The Democratic Underground "Clincher" thread is instructive. It encompassed the essential core issues of the 2004 polling debates which began on DU immediately after the election. "Clincher" posters were major participants in hundreds of related discussions/debates. It is suspected that thousands of lurkers (media pundits, politicians, mathematicians, researchers and other interested parties) viewed the discussions.

The Clincher (June 21, 2005)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x379573

The "Clincher" led to the famous "Game" thread two months later. Naysayers of the preliminary exit poll results (which all showed Kerry winning) were challenged in the Clincher to provide a feasible (and plausible) scenario of how Bush could have won by 62-59m.

The Game (Aug. 21, 2005)
http://progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=120&topic_id=194
_________________________________________________________________________________

The "Clincher" was a sensitivity analysis in which a FEASIBLE MIX (unlike the IMPOSSIBLE Final NEP 43/37% mix) of Bush/Gore returning voters was assumed. The mix was based on the 2000 recorded vote reduced by 3.5% mortality. Kerry won ALL 120 scenarios of returning 2000 voter turnout and Kerry/Bush shares of new voters.

To illustrate the implausibility of the recorded "mandate", Bush was given a turnout ASSUMPTION ADVANTAGE; living Bush 2000 voter turnout in 2004 was assumed to be a PERFECT 100% while Gore voter turnout ranged from 100% DOWN to 88.6%. Kerry share of new voters ranged from 54-59%. Preliminary 12:22am NEP (13047 respondents) vote shares were assumed as the base case; the new (DNV) Kerry/Bush vote shares were varied.

Bush had 50.5 million RECORDED votes in 2000. Approximately 2 million died before the 2004 election, so AT MOST 48.5 million could have voted in 2004 (assuming 100% turnout).

The rules of the "Game" included stipulating the obvious: there had to be FEWER returning 2000 voters in 2004 than actually voted in 2000. The stipulation was necessary because the Final 2004 National Exit Poll (NEP) indicated an impossible 43/37% Bush/Gore weighting mix of the 2004 electorate (43% of 122.3 million is 52.6m). According to the Final 2004 NEP, returning Bush voters outnumbered those who actually voted in 2000 by nearly 5 million. These were the infamous "phantom" Bush voters.

The exit poll naysayers could not provide a plausible Bush win scenario in the "Game". In order to match the recorded vote, they had to increase the already-inflated Final NEP Bush vote shares of returning and new voters. This only confirmed that the the unadjusted state exit polls and preliminary NEP were essentially correct- before they were FORCED in the Final to MATCH the bogus "PHANTOM" recorded vote.

The issues discussed in the "Clincher" are still relevant today: Democratic landslides in 2006 and 2008 were denied by massive fraud. And yet the so-called progressive media is still coldly silent on Election Fraud. Where are you Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, Bill Moyers? Where are you Pelosi, Reid, Obama?

Please excuse my (admittedly biased) comment at the beginning of most of the posts. I included them to indicate my thoughts which may or may not have been expressed later.

The thread is presented in 6 parts, so the reader will have a chance of taking naps right after each. Some may think it boring; hopefully, most readers will find the comments interesting and illuminating.

Note: An April 2005 DU poster was one of the first to float "false recall". The poster was banned. A month later, "OnTheOtherHand" joined DU and has been promoting "false recall" ever since. It's all he's got.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x352402

***********************************************************************************

RETURN OF THE CLINCHER: Kerry wins 120 of 120 scenarios
Edited on Tue Jun-21-05 02:12 PM by TruthIsAll

TIA:
I posted this months back but it needs repeating.

Assume that 100% of Bush 2000 voters still alive (48.7 million, or 39.82% of 122.26) turned out to vote in 2004. Assume that the Final National Exit Poll "How Voted in 2000" weighting for Gore (37%) was correct. In fact, let's assume that ALL Final National Exit Poll (13660respondents) statistics are correct. Remember, the Final was the ONLY poll Bush won. Even assuming all of this, Kerry still wins by 50.22%-48.4%, a 2.23 million vote margin. See Case # 14 and the Final Exit poll column (Kerry 54% of new voters). Kerry won each of the 8349, 11027 and 13047 respondent National Exit Poll time lines (3:39pm, 7:33pm, 12:22am,respectively) by 51-48%

KERRY IS THE WINNER OF ALL 120 TURNOUT SCENARIOS IN WHICH WE ASSUME CONSTANT 100% BUSH 2000 VOTER TURNOUT AND DECLINING
GORE VOTER TURNOUT (100% TO 88.6%). HOW COULD THIS BE?

HERE'S HOW:
ACCORDING TO THE FINAL EXIT POLL (WHICH BUSH WON), KERRY WON 54% OF NEW VOTERS. EVEN IN THE WORST CASE SCENARIO (CASE 20) IN WHICH WE ASSUME A MISERABLE 88.6% Gore TURNOUT (35.50% OF 122.26), KERRY STILL WINS BY 49.66% - 48.94%. THAT'S AN 870,000 VOTE MARGIN.
See Case# 14 and the Final Exit poll column (Kerry 54% of new voters)



KERRY NATIONAL VOTE SCENARIOS
New Voter Share and Gore 2000 Voter Turnout
(Assume 100% Turnout of Bush 2000 voters)

Assumed Prelim. Prelim. Final Returning
Turnout Turnout 7:33pm 12:22am 2:05pm Vote Mix
Bush Gore 11027 13047 13660 Bush Gore

KERRY SHARE OF NEW VOTERS
Case 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54%

1 100.0% 100.0% 52.28% 52.11% 51.94% 51.77% 51.59% 51.42% 39.82% 40.25%
2 100.0% 99.4% 52.20% 52.03% 51.85% 51.68% 51.50% 51.33% 39.82% 40.00%
3 100.0% 98.8% 52.12% 51.95% 51.77% 51.59% 51.41% 51.23% 39.82% 39.75%
4 100.0% 98.2% 52.04% 51.86% 51.68% 51.50% 51.32% 51.14% 39.82% 39.50%
5 100.0% 97.6% 51.96% 51.78% 51.60% 51.42% 51.23% 51.05% 39.82% 39.25%

6 100.0% 97.0% 51.88% 51.70% 51.51% 51.33% 51.14% 50.96% 39.82% 39.00%
7 100.0% 96.4% 51.80% 51.62% 51.43% 51.24% 51.05% 50.86% 39.82% 38.75%
8 100.0% 95.8% 51.72% 51.53% 51.34% 51.15% 50.96% 50.77% 39.82% 38.50%
9 100.0% 95.2% 51.64% 51.45% 51.26% 51.07% 50.87% 50.68% 39.82% 38.25%
10 100.0% 94.6% 51.56% 51.37% 51.17% 50.98% 50.78% 50.59% 39.82% 38.00%

11 100.0% 94.0% 51.48% 51.29% 51.09% 50.89% 50.69% 50.49% 39.82% 37.75%
12 100.0% 93.4% 51.40% 51.20% 51.00% 50.80% 50.60% 50.40% 39.82% 37.50%
13 100.0% 92.8% 51.32% 51.12% 50.92% 50.72% 50.51% 50.31% 39.82% 37.25%
14 100.0% 92.2% 51.24% 51.04% 50.83% 50.63% 50.42% 50.22% 39.82% 37.00%
15 100.0% 91.6% 51.16% 50.96% 50.75% 50.54% 50.33% 50.12% 39.82% 36.75%

16 100.0% 91.0% 51.08% 50.87% 50.66% 50.45% 50.24% 50.03% 39.82% 36.50%
17 100.0% 90.4% 51.00% 50.79% 50.58% 50.37% 50.15% 49.94% 39.82% 36.25%
18 100.0% 89.8% 50.92% 50.71% 50.49% 50.28% 50.06% 49.85% 39.82% 36.00%
19 100.0% 89.2% 50.84% 50.63% 50.41% 50.19% 49.97% 49.75% 39.82% 35.75%
20 100.0% 88.6% 50.76% 50.54% 50.32% 50.10% 49.88% 49.66% 39.82% 35.50%



***********************************************************************************
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) - as usual, steps right in try to refute the analysis
Wed Aug-17-05 09:09 AM
Response to Original message
9. I'm still waiting for an clarification
of whether I am supposed to take such arguments seriously, or whether they are just intended to rally the troops, and I should leave well enough alone.

As it stands, the post pretty much refutes itself: "...let's assume that ALL Final National Exit Poll (13660 respondents) statistics are correct." Obviously you aren't assuming that, since you are seeking to refute the statistic that says that Bush won. (And of course you and I agree that E/M had to reweight the responses in order to obtain that result.)

So the reader is left with the riddle of figuring out which statistics you are accepting, and which not. I haven't figured it out yet.

You stipulate (for purposes of argument) that 48.7 million Bush 2000 voters turned out again in 2004.

