Updated date:

Ron Paul Won Early Primaries, Mathematicians Find. Election Judge Threatened for Calling Fraud

As analysis emerges and lawsuits on behalf of the Paul campaign are filed, it is becoming evident that Ron Paul was deprived of many strong showings and likely victories during the primary season, including in New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina. Videos taken by Paulers at state conventions have captured anecdotal evidence of dirty dealing by GOP Romney operatives, such as in Maine. Now mathematicians have shown the existence of systematic and carefully targeted vote counting fraud.

Video: Maine State Republican Convention "Dirty Tricks":

The vote counting fraud would have had the effect of depriving Paul of any momentum generated by such showings of strength, according to that mode of analysis. In Travis County, Texas, a mathematician posting at LibertyUSApac.org found clear evidence of "vote-flipping." Travis County is an important Paul stronghold which includes Austin.

The LibertyUSApac analysis, "Mathematical Proof of Vote Rigging in Travis County: Paul Win Covered Up," begins by illustrating what normal voting behavior does not look like. The official Travis County polling data, which shows each candidate's percentage as the day progresses, is in the chart below. It is followed by a chart showing normal voting patterns.

Note: the following is NOT what charted numbers should look like:


Example of a Normal Chart – No vote flipping


The analyst writes:

“This is the worst case of vote flipping I have ever seen. Note the way it starts. Romney’s green line begins under Dr. Paul’s. It then flips way up, simultaneously pushing Paul’s downward. The two lines then become mirror images. Clearly, without the cheating the real winner of this county was Dr. Ron Paul, NOT Mitt Romney."

He goes on to explain the basics of normal statistical voting behavior:

"Detailed explanation of this [above] chart:

The X-axis is the cumulative vote %. It flows in order of the precinct’s percentage of contribution to the vote totals for that county. This is roughly also by the SIZE of the precinct but not exactly.

The earliest entries cause such graphical jaggedness. This is because there is a extremely small number of votes and thus percentages are greatly affected. As these results are cumulatively added upon, any high or low percents are absorbed into the curve and balance out to what is normally a straight, flat line.

This is what you see happen to the other candidates lines. They bounce around a bit at first and then become essentially flat. This is what all results always looked like historically since forever. In other words, with increasing vote counts in precincts the graphs flatline.

This was how it was, that is until 4 [months] ago, when Romney’s charts started showing HIS line increasing with growing size of precincts, while usually just ONE other opponents line shrinking.

The analyst goes on to note with amazement that rather than "flatlining," Romney's line goes up, while only one other opponent's line shrinks: Ron Paul's.

Other Texas counties in question, according to "Dr.K.Research" at DailyPaul.com are, Brazoria County, San Antonio County, Aransas County, and Calhoun County.

The Ludwig Von Mises Institute has presented near-certain proof that Paul's primary results have been a subject of outright fraud, in "Evidence of Algorithmic Vote Flipping in GOP Primary Elections."

After presenting four charts from other elections showing what normal statistical "flat-lining" looks like, the author points out how in the case of New Hampshire 2012 primary election "something extraordinary happens." Romney's vote totals go up as time passes almost exactly mirroring Dr. Paul's going down, with all other candidates holding steady. It would be as if at 6pm one-third of the Romney voters suddenly woke up at the same time and went to vote while Dr. Paul's just stopped showing up. It doesn't happen.

Below: First 4 charts show what normal statistical "flat-lining" looks like, then the author notes that in the New Hampshire 2012 primary election "something extraordinary happens."


The Von Mises Institute post goes on to illustrate similar patterns in Polk-Des Moines County, Iowa, in Richland, South Carolina and other SC counties, in Hillsborough, NH, and in Richmond, VA. The analyst explains how, to the trained eye, the almost exact point in time can be seen when the "vote flipper" program is activated.


