I don't understand this point: > "Republican primary results showing strong statistical evidence of election manipulation in Iowa, New Hampshire, Arizona, Ohio

I don't understand this point: > "Republican primary results showing strong statistical evidence of election manipulation in Iowa, New Hampshire, Arizona, Ohio, Oklahoma, Alabama, Louisiana, Wisconsin, West Virginia and Kentucky" Primaries are crazy. There is very low turnout overall, so a few very motivated candidate campaigns or groups can really swing them and since many of those groups operate on the local level, they can cause noticeable blips. In general, statistically weird things happen during elections, because there are so many possibilities for weird things to happen. For instance, there were around 60 precincts in Philadelphia that didn't record a single Romney vote. Those precincts represented over 19,000 votes, and on the surface that would appear almost statistically impossible. But it isn't really indicative of anything and can be explained by looking at the demographics of those areas.