You stipulate that 37% of 2004 voters were Gore 2000 voters. Using the figure of 122.26 million presidential votes in 2004, that's 45.24 million Gore 2000 voters.

You stipulate, I guess, that voters who didn't vote in 2000 (new voters plus lapsed voters?) were 17% of the electorate and that they split for Kerry 54-45. And I guess you also stipulate that the 3% who reported "other" for 2000 vote split for Kerry 71-21. (These numbers from the final weighted national results.)

And I guess you stipulate that the Gore 2000 voters split 90-10 for Kerry, and the Bush 2000 voters split 91-9 for Bush, as in the final weighted results.

So, we have, in millions:
48.7 Bush 2000 voters: 44.32 Bush, 4.38 Kerry
45.2 Gore 2000 voters: 4.52 Bush, 40.71 Kerry
20.78 did not vote 2000: 9.35 Bush, 11.22 Kerry
3.67 voted "other" 2000: 0.77 Bush, 2.60 Kerry

Totals: 58.96 Bush, 58.92 Kerry (K picks up an extra 0.01 from rounding error).

Why these figures don't agree with yours, I cannot tell.

Now, why don't those numbers agree with the official result that Bush won by about 3 million votes? Have you used E/M's assumptions to refute the official results?

Assuming that E/M's pocket calculators work, we can safely infer that you are making some other assumption contrary to E/M's. And that assumption, of course, is in the number of people you are putting in the "Bush 2000" category. The exit poll puts 43% of voters in that category. 43% of 122.26 would be 52.57 Bush 2000 voters instead of 48.7 -- and those extra 3.87 million voters, breaking 91/9 for Bush, net him over 3 million votes in margin. Of course this exercise doesn't prove anything, except that the exit poll results are weighted to the official returns, which we knew in the first place.

So we are back to the argument about the 43%/37% recalled vote.

You can always twiddle assumptions, turn cranks, and generate as many "scenarios" as you like, but you can't refute the weighted poll while accepting its assumptions, unless there is an actual calculation error. It is considered good form to specify which assumptions you are challenging and why.

The 43/37 debate was worth having, and might even be worth having again. But burying that debate in a pile of "scenarios" does not seem useful to me. Except perhaps, again, as a means of rallying the troops.

***********************************************************************************
Land Shark (1000+ posts) - refutes the OTOH argument from a lawyer's perspective
Wed Aug-17-05 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. While "inconsistent", there's nothing wrong with accepting final exit poll

(I'm responding to the first 3 paragraphs of otoh directly above.)

While "inconsistent", there's nothing wrong with accepting final national exit poll numbers as true in order to show that various internal inconsistencies or impossibilities are therefore necessary to support them when accepted as true, and thereafter using those same inconsistencies or impossibilities as evidence that the final national exit poll numbers showing bush victory (which otoh expressly agrees in the above post had to be changed to show a bush victory) are not correct because they can not be a valid reweighting process leading to MORE accuracy when subject to such unlikely internal tensions and inconsistencies.

Lawyers do this "assuming as true" process all the time for purposes of motions to dismiss: the court assumes that all allegations in the complaint are true, then the court can only dismiss the complaint at the motion to dismiss stage of the process if, after being accepted as true, the allegations of the complaint still fail to state a cognizable legal claim (i.e. fails to make legal sense).

General Form:
If X is true, then Y and Z necessarily follow as being true. But Y and Z can't be true, therefore X is likely not true either, (or is not true at all).

You can quibble with details of this style of argument, but you can't allege that one must either accept the exit poll numbers or reject them, and that assuming them as true for purposes of analysis is somehow confusing or illogical. And that you're still trying to figure out (in effect) which side TIA is on.

I think it was Keats who coined the term "negative capability" referring to the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time as being one of the hallmarks of intellect. Indeed, interplay between two or more forces in conflict is necessary to understand the world and both of these forces in tension are "true", it is not "one or the other". Here, TIA goes one step further by showing that these two "forces" as it were can not logically exist in the presence of each other, so we need not accept the simultaneous co-existence of final national exit poll numbers showing * victory and the data it is claimed to be derived from.

It doesn't appear to me that TIA in any way needs to choose "one or the other" in terms of either rejecting final national exit polls results, or accepting them provisionally and for purposes of debate only.

***********************************************************************************
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) - claims he cannot reconstruct the assumptions, even though the sensitivity analysis table was self-explanatory.
1) 0.87% annual mortality
2) 100% returning Bush voter turnout in 2004
3) a range of returning Gore voter turnout from 100% to 88%;
4) 12:22am National exit poll vote shares
5) a range of Kerry shares of new voters (DNV) from 54-59%

Wed Aug-17-05 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #10

11. I don't object to the fact that he uses assumptions

I object to the analytical incoherence of the argument.

If we assume that all the NEP statistics are true, then there is no internal contradiction (barring an undemonstrated calculation error).

I tried to reconstruct the assumptions that TIA actually used in his analysis, and couldn't. So I cannot know specifically which of those assumptions vary from NEP's.

TIA's results are only as good as his assumptions, and if we can't even identify the assumptions -- much less consider whether they are better or worse than NEP's -- then we are nowhere.

I get the impression from your post that TIA has evoked the appearance of an internal contradiction in the NEP figures that (as far as I can tell, and as the rest of my post attempted to illustrate) doesn't actually exist.

I assume that some of NEP's assumptions are indeed measurably wrong. It is my impression that the way in which they have weighted to the official returns will distort some of the crosstabs. Unfortunately, even if I am right, it doesn't shed any light on why the unweighted results differ from the official returns.

***********************************************************************************
autorank (1000+ posts) - refers to poster Febble agreement that the mathematical argument is a good one.
Wed Aug-17-05 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Ahoy!!! Here substantive analysis (from you):

febble on TIA's argument (Hobson's Choice): "This is a good argument. It makes mathematical sense." Full text and link below.

***********************************************************************************
Febble (357 posts) Sat Jun-25-05 05:00 AM - explains that she agrees with the TIA math, but also maintains that the exit polls were biased because Kerry voters responded at a higher rate than did Bush voters. Furthermore, she says, the exit polls are re-weighted to conform to the actual results. She doesn't know how the re-weighting is done, but it is standard procedure. Unfortunately, Febble fails to take the exit pollsters to task in their circular reasoning of matching to the vote in the first place (and assuming that the vote count was pristine.)

Response to Reply #41
49. OK, to put the record straight:
Edited on Sat Jun-25-05 05:21 AM by Febble
I referred to TIA on DKos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/22/183230/208
so it is only fair that I comment here.

Here is where I agree with TIA:
I agree that his table showing the "12.22" exit poll responses shows a) Kerry winning and b) proportions of respondents who say they voted for Bush and Gore respectively that match the proportions that actually voted for Bush and Gore in 2000.

One possible interpretation therefore, is that the poll responses accurately reflected both the proportions of votes in 2000 and the proportions of votes in 2004.

I also agree with TIA that his table showing the "1.25" responses shows a) Kerry losing and b) proportions of respondents who say they voted for Bush and Gore that do not match the proportions who actually voted for Bush and Gore in 2000. Moreover, I agree with TIA that not only are the proportions wrong for the 2000 vote in the second table, the proportions are impossible, as it that implies more repeat Bush voters in 2004 than actually voted for Bush in 2000.

One possible interpretation of this, therefore, is that the responses have been reweighted to match the results (we know this was done), but that the fact that this reweighting makes the plausible number of Bush repeat voters implausible (and in fact, impossible) suggests that the vote count used for the reweighting must have been fraudulent.

This is a good argument. It makes mathematical sense. And I agree that it is suggestive that the Gore/Bush proportions in the early table actually match the vote-count Gore/Bush proportions, a point in favour of their veracity. So far so good.

Here is where I diverge from TIA's thinking:

Suppose there is a discrepancy between the count and the poll, as there was. And that this was either due to the fact that Kerry voters had been polled at, say 1.12 times the rate of Bush voters, or that a proportion of Kerry votes had been switched to Bush (I haven't worked out the proportion, but I know TIA has).

When the precinct results start to come in, the E-M computer program will start to discover this, and reweight the projections in line with the precinct results. I do not know how this is done, only that it is done, and I know this from the E-M FAQ:

***********************************************************************************
Febble (1000+ posts) - claims the raw data is released (TIA: of course, the precinct identifiers are missing, which is what statistical analysts want to see).
Wed Aug-17-05 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #33
39. "voluntary withholding"

means conforming to AAPOR ethical guidelines. They don't have permission NOT to keep it under wraps. But like I said, the raw data is released. There are files for each state so you can do state-level analysis. Only the precinct identifiers are missing. You can download it yourself, here

ftp://ftp.icpsr.umich.edu/pub/FastTrack/General_Electio... /

When I get permission to use confidential data for a study, what I can do with it is strictly limited. I can publish my analyses, but must not do so in such away that any respondent can be identified, and I have to carefully secure all material that could identify the respondent. If I did not agree to this I would not get permission from my ethics committee to conduct the study. Same applies for the exit polls.