Now a Travis County election judge has stepped forward to cry foul, and reports that the GOP is aggressively seeking to silence her. Anne Beckett wrote in her blog in March of 2012:

"As MY number was a conservative ESTIMATE of sixty-six percent going with RON PAUL, I have a feeling the real percentage for Paul was seventy-two percent...It is just NOT possible that Mitt took Texas and, particularly, Austin or Brazoria County (HIS OWN DISTRICT!) or San Antonio (Behar County). where Dr Paul worked for so LITTLE in their poorest hospital, Santa Rosa. And there is zero chance that anyone in Texas or outside of Texas can convince me this vote-flipping was NOT DONE. "

In an exchange on July 12 on the blog of Doug Wead, a Ron Paul campaign official, Beckett said:

"Yesterday, I received an intimidating phonecall from our county elections clerk, stating i am the subject of a criminal investigation, for speaking out about the farce of a primary in Austin, Texas. I know I did not break any laws or rules (i was very careful in what I said), and I am sure they will be digging away, trying to make it so, but there’s nothing for them to find."

Beckett's radio interviews and testimony are linked extensively at DailyPaul.com.

Whether any of this will make a difference at the upcoming Republican National Convention in Tampa remains to be seen. Paul has secured his spot on the ballot so that he can be nominated and is entitled to his 15 minutes at the podium for a speech, despite flatly erroneous media reports to the contrary. A Harris Poll last Fall showed Paul beating Obama in a head-to-head match. Grumblings in the GOP rank-and-file indicate that Main Street Republicans do not have the same confidence in Mitt Romney to do the same.

Correction: Article states that X-axis in charts is votes ordered over time. In fact order is by precinct size, smallest to largest.


Jason Bourne on October 12, 2012:

it's ok.... let those people shake hands with the devil... meanwhile, the revolution will continue thanks to Ron Paul... right?

James on July 24, 2012:

Updated link with GOP results:


Ralph Lopez (author) on July 22, 2012:


Thank you for the clarification, let this serve as factual correction. I say: "The official Travis County polling data, which shows each candidate's percentage as the day progresses, is in the chart below."

The X-axis is in fact ordered by precinct size. You are also right that this does not affect the conclusion, as precinct size historically has no positive correlation with results. The dead giveaway seems to be that as Romney's results go up in a statistically impossible fashion, out of multiple candidates, only Dr. Paul's go down, in a precise mirror image. The analyst in writing on the Hillsborough, NH count notes that a "vote flipper, switched on at 25% of the total ballot count, would explain all of that in one stroke." He then goes on the explain the mathematical algorithm of a vote-flipper.

WhistlinDave on July 21, 2012:

I think your article contains an error... I don't think any of the graphs are measuring the accumulation of votes over time. Going from left to right along the X-axis of the graph, they are adding precincts going from smallest to largest precinct, not earliest counts to latest counts.

This is significant in understanding the vote flipping; it was not done in the smallest precincts because whenever a re-count is ordered, most counties only re-count by hand 1% of the precincts, and they always pick the smallest precincts in order to keep it as easy as possible. So the software used to pervert the vote counts in the voting machines and/or in the central tabulator will only flip votes in the large precincts. This is why, going left to right in the graph, at a certain point (when you get to a big precinct, a minimum threshhold of number of votes in that precinct), all of a sudden now the graph takes on a statistically impossible curve. Because they're only flipping votes in the large precincts and leaving the small ones alone.

Weagle on July 19, 2012:

Ron Paul is a blessing to the world.

James on July 19, 2012:

If you are interested in the recent GOP Primary Elections results,

I encourage you to take a look at this document (both links point to the same document):



This is a slide show of graphs for all states. You might come to some interesting conclusions...

Ralph Lopez (author) on July 19, 2012:

Oh dear am ever so grateful to you for spotting that, corrected. Of course I meant Obama.

Jim McClarin on July 19, 2012:

You err in your last paragraph. A Harris Poll last Fall DID NOT show Paul beating Romney in a head-to-head match. It showed Paul beating OBAMA. Look, I don't mean to be overly critical because I know it's easy to get those two confused...