | |||
California | CA | |||
Colorado | CO | |||
Connecticut | CT | |||
Delaware | DE | |||
Florida | FL | |||
Georgia | GA | |||
Hawaii | HI | |||
Idaho | ID | |||
Illinois | IL | |||
Indiana | IN | |||
Iowa | IA | |||
Kansas | KS | |||
Kentucky | KY | [3] [4] | ||
Louisiana | LA | [5] | Counties separately | |
Maine | ME | |||
Maryland | MD | |||
Massachusetts | MA | |||
Michigan | MI | |||
Minnesota | MN | |||
Mississippi | MS | |||
Missouri | MO | |||
Montana | MT | |||
Nebraska | NE | |||
Nevada | NV | |||
New Hampshire | NH | |||
New Jersey | NJ | |||
New Mexico | NM | |||
New York | NY | |||
North Carolina | NC | |||
North Dakota | ND | |||
Ohio | OH | Excel 6th March | ||
Oklahoma | OK | Zip 6th March | ||
Oregon | OR | |||
Pennsylvania | PA | |||
Rhode Island | RI | |||
South Carolina | SC | |||
South Dakota | SD | |||
Tennessee | TN | |||
Texas | TX | |||
Utah | UT | |||
Vermont | VT | |||
Virginia | VA | |||
Washington | WA | |||
West Virginia | WV | [6] 8th May | ||
Wisconsin | WI | |||
Wyoming | WY |
From the Coquette and Johnson paper
- US Census Bureau: Census 2000 U.S. Gazetteer Files. County locations: [7]
- US Census Bureau: Population, Housing Units, Area, and Density 2010. Broken?
- Iowa Election Results, January 3, 2012: [8]
- New Hampshire Election Results, January 10, 2012: [9]
- Arizona Election Results, February 28, 2012: [10] [11]
- Ohio Election Results, March 6, 2012: [12]
- Oklahoma Election Results, March 6, 2012: [13]
- Alabama Election Results, March 13, 2012: [14] [15]
- Louisiana Election Results, March 24, 2012: [16] [17]
- Wisconsin Election Results, April 3, 2012: [18]
- West Virginia Election Results, May 8, 2012: [19]
- Kentucky Election Results, May 22, 2012: [20]
- [21] [22]
Unsuccessful searches of the claimed fraud
The claim that a major presidential candidate is in the finals because of an election fraud is a very severe one. One could assume that this would make headlines, if evidence is strong. However, nothing has been found from the major U.S. daily newspapers.
- The Wall Street Journal
- USA Today
- ABC News
- New York Times
- Los Angeles Times
- Washington Post
- Chicago Tribune
- Wikipedia talk page about the election (fraud issue raised 29th October, no activity since)
Calculations
See also
References
Related files
<mfanonymousfilelist></mfanonymousfilelist>