And I voted Labour at the last election. I have my reasons.

***********************************************************************************
Land Shark (1000+ posts) - asks why the secrecy; no need to name the actual voters
Wed Aug-17-05 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #39
62. the only secrecy even arguably necessary is not connecting voters to votes

Edited on Wed Aug-17-05 09:15 PM by Land Shark
anything more than that is not a requirement of democracy and arguably the needs of democracy should prevail. (perhaps somebody's professional "ethics" require a secrecy more than anonymity of data reporters but even if so that "extra" conflicts with and ought to yield to the more fundamental ethics of democracy)

Besides, i can't imagine an exit poll subject demanding anything more (if they request anything at all) than secrecy of their ballot provides. The survey form can be easily designed to make it impossible to connect a particular voter to a particular voting survey form such as (for starters) not collecting their name.

***********************************************************************************
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) - asks why is the raw data necessary? How will it "save" democracy by releasing it? (TIA would like to ask OTOH the converse: How does NOT releasing the raw data HURT our democracy?).

Wed Aug-17-05 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #62
65. they would need to stop collecting demographics
which is not unthinkable (apparently the British exit polls don't), but we can't do it retroactively for the 2004 election. The Census Bureau, Federal Reserve, etc. have extensive policies and procedures regarding the blurring of individual data so that people can't be identified by their demographics. Precincts are small. And the demographics have already been released (as in prior exit polls), so they can't be blurred retroactively.
As I say in my other post, if you can explain to me how releasing the raw data will save democracy -- or even materially help -- then let's talk about it. I am not a privacy purist.

***********************************************************************************
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) - the raw data would not prove anything anyway (TIA: but it would sure resolve a lot of unanswered questions. Isn't that what it is all about?)
Thu Aug-18-05 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #77
92. I think you misunderstand my point
I am not asking you to prove the case before seeing the data. I am asking you to explain how the raw data (as opposed to the data already released for all states, or the blurred Ohio data that ESI analyzed) could conceivably be used to prove the case -- or even to advance the investigation. If no one can actually answer this question, then I see no grounds for releasing the data. Or, to put it differently, the only grounds would be the abstract (and controversial) premise that the data are inherently public.
If someone _can_ answer this question, then let's discuss it. But why are we so hung up on the inherently inconclusive exit poll data, when what we really need is verifiable ballots? I don't get it.

***********************************************************************************
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) -again asks what can the raw data "prove"?
Fri Aug-19-05 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #129
155. Melissa G, I think you are missing my question
I understand that you believe that the raw exit poll results would prove that Bush stole the election.
But I do not understand how you would use the raw exit poll results to prove this.
By the way, this isn't the same question as whether Bush stole the election (or, maybe more to the immediate point, stole the popular vote?). Assuming that he did, how could the raw exit poll results be used to prove this?
We know that the exit polls differ from the official returns. We know that some people think the discrepancy is due to fraud, while others think that it was due to bias (and many don't know what they think, or opt for some combination of fraud and bias, etc. etc.). Will access to the raw data resolve that debate, and if so, how? Or, in what other way will access to the raw data be important?
If I am misframing the question(s) because I miss your point, of course please answer the question(s) I should have asked instead.

***********************************************************************************
Melissa G (1000+ posts) - nor a quant, but it would be very useful. Isn't this what academics do- look at the data?
Sat Aug-20-05 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #155
163. Hi OTOH,
Edited on Sat Aug-20-05 12:15 AM by Melissa G
You got it mostly right.
I am not a Quant but as you know I talk to Quants and they have told me they believe it would be useful and it make sense to me that it would be useful. I like facts. I like holding them up to the light and seeing what they reflect. Certain people see more in numbers than i do but i see a lot in the concepts that those folks interpret. I don't know if we can accurately anticipate in advance what we can see from looking at the data that we don't yet have access to but I am sure it would be interesting and likely very useful one way or another.
Every bit of data we have looked at so far has been worth glancing at though good folks may differ in interpretation of the various weight of worth.
Is this not what most academics spend their life doing?
The question that has been in my mind since the night of the election
is where did the 9 to 11 million votes Bush could not possibly have gotten come from? (I suspect thin air and programming of some sort or another but not real live voters) I believe the release of the raw blurred data could shed light on this. edit sp

***********************************************************************************
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) - liberals work for E/M; let someone can buy the data
Sat Aug-20-05 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #163
182. OK, speaking as one of that strange tribe...
It is hard for me to think of data that I would not regard as potentially useful. I want it all. And actually, that may be the Achilles' heel of many of the quants who are asking for fuller disclosure. They want it all, but they haven't worked out specifically why they want it all; they more feel in their guts that somehow they could make it prove something.
I'm reasonably certain that some Democrats and liberals work for E/M, so if there were really a conclusive insight into fraud there, I think we would know by now. ("Insight" -- conceivably evidence, but even a strong indication of how or where to look.)
I think the San Diego case illustrates one of the limitations here. They know there is a discrepancy between their survey and the official returns in 11 precincts. In their case, they know which 11 precincts. But knowing the 11 precincts doesn't seem to help very much.
I would like someone to come up with the money it would take to compile "blurred" data for at least Florida and New Mexico as was done for Ohio. It bothers me, however, that there hasn't been much comment on the Ohio analysis. It says to me, as I think I predicted a few months ago, that a handful of people may be convinced and everyone else will go on believing what they previously believed.

***********************************************************************************
Land Shark (1000+ posts) - privacy is a "red-herring"
Thu Aug-18-05 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #65
96. the standard of preserving privacy is not whether or not a dedicated
person could conceivably, in a few cases, determine identity by combining demographic data in small precincts....
A person can find anyone's social security number if they really want to. Yet that's private too. THe demographic data is not a bar to disclosure unless someone Wants it to be.

***********************************************************************************
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) - quotes aaorp "ethical standards"
Fri Aug-19-05 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #96
156. the standard for privacy
per AAPOR ethical standards, is:
"Unless the respondent waives confidentiality for specified uses, we shall hold as privileged and confidential all information that might identify a respondent with his or her responses."
Seems reasonable to interpret that fairly strictly when people's votes are at issue.
Of course, by that same token, if someone can come up with a reason why fuller disclosure will make a huge difference, then I might support legal action to compel fuller disclosure. Haven't seen one yet.

***********************************************************************************
anaxarchos (776 posts) - wants explanation from febble on consistancy bias"
Thu Aug-18-05 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #18
116. I am really glad you brought this up again...
It stuck in my head the last time you said it but to have questioned it would have diverted the discussion.
The issue is "the final Bush/Gore proportions diverge from what is possible in exactly the way that one would expect - that people like to report have previously voting for the person they are currently voting for. I think it is known as the "consistency bias"."
I've never heard of that. Could you educate me please...
Also, what is "consistency bias" in this context? I've heard of it in econometrics (where it refers to something completely different) but not in polling. References please?

***********************************************************************************
anaxarchos (776 posts) - want explanation of why the final Bush/Gore proprtions diverge...
Thu Aug-18-05 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #118
126. Thank you, Febble, for your prompt response....

I know nothing of "social psychology" and I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth (U.S. saying... sorry) but I was hoping to get something a little more usable than what you sent me. All I was able to find from your reference was a single sentence in a review of a book on human memory which reads : "Schacter notes five major kinds of bias: consistency, change, hindsight, egocentric, and stereotypical. With a consistency bias there is a tendency to view the past as more consistent with the present than it was...".

I'm afraid that is even less germaine than my consistency bias from econometrics.
I was specifically looking for the explanation to this: "the final Bush/Gore proportions diverge from what is possible in exactly the way that one would expect - that people like to report have previously voting for the person they are currently voting for. I think it is known as the 'consistency bias'."

No matter...

I think the rest of your post helps. Your next two "tendencies" sound strangely familiar although the wording is a bit different (might be a US/UK thing - "You say tomato and I say...", etc.). So... before we look at TIA, can we confirm that we are talking about the same thing? I think I am much better off talking about two things which I kinda recognize rather than a third thing I've never heard of.

Your first tendency is clearly the over estimation or over reporting of voting which I think is the oldest response error to be documented. What throws me a little about your reference is that in the U.S., while "misremembering", etc. are mentioned, most of the research focuses on the civic pressure to have voted (much like church attendence)... or the "salience of the civic norm of voting" as in this:

Brian D. Silver, Paul R. Abramson and Barbara A. Anderson, "The Presence of Others and Over-reporting of
Voting in American National Elections," Public Opinion Quarterly, 1986.
or this:
Stanley Presser, "Can Context Changes Reduce Vote Over-reporting?," Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter, 1990.

Are we talking about the same thing?

Your second tendency stumps me more. Judging from the time period and the "controversy" in your citation, this seems to refer to "post-election bandwagon effect" but your citation does seem to suggest "consistency" or "selective memory" which is the exact opposite of this response error as I (imperfectly) understand it. One commonly cited paper on this is:
Robert H. Prisuta, A Post-Election Bandwagon Effect? - Comparing National Exit Poll Data with a General Population Survey, SRMS/ASA 1993
available here:
http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/Proceedings/papers/...

Are we still talking about the same thing?

***********************************************************************************
Febble (1000+ posts) agrees that she finds it hard to believe Gore voters would vote for Bush, but...
Fri Aug-19-05 04:17 AM
Response to Reply #126
133. I'm not a social psychologist either
I'm a cognitive psychologist, so I'm sorry I wasn't able to come up with something a little more definitive in the way of a citation. Here's one from the cognitive literature.
http://psych.wustl.edu/memory/Roddy%20article%20PDF%27s...
But also somewhat tangential.

However both are germane in the sense that they deal with the hypothesis that memory is constructed - and that we tend to "remember" things that accord with our current construct of reality even if these are at odds with what actually happened.
But neither would be germane if there was not evidence that it happens with regards to past votes. Which is why I cited the UK pieces.

And my fundamental point is that we cannot assume that all reports of past vote are accurate, particularly when both consistency patterns (same guy both times) and bandwagon patterns (favoring incumbent) would tend to work in the direction of over-reporting of Bush votes in 2000, and would account for the apparent shortage of Gore voter in the survey.

What is rather harder (for me) to believe is that substantial numbers Gore voters would have voted for Bush. But frankly I find it hard to believe that anyone voted for Bush, and clearly they did. Some of them are even friends of mine.

**********************************************************
continued

OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) - TIA does not think about the evidence that voters misstate past votes
Sat Aug-20-05 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #151
184. you think?
I started to laugh when I reached, "ASSUMPTIONS
A 2002 VOTER SURVEY INDICATES THAT GORE VOTERS FORGOT WHO THEY VOTED FOR."
I've heard of assuming away inconvenient facts, but it doesn't come much more straightforward than that.
There is no prospect of closure on the debate unless TIA actually thinks about my evidence before he attempts to paraphrase my "assumptions." He might as well say, "I'm not listening! I'm not listening!"
And it is disappointing that you would cheer this as "elegant analysis."

***********************************************************************************
TruthIsAll (1000+ posts) - challenges OTOH to show some analysis, rather than just talk..
Sat Aug-20-05 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #184
187. Are you still doodling? So far, you have offered nothing in
the way of quantitative analysis.
Just talk.
Your evidence?
Talk is cheap.
You are very good at it.
anax, melissa, autorank and others are waiting for the outcome of your doodling.
Lets see some analysis.
You told anax you would doodle something - whatever that means.
How about firing up Excel, downloading some data, state your assumptions and run it through some scenarios?
I do it every day.
You've been here since April and have still not done it.
You talk a lot though. Very good at that.
Why don't you get your hands dirty and do some real work for a change?
So you are LOL.
If I were you, I would be COL.

***********************************************************************************
Febble (1000+ posts) - claims she has ton's of OTOH spreadsheets
Sat Aug-20-05 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #187
195. My computer is groaning
with OTOH's Excel spreadsheets and more.
Disagree with him if you like, but don't accuse him of not working hard.
I don't think he sleeps.

***********************************************************************************
TruthIsAll (1000+ posts) - so why can't DU see them?
202. Who is he crunching numbers for, you or DU?
Edited on Sat Aug-20-05 05:40 PM by TruthIsAll
So far.
Nada.
Febble, we may disagree on some things, but I have great respect for your efforts to communicate in a very clear, direct manner. And I know you will be there to counter in an engaging, well-thought out manner, even if we disagree.

BTW, am I wrong in assuming that if you do NOT reply to my posts, you agree with the basic content? I am surprised that you have not commented on several of my recent analyses. In particular, the post in which I applied the exit poll optimization model to state exit poll response - a sort of corollary to the original precinct-based optimization analysis which you have commented on. The results confirmed that alpha's are higher in Bush strongholds, be they individual precincts or states. Perhaps you could take a look.

In any case, the bottom line is that I show all my work in full view of DU. I don't pass the buck. Anyone can review the work. DUers who follows my posts knows that they will not get any BS or disruptive jargon from me. I happen to think numbers tell the story a lot better than words ever will.

Ok, maybe I do a little trash-talking at times, but only out of frustration with particular naysayers. That's because I recognize their MO and have no further patience for their relentless nit-picking and hypothecating with nothing of substance (I mean analysis) to back it up.

***********************************************************************************
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) -describes the NES panel study results
Sat Aug-20-05 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #187
196. just a crude (but pertinent) factoid
Edited on Sat Aug-20-05 03:30 PM by OnTheOtherHand
In the 2000-04 NES panel study, among the folks who reported a 2000 vote in both the 2000 postelection and the 2004 postelection survey:
Among the 308 who had voted for Gore as of 2000, 29 of them said in 2004 that they had voted for someone else in 2000 (23 Bush, 3 Nader, 2 other, 1 DK -- you can skip that one).
Among the 309 who had voted for Bush as of 2000, 6 of them said in 2004 that they had voted for someone else in 2000 (5 Gore, 1 Nader).
It will take a bit more work to see how (reported) non-voters fit in.

***********************************************************************************
TruthIsAll (1000+ posts) - only 600 respondents compared to 13k NEP and 73k state exit polls
Sun Aug-21-05 04:57 AM
Response to Reply #196
224. Wow. 600. Big sample ( 4% MoE) NEP: 13,047 (1%); State exits:73,000 (.4%)
Edited on Sun Aug-21-05 05:02 AM by TruthIsAll
Sorry.
No sale.

***********************************************************************************
TruthIsAll (1000+ posts) - absurdity of OTOH's case: assumes vote count was perfect
Sat Aug-20-05 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #118
215. You can postulate anything you like...
"So one story that would jive with the numbers is that about 10% of Gore voters who were prepared to admit they were Gore voters switched to Bush, and about 10% of voters who were prepared to admit they voted for Bush in 2000, switched to Kerry. People do that stuff. It's why we hold elections. But that wouldn't swing it. So we also have to postulate that an additional percentage of Gore voters swung to Bush and didn't admit having voted for Gore - and that this outweighed the tendency for new voters to vote for Kerry."

You can postulate anything you like. But this implies that you also assume that the recorded vote count was perfect. Only respondents memory is at fault. It implies that there was no fraud.

But we have much evidence which proves there was fraud.

So we are back to square one.Your hypothesis of faulty-recall is quite faulty - because it relies on a faulty (shall we say naive) assumption that Bushco did not cheat in the first place.
What is encouraging is this:
Your case has been reduced to absurd hypotheses.
Gore voters forget.
Gore voters lie.
Gore voters identify with Bush.
Bush voters don't.
This is all quite pathetic.

***********************************************************************************
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) - TIA ignores the basic facts
Wed Aug-17-05 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. let me rephrase it
Edited on Wed Aug-17-05 02:22 PM by OnTheOtherHand
I don't see how anyone can participate usefully in serious debate while ignoring basic facts. That is, in fact, the general principle that I intended to enunciate -- I didn't intend to hand-tailor it to one person alone.
I have a real problem here, if I attempt to explain TIA's arguments to a colleague. The colleague might say, "What does TIA say about false recall?" And I will say... what? that he calls me a crypto-Republican?
Please understand that this is a real problem whether I mention it or not. Anyone can overlook a pertinent argument, or disagree about its importance, but it ought to be engaged.
EDIT: That said, I am happy to move on.

***********************************************************************************
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) - OTOH avoids the fact that there had to be fewer returning Bush voters than those who actually voted
Wed Aug-17-05 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. I do not understand your definition of "facts"
In another thread, I wrote:
"Again, if we assume that the raw data were wrong, there is no particular reason to assume that the Bush/Gore results should be accurate. However, in the 2002 National Election Study (which interviewed both voters and non-voters), 51.6% of respondents reported having voted for George Bush in 2000, and 44.3% reported voting for Al Gore, among those who reported a 2000 presidential vote. I therefore invite you to explain why you think that the 2004 exit poll result proves fraud but the 2002 NES result proves nothing in particular."

And your response was:
"Forget polling. Deal with the facts. Answer ONE simple question. Would you calculate the MAXIMUM number of Bush 2000 voters who could have voted in 2004?"
Now, anyone can see that I posted a fact, not a hypothetical. And anyone can see that you ignored it -- and actually seem to have asked me to address a hypothetical question, instead.

If you cannot understand why the fact is pertinent (and why it does not entail that "Only Gore voters forget," or "Only Gore voters lie," or "Only Bush voters are shy"), then -- well, then at this point I don't think it's my fault.
You are giving me nothing to tell my colleagues. Not only are you strangely claiming that almost everyone already agrees with you, but you aren't giving me any way to convince them.

***********************************************************************************
TruthIsAll (1000+ posts) - wants questions about the NES study answered.
Wed Aug-17-05 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. Ok, give us the facts about this poll.
Edited on Wed Aug-17-05 03:45 PM by TruthIsAll
Who sponsored the poll?
How many were polled?
Who was polled?
What were the poll internals?
What was the purpose of the poll?
Do you recall the Gallup/CBS polls which had Bush ahead of Kerry by 12 points? Do you recall the party_ID weightings in these polls?

You
"You are giving me nothing to tell my colleagues. Not only are you strangely claiming that almost everyone already agrees with you, but you aren't giving me any way to convince them."

Me
Oh, so you are on a mission to bring the TRUTH to your colleagues. And you want to convince them they are wrong?
And that Bushco stole it?
So altruistic of you.
I'm flattered that you would even try by having them look at my posts.
Well, why don't ask them to prove that Bush won?
Why don't you ask them why the raw EM data is STILL not public?
You say that I am "strangely claiming that almost everyone already agrees with me". Well, at least 90% of DUers think the election was stolen. Of course they're biased. They're democrats or independents.
Just who did your colleagues vote for, anyway?
Who did YOU vote for?
Probably, John Tenure and Bill Job and Tom Security.

***********************************************************************************
foo_bar (1000+ posts) - tries to debunk TIA claim that a vast majority of DUers believe the election was stolen
Wed Aug-17-05 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. how many DUers think Kerry won the popular vote?
Looks to be in the 14% range:
What about the other three and a half million votes that Bush won by? You know, it's -- you cannot solve this problem by just blaming the cheaters.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Re: Well, at least 90% of DUers think the election was stolen.

***********************************************************************************
TruthIsAll (1000+ posts) - I point out the DU poll which proves I was right.
Wed Aug-17-05 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #31
57. mea culpa... it's only 89%
foo.. you are right.
I lied.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

***********************************************************************************
TruthIsAll (1000+ posts) - asks OTOH for NES details; was 43/37 a true sample or an artificial weighting to match the vote?
Thu Aug-18-05 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #21
81. Once again, regarding your 2002 poll, a few more questions..
"Again, if we assume that the raw data were wrong, there is no particular reason to assume that the Bush/Gore results should be accurate. However, in the 2002 National Election Study (which interviewed both voters and non-voters), 51.6% of respondents reported having voted for George Bush in 2000, and 44.3% reported voting for Al Gore, among those who reported a 2000 presidential vote. I therefore invite you to explain why you think that the 2004 exit poll result proves fraud but the 2002 NES result proves nothing in particular."

What is the point?
What information are you gleaning from the poll?
Unlike the 2004 exit poll, the 2002 poll did not have to match the vote.
It was just a poll.
Very good.
The results did not match the 2000 vote, did they?
Why am I not surprised?
So we can be 100% sure that the poll was pristine, right?
The 51.6% of respondents who said they voted for Bush was really 51.6%.
But how do we know that 43% of those polled in the 2004 National were Bush 2000 voters? You agreed that the weightings were ADJUSTED to match the vote.
So again, I ask you:
Was the 43% an actual sample?
Or was it a weighting applied to match the vote, as you have stated?
And if it was a weighting, not a polling result, are we not comparing apples and oranges?

In any case, do the 2002 results
1-change the fact that Gore got 540,000 more votes?
2-change the fact that at most 48.7mm Bush 2000 voters could have voted in 2004?
3-change the fact that 122.26mm voted in 2004?

What does it have to do with the questions I raised about the 2004 National Exit Poll?
About your 2002 poll:
Was there a timeline of votes earlier in the day which indicated a trend?
Like the first 8349, 1107, 13047 in the National Exit Poll which all showed Kerry winning?
Who commissioned the 2002 poll?
For what purpose?
How was the sampling done?
Where was the sampling done?
What organization was commissioned to do the actual sampling?
How many were sampled?
What was the sampling MoE?
What was the party_ID weighting of the respondents?
How was the poll weighted demographically?
What is the NES track record?
WHAT WERE THE POLLING INTERNALS?
ARE THEY PUBLIC?
Had enough?

I may have some more for you after you answer these.

**************************************************************

continued

OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) - defends NES ; failes to answer the 43/37 question
Thu Aug-18-05 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #81
102. "What is the point?"
The NES, the GSS, and other surveys in the United States and Britain (and probably elsewhere) routinely show a propensity for people to recall voting for the incumbent when they didn't. (Of course we can't know who voted for whom, but in panel studies we can actually see people changing their votes retrospectively, not all in the same direction, but collectively in favor of the incumbent.)

So, the 2004 exit poll's unweighted result that almost as many respondents reported voting for Gore as for Bush in 2000 actually suggests bias in the exit poll. The weighted result is more consistent with other surveys.

The exit poll could be unbiased, if turnout was substantially higher among Gore 2000 voters than Bush 2000 voters. But nothing requires us to believe that it was. Given the extreme partisan polarization of views about Bush, I imagine that turnout among Bush2K and Gore2K voters was fairly similar.

(Now I am bracing for a snark about my imagination, and how you stick to facts -- but no, you don't, because nobody has all the relevant facts. You certainly cannot say, accurately, that you have _proven_ that turnout was substantially higher among Gore 2000 voters.)

The NES and GSS are noteworthy in this respect because they are widely regarded as the best political surveys in the U.S., due to all the effort that goes into maximizing the response rate.

If you know as little about the NES as your questions imply, one might wonder how you have any business expressing opinions about survey research. Or you may know the answers to these questions, in which case one might wonder about your motives in asking them. You may wish to refer to http://www.umich.edu/~nes / Similarly, for more information on the GSS you might consult http://webapp.icpsr.umich.edu/GSS /

I don't need to change any of the facts you cite. I only have to attempt, over and over, to explain why they don't prove your case (even in a very weak sense of "prove"). Your case depends on assuming, implausibly, that marginal results from people who _say_ that they voted for Bush/Gore/nobody in 2000 can be mechanically applied to the numbers of people who _actually_ voted for Bush/Gore/nobody in 2000. That exercise may yield interesting results, but it cannot yield evidence of fraud.

*********************************************************************************
TruthIsAll (1000+ posts) - defends the Election Model undecided voter assumptions, Monte Carlo and final national pre-election polls
Sat Aug-20-05 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #190
197. Well, I guess we will never see your doodles after all.
Edited on Sat Aug-20-05 03:44 PM by TruthIsAll
So that just about ends it. You have lost the debate because you never made the case to begin with.

As far as your snide comments on my pre-election probabilities, I based by numbers on detailed analysis using publicly available data. I had a very clear rationale for making those projections - and did a thorough quantitavive analysis showing all the work.

That is something you have never done. The vast majority of interested DUers will surely agree with me. You have heard from a few of our best to that effect already.
If you look at my projections and probabilities on the election model site, you will see that they are grounded in logic based on factual data and very reasonable assumptions as the Kerry's expected share of the undecided vote.

If you bother to check, you will see that 11 out of the final 18 pre-election polls had Kerry ahead. These are a mix of registered voters and likely voter polls. They were NOT cherry picked. I used registered where available because I felt they were a better indicator due to the massive democratic registration efforts.

Even assuming Kerry was tied with Bush at 47% with 6% undecided on Nov. 1, it was clear that as challenger he would win, since he could reasonably expect 60-75% of the undecided based on all historic precedent. Do the simple math 47+4=51%.
Based on the AVERAGE of very public national polls, I had Kerry winning the popular vote with 51.63% of the two-party vote. The probability based on 18 independent pre-election polls (which is the equivalent of an 18,000 sample) was close to 100%.

In addition, the 5000 trial Monte Carlo simulation of the state exit polls showed that Kerry would win over 330 Electoral votes with 51.80% of the two-party vote with near 100% probability of getting over 270 electoral votes.
Turned out, I was almost exactly right.

And you have the absolute gall to suggest that Bush may have gotten 17% of Gore voters.
You have succeeded in proving to all readers that you are totally disingenuous. You are rich in palaver, short on analysis.
Very short.

*********************************************************************************
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) - Backing off 17% Gore voter defcetion, but..Kerry only had 6% of returning Bush voters
Sun Aug-21-05 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #197
231. darling!

Following one of your links on pre-election polls, I find Bush ahead in 10 "final trial heats" and Kerry ahead in 3, with one tied.
http://www.pollingreport.com/2004.htm
One can also follow the electoral-vote.com link, download the database of state polls, and do some tinkering to again show Bush ahead in the popular vote (weighted state results).

You are entitled, I guess, to alter the assumptions of (e.g.) the final Pew Research Group poll and conclude that it "actually" shows Kerry up by one (registered voters), even though the people who conducted the poll concluded that it showed Bush up by three (likely voters). That said, your pre-election "Recent National Poll Trend" graphic probably violates AAPOR professional standards. It's

OK to jigger people's numbers based on your own assumptions, but it at least should be crystal clear how you are jiggering, and it isn't. Pew reports, "Slight Bush Margin in Final Days of Campaign" (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=2... ). How hard would a reader of that site have to work in order to figure out that you were betting _against_ Pew's likely voter model while claiming their data as support for your own assumptions?

And it's not just Pew -- this is inded the basic move by which you change a Bush lead into a Kerry lead. Some folks agreed with you at the time, others (obviously including the designers of the likely voter models) disagreed, and some didn't know what to think. I would say that we still have no way to know for sure, and that is why we need election reform. But you seem to think that you do know for sure, and I regard that as surreal.

Yeah, I suggested that Bush may have gotten 17% of Gore voters, but I am backing off that now. I think it is more likely that Kerry got 6% (not 10%) of Bush2K voters and Bush got 12-13%, or so, of Gore2K voters (some of whom retrospectively defected to Bush in 2000 also). That fits the panel data better -- but maybe too well.

I am inclined to say that the one thing that is clear to people who actually look at the innards of the survey data is how unclear this entire issue is. That just might be why you rarely look at the innards of survey data. Your way is faster, and apparently confers a greater sense of certainty, to those who can believe it.

*********************************************************************************
TruthIsAll (1000+ posts) - explains 18 polls preference for RV vs. LV and Kerry won 11 of 18 polls. Where is OTOH model?
Sun Aug-21-05 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #231
235. Do your homework, darlin', I did no jiggering. I used registered voter
Edited on Sun Aug-21-05 08:14 PM by TruthIsAll

polls when they were available. In lieu of that, I used likely voters. I used 18 of the most popular polls.

You infer that I was cherry-picking. I will not infer, but I will state very clearly that you are out of control.

If you preferred the likely voter model, be my guest. But you were wrong. In this election, the registered voter polls made more sense because of the large number of new voters who were not "likely" voters having never voted.

As usual, your propensity to naysay anything I do gets in the way of logical thought. If you check MP (I don't have the link) he agreed with my assertion that Kerry led in a majority of the final national polls.

I said it was 11 of 18. I was correct. I believe he also had it just about the same.
Once again, my model predicted that Kerry would win 51.6-51.8% of the two party vote. As it turned out, I was wrong. He did even better than that. Eat your heart out.

What did your model project?

*********************************************************************************
TruthIsAll (1000+ posts) - wants to know who are the "experts" OTOH is citing
Wed Aug-17-05 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #13
24. Are these the same intelligent people..
Edited on Wed Aug-17-05 03:25 PM by TruthIsAll
You:
If you mean that I am assuming that 43% of 2004 voters _actually_ voted for Bush in 2000, and only 37% _actually_ voted for Gore in 2000 -- no, I neither assume nor believe that. I don't know anyone who does. (And so you might stop to wonder: how can anyone see that figure and not think the election was stolen? But you should ask the question seriously, not rhetorically, because many intelligent people who have seen the figure do not think the election was stolen.)

Me:
Are these the same "intelligent" people who believe that
- Bush legitimately won the 2000 election in Florida?
- the Repubs legitimately won the senate in 2002?
- Bush won Ohio without the help of Ken Blackwell?
- Bush won Florida without the help of Jeb Bush?
- The reason why Diebold/Es&S didn't include a voter-verified ballot was to save cost?
- All those new, young female voters wanted Bush?
- The reason why the early exit poll results were never mentioned in the media was because they had no meaning?
- The reason that the Final Exit Poll matched to the vote count was because the vote count is accurate?
- Mitofsky is a great exit pollster with 25 years of experience who only hired inexperienced polltakers when a Bush was running?
- The exit polls were uniformly biased throughout the states to favor Kerry?
- that it's just a coincidence that the exit polls were accurate, (according to Mitofsky's own data) in those districts where paper ballots were used?
- that Republicans who controlled the design, manufacturing and programming of the voting machines fought against a paper trail and with machines that could never pass certification?
- who give you talking points?

You mean those people?
Oh.

*********************************************************************************
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) - well, political scientists wrote articles showing Gore won FL
Wed Aug-17-05 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. I will try to respond to part of this post
Gee, which part should I choose?
Maybe the first bullet point.

Political scientists wrote quite a few articles arguing umpteen reasons why they were convinced Gore won Florida in 2000. One of them has the delightfully succinct title, "The Wrong Man is President!"

Several of these analysts have been at the forefront of attempts to analyze data from 2004. Perhaps I will leave it to you as an exercise where the author of "The Wrong Man is President!" fits in.

The idea that you are entitled to take every colleague of mine who doesn't agree with your analysis, shove a bunch of polemical claptrap in their mouths, and then dismiss them as Republican stooges...
...umm, is certainly a barrier to effective communication. I think it also discourages lucid thought.


*********************************************************************************
Dynasty_At_Passes (254 posts) - questions poltical scientist Walter Mebane's faith in optical scanners
Sat Aug-20-05 06:07 AM
Response to Reply #177
178. This one has raised a red flag for me...
Why does Walter Melbane insist that the "voting would have been perfectly accurate" if done on optical scan machines?

Does he know the vendor is ES&S and that a proven demonstration has been done, where a memory card was switched and the votes were switched?
Has he seen the Hursti hack on Black Box Voting?
Does he realize these irregularities were proven on memory cards in both 2000, and 2004?

If and true of the above, how can he possibly indicate 2004 was fair or that those machines would have made 2000 vote fair?

*********************************************************************************
Febble (1000+ posts) -defends Mebane
Sat Aug-20-05 06:53 AM
Response to Reply #178
179. You need to read a little more carefully
Mebane wrote - on April 6th 2004, i.e. before the 2004 election - not that the "voting would have been perfectly accurate" (where did you find that? if it's a paraphrase you shouldn't use quotes) but that:
"If the best type of vote tabulation system used in the state in 2000-precinct-tabulated optical scan ballots-had been used everywhere in Florida, Gore would have won by more than 30,000 votes."

In other words, his study found that in 2000 the most accurate (note, not "perfectly accurate") machines were optical scan ballots, and that if all machines had been as accurate as the most accurate, Gore would have won by over 30,000 votes. In other words's he'd have been elected president. Pretty damning of the Florida 2000 election I would have thought. And based on direct evidence that in 2000, optical scan systems had fewest problems with over-votes. (And as I have pointed out elsewhere, whether those optical scanners compared favorably or otherwise with the new e-touch machines used in 2004 is not easy to determine. My findings were that they did worse; Hout et al found they did better. Others have concluded that there was no significant effect of machine. I found no effect of vendor.)

Then read Mebane's work on Franklin county. My point is that a man who has done sterling work on exposing the inequities of the US voting system still believes that Ohio probably wasn't stolen. Maybe you can convince him otherwise. But it might be worth reading his work first.

*********************************************************************************
Dynasty_At_Passes (254 posts) -points oy that optical scanner vote counts were not accurate in 2000
Sat Aug-20-05 07:32 AM
Response to Reply #179
181. I have read his work. But here's where Melbane's point falls apart.
Edited on Sat Aug-20-05 07:34 AM by Dynasty_At_Passes
He claims that clearly the optical-scan machines were accurate in 2000, where direct evidence has been revealed that at least one memory card was switched by Diebold/ES&S which lost around 16,000 votes. And that memory card, as BlackBoxVoting has shown contains secret instructions.

Edit: Theresa Lapore, the democrat Board of Election worker held up this memory card even and claimed the company said it had "failed".

The fact they fail to account for this alarming discrepancy casts doubt on the whole report, not that Melbane is insincere in his findings. But he seems to take a rather laid back approach to verifying the count for these machines, or really exploring the larger implication of fraud and election tampering. In Washington, seals were broken. The case for this is very strong in Ohio based on Board of Elections workers leaving the equipment in partisan hands unsupervised, and the evidence of ballots altered in Lucas County through various "non-detectable" means. Right there is a red-flag on the whole report. They didn't lock down the op-scan machines in Ohio or the memory cards, nor did they do so in Florida. So there is no possible way to even guess on what their accuracy or discrepancy based calculations are.

*********************************************************************************
Dynasty_At_Passes (254 posts) - optical scanners precinct tabulators were just as bad as touch screens
(TIA note: as the E/M voting machine WPE proved)
Sat Aug-20-05 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #181
214. It could very well be Mebane is simply behind the times, too..
But this information has just recently come out, and black box voting altered a memory card which deleted votes the same way the card did in Volusia County, during 2000 recount.
Essentially the same thing happened with the optical scan precinct tabulator, that happened with the machine tabulator.

*********************************************************************************
Febble (1000+ posts) - proceeds to tell us what she "believes": The Final NEP matched vote count because it was matched?
This post demonstrates the tortured naysayer logic.
Wed Aug-17-05 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #24
32. Well, speaking for myself
and I'm fairly intelligent, and I'm not convinced by this "clincher" story, so, do

I believe that:
- Bush legitimately won the 2000 election in Florida?
No
- the Repubs legitimately won the senate in 2002?
DUNNO, sorry, wasn't following that story
- Bush won Ohio without the help of Ken Blackwell?
Possibly not

- Bush won Florida without the help of Jeb Bush?
Probably, but he might have helped anyway
- The reason why Diebold/Es&S didn't include a voter-verified ballot was to save cost?
I doubt it

- All those new, young female voters wanted Bush?
Disagree with premise
- The reason why the early exit poll results were never mentioned in the media was because they had no meaning?
Possibly, but they were mentioned in the media I read
- The reason that the Final Exit Poll matched to the vote count was because the vote count is accurate?
No - it matched because it was matched
- Mitofsky is a great exit pollster with 25 years of experience who only hired inexperienced polltakers when a Bush was running?

I think he hired inexperienced interviewers this year, and probably in the past.
- The exit polls were uniformly biased throughout the states to favor Kerry?
Probably
- that it's just a coincidence that the exit polls were accurate, (according to Mitofsky's own data) in those districts where paper ballots were used?
False premise; data does not support this inference
- that Republicans who controlled the design, manufacturing and programming of the voting machines fought against a paper trail and with machines that could never pass certification?
Probably
- who give you talking points?
Cheap shot
It is possible to think that there is good evidence that the election was won illegally, and that there is some vulnerable evidence. IMO presenting vulnerable evidence is a bad tactic. Think Dan Rather.

*********************************************************************************
TruthIsAll (1000+ posts) - reviews the results of the sensitivity analysis (turnout)
Wed Aug-17-05 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #32
36. Boy, this post must have really hit a nerve.
Edited on Wed Aug-17-05 05:02 PM by TruthIsAll
Good to see all you guys again.

Let's see:
What are the ODDS that Kerry would win ALL 120 scenarios in which we have given Bush a HEAD START by assuming that ALL of his 2000 voters (still alive) turned out to vote in 2004 while AT THE SAME TIME assuming a range of scenarios in which ONLY 88-100% of Gore voters CAME OUT TO VOTE?

AND TO TOP IT OFF:
LET'S ALSO ASSUME THE FULL RANGE OF NATIONAL EXIT POLL KERRY/BUSH NEW VOTER SPLITS: FROM 59-39% TO 57-41% TO 54-45% - ALL FOR KERRY?
A FULL 4-D SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS.
Kerry Vote = f(G, B = 100%, KP)
where
G = Gore Turnout,
B = Bush turnout = 100%,
KP = Kerry percentage of New voters
KERRY WON THEM ALL.
ALL THE COMBINATIONS.
ALL THE PERMUTATIONS.
ALL 120 OUT OF 120.
WHO WUDDA THUNK IT?
GO AHEAD.
TEAR APART THE MATH.
Remember MC Hammer?
YOU CAN'T TOUCH THIS.
YOU CAN'T SPIN THIS.

*********************************************************************************
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) - claims my assumptions that the exit polls reflected the vote
Wed Aug-17-05 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #36
42. asked and answered
Edited on Wed Aug-17-05 05:52 PM by OnTheOtherHand

I (among others) already tore apart the math -- or, rather, I smashed the assumptions on which the math was based. You insist on treating the question "Who did you vote for in 2000?" (or whatever the actual wording was) as if it had a one-to-one correspondence with whom people had actually voted for in 2000.
We have ample evidence that this assumption is wrong.

For whatever reason, you change the subject every time I cite the evidence.
(EDIT: Oh, but I think I see why you are confused. I will try to show you the numbers in another way. --I will be going to my daughter's soccer practice soon.

Given that false vote recall typically benefits the incumbent and demonstrably did so in 2002, we can expect some people who _didn't_ vote in 2000 to claim that they voted for Bush. And we can expect some people who voted for Gore to claim that they voted for Bush. Not only does that throw off the percentages in each category, but it will throw off the marginal percentages within the categories. The poll can be expected to exaggerate Kerry's support among new voters and Gore voters, because some of them will not only vote for Bush in 2004 but "retroactively defect" to Bush in 2000. So rejecting the first set of percentages and accepting the second does lead to strange results, but that doesn't represent an internal contradiction.)

*********************************************************************************
TruthIsAll (1000+ posts) - asks OTOH to explain his inconsistency: He says 43/37 is weighted to match the vote; then cites "false recall".
Wed Aug-17-05 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. You have not disputed a damn thing.Your inconsistencies are glaring.
Edited on Wed Aug-17-05 05:53 PM by TruthIsAll

All you have done is offer faith-based arguments that we should all just accept your hypothesis that Gore voters lied or forgot who they voted for. And Bush voters did not. Or if they did, at a much lower rate.
Your inconsistencies are glaring.
1) First you claim that the final poll was weighted to match the vote.I take that to mean the 43/37 split.
2) Then you claim that the 43/37 split was due to Gore voter Alzheimer's and/or democratic propensity to lie. That's a low blow. I'm a Democrat.
So which one is it?

If it's (1) why match the exit poll to the vote at all? I can't believe I'm asking a political scientist this simple question.
The demographic weighting was done earlier at the 13047 mark.
But the demographics said Kerry won. So it's Ok with you that weights and percentages are changed to match the vote.
Because Bush won.
After all, the vote count tells us so.
And Bush is an honorable man.
Then why bother to investigate the election at all?
Why bother to exit poll at all?

If it's (2) why was it that only Gore voters lied or forgot who they voted for? Are not Bush voters subject to the same dementia?
Do you have ANY factual medical, and psychiatric data to back up your claims?
Or must we accept all of this hypothetical nonsense as fact?

*********************************************************************************
Land Shark (1000+ posts) - The lawyer explains the OTOH arguments are leading to an election NIHILISM; an abyss
Wed Aug-17-05 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #42
47. OTOH has indirectly shown us the Abyss of elections

Given the radical uncertainty to which all election conclusions are subject, given conditions of data secrecy and analysis secrecy, the comment by otoh above (critiquing TruthIsAll for assuming that what someone *reports* as their vote in 2000 is necessarily the same or a one to one correspondence to who they *actually* voted for) is very interesting.

Before I say why, consider also that legally speaking nothing is 'admissible' in terms of evidence extrinsic to the ballots themselves to impeach (or otherwise change) a ballot's votes; i.e. the ballot stands alone and even if one could (but this would be illegal, due to ballot secrecy) find one's own ballot and argue forcefully for a correction to the votes on that ballot, that evidence would not be heard by a court and allowed to affect the ballot's votes. (Perhaps a hypothetical voter, based perhaps on a lifetime history of voting a certain way combined with repeated announcement to friends and family of both one's intent to vote a certain way and one having actually voted that way might make such a challenge with abundant evidence, but it would still not be heard)

So, given the lack of any basis for confidence in election results/conclusions we are left very uncertain. Given the legal inability to change the ballot even with abundant evidence we are rendered helpless, but given OTOH's statement above challenging the very memory of voters as being unreliable as guide to how they actually voted in 2000 even under exit polls circumstances where there is no reason to believe there will be consequences to honest responses, we are now left with the following:

No amount of EVIDENCE, nor any amount of a voter's MEMORY, will be allowed to impeach RESULTS for which there is no basis for confidence in the first place.
Election NIHILISM is now status quo? I struggle to find the right word for this state of affairs where voters don't matter.

WE seem to be staring down an electoral abyss of no escape, if we accept principles like otoh suggests (this is more due to the underlying lack of basis for confidence, but otoh's position is another necessary component).
As such, democracy has vertigo.

*********************************************************************************
Land Shark (1000+ posts) - explains "proof" vs. evidence required to win a fraud case in court.
Wed Aug-17-05 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #55
59. Foo bar's 9 of 12 jurors points to why one can win a fraud case in court
while scientists may sit around forever with "coulda been" this and "coulda been" that. A preponderance of the evidence (say 51%) or clear and convincing evidence (80%+?) is enough to get a judgment and thereby, ultimately, the gun of the sheriff on your side to seize property or otherwise enforce the judgment.

A lot of people's notions of "proof" is amorphous and may follow a principle of excluding every other reasonable possibility. Scientific proof is not amorphous but is still a very high standard.

For those enamored of proof before action (as opposed to my "no basis for confidence" approach) I would ask the following question: since coulda beens will be insufficient to defeat legal proof unless they rise to the level of more likely than not, and if you accept my assumption (based on arguments and facts elsewhere) that a preponderance of the evidence shows a corruption of democracy and that thereby (but given ONLY full funding and a proper plaintiff, etc.) we already HAVE the power of the sheriff.... WHAT ARE PEOPLE WAITING FOR before they defend democracy?

OK, OK, probably some of you will say you are defending democracy in your own way by being scientifically careful from your point of view, but consider this:
People rationally over protect against the possibility of large losses that are relatively unlikely, such as tending to overbundle children against cold, over protect against stranger kidnappings when known family members are the real danger, defense forces are relatively speaking on a hair trigger in terms of investigating threats (though not necessarily for launching missiles). Therefore, even if it were UNLIKELY but possible that a threat existed to democracy, if we value democracy there would be an investigation of that potential threat, and a robust one.
Yet there's no investigation, of course, and even among those here committed to democracy there is some reticence to act upon the real implications of what we know.
Someone needs to get up in the middle of the night and investigate the suspicious noise we heard in a robust and honest way, even if it were more likely than not that it was "just the cat". Even if it coulda been a dozen or more innocent explanations.

Thus, the secrecy of the data and analysis and the stonewalling of Mitofsky and company in the face of credible possibilities or probabilities is quite arguably a faithlessness toward democracy that is itself cause for serious concern. That Mitofsky may claim that he's convinced himself it's all ok is meaningless, because the right to be "secure about one's democracy" is not a personal right to people like Mitofsky, it is a public right. Damn him for not caring about the public, and keeping the public's business secret.

*********************************************************************************
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) - defends his position
Thu Aug-18-05 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #67
103. I appreciate your thoughtfulness, and let me be candid

If I thought that I could advance the cause of election reform by lying through my teeth about my assessment of the evidence, I would at least seriously consider it. I don't. (I'm not saying that anyone else here is lying through their teeth -- actually, I almost wish they were. But I would be lying if I claimed to give any credence whatsoever to certain of the arguments.)

And of course, like presumably everyone else here, I think that people should be entitled to some standard of proof that an election _wasn't_ stolen, not that anyone should have to muster even a 51% probability that it was.

As a lawyer, I assume, you want to make the strongest possible argument for your side -- but that means the most persuasive, not the most extreme. If you assert, as obvious truth, claims that many people believe to be obviously wrong, this will not strengthen the case.

There are lots of interesting ruminations on the relationship between academic uncertainty and political discourse (for instance, Steve Schneider has a great website on politics and climate science).

*********************************************************************************
Land Shark (1000+ posts) - "process review" and deference to a conclusion
Thu Aug-18-05 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #103
105. law sometimes engages in "process review" to determine what
level of deference a conclusion deserves. If the process is excellent then higher deference is appropriate. The law already tries extremely hard to make election results unchallengeable, at least after 10 day statutes of limitations on election contests (in many states) expire (they start at certification of results).
However, the deference one may wish to give election results for the sake of "stability" reasons isn't justified by the transparency and security of the present process

*********************************************************************************
Land Shark (1000+ posts) - How an honest advocate and an academician might differ in answers
Thu Aug-18-05 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #103
108. How an honest advocate and an academician might differ in answers
Edited on Thu Aug-18-05 12:27 PM by Land Shark
Question: Isn't it true that you haven't reviewed dataset X?
Honest Academician Answer: Yes.
Honest Advocate Answer: Though not important to my analysis, it's true I haven't reviewed it.

The advocate, while still being honest, is alert to how inferences may be used against her in the future and attempts to protect against them.
In cross examination one is not allowed full sentence answers though, so it is up to the other lawyer, on re-direct examination, to allow the opportunity to explain if the cross-examiner has insisted on yes or no answers.

So, OTOH, I'm not talking about taking extreme positions, but I am talking about covering all bases and taking all available territory, and claiming that territory as one's own at each reasonable opportunity (unfortunately some lawyers interpret this to mean "crowing" about one's claimed victories which is not very effective however).

Applied to the debates here, I don't think everyone's put the best construction on what TIA has said, thus they appear in the adversarial mode (taking all available territory and claiming success) rather than in the friendly mode of mutually strengthening positions. Then, of course, one's own words are then also not interpreted in the most friendly way. And no, I don't want to get into "who started it".

Flipping between team mode and adversarial mode typically leads to questions about loyalty in all communities of discussion. Sometimes this is merited and sometimes not. Motive is hard to divine, yet important. Trust, when deserved, allows for efficiency and effectiveness in work by elimination of duplication.
Simply put, if one is in attack mode, you leave yourself wide open to either "outta control" inferences or else "freeper/disrupter" inferences. Occupational hazard.
********************************************************************************

continue

TruthIsAll (1000+ posts) - why would democrats misrepresent?
Wed Aug-17-05 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #60
71. When you can explain to me why democrats would differ
Edited on Wed Aug-17-05 10:53 PM by TruthIsAll
from republicans in that regard, perhaps then we can discuss your hypothesis.
Until you provide the factual rationale for your inference that lying and forgetting is primarily a Gore voter trait, indeed, we have nothing to talk about.

Until you can provide a scientific basis for your great unifying theory that Repubs are like elephants and never forget, but that democrats are just asses who suffer from alzheimer's, you should not even call your theory a hypothesis. I would just include them in your faith-based intelligent design curriculum, along with that pathetic reluctant Bush voter theory.

***********************************************************************************
Febble (1000+ posts) - people like to report voting for the winner; basically says that Exit polls are worthless
Response to Reply #71
120. See my post 118 above
There is certainly a scientific basis for the theory.
It has been shown that
a) people like to report consistency (so voters who report Bush-Bush or Gore-Kerry are more likely to be lying to maintain consistency than voters who report Bush-Kerry or Gore-Bush) and
b) people like to report having voted for the winner.

Lying is not the right word. "Misremembering" is usually used, and it is a well-researched human trait. We construct our memories, and reject bits that don't fit. It's actually how we stave off the fragmentation of memory that afflicts those with Alzheimer's and maintain our life narrative in some state of cohesion.

And to the extent that misremembering voting for the winner is the stronger trait, it would give rise to more people "misremembering" voting for the Bush than for Gore. I'm sure it's not a Democratic trait. I bet no-one remembers voting for Dole (does anyone even remember Dole?)

As I say in the post above, the more striking thing is that if misremembering accounts for the numbers (and they are well within the reported "up to one in five") then it does mean appear to mean that Kerry lost more than 10% of the Gore vote (although the MoE on that sample will be quite high - it was a sub-sample), while gaining the majority of those who did not vote in 2000.

But a swing to the left in young voters and a swing to the right in older voters is certainly not unprecedented.

Suggestive, I would say, therefore, only. By no means a clincher.

***********************************************************************************
TruthIsAll (1000+ posts) - but why would the Dems forget how they were shafted in 2000?
Thu Aug-18-05 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #120
128. I would think that Democrats would be more likely to remember that...
Bush stole it and that it was Gore who won the popular vote. I would think that would be engraved in their minds permanently. They would never forget the 36-day Florida fiasco, the butterfly ballot, the overpunched and underpunched Gore votes, Jeb Bush, the thousands of disenfranchised blacks, the 96,000 Nader votes, Volusia, the Miami-Dade GOP riot stopping the recount, Katherine Harris, the the 65-4 SCOTUS vote for Bush...

Never forget it. Never get over it.

Not only that, but a significant fair-minded republicans, true conservatives, would feel the same way. They would be vastly more motivated to kick the thieving bastards out. Especially after 9/11, no WMD, lost jobs, American prestige in the toilet, Abu Ghraib, Plame, AWOL, the Bin Laden/Bush/Saudi connection,
But perhaps I'm just being old-fashioned in believing that when people get kicked in the gut, they are very unlikely to forget who did the kicking.

***********************************************************************************
Febble (1000+ posts) - cannot adequately answer the question
Fri Aug-19-05 06:12 AM
Response to Reply #128
141. Now that's what I call a valid argument
and is the reason I myself was predisposed to disbelieve Bush's victory.

But, as I've said before, it's a behavioural argument, not a statistical one. And for many people, politics doesn't matter that much. Weird. But there it is. Some people don't even bother to vote.

***********************************************************************************
autorank (1000+ posts) = style vs. substance
Thu Aug-18-05 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #76
78. There is a difference between style and substance.
So what if the debate is vigorous. Some like it some don't. That is a stylistic question. The question that's more important is what are the substantive claims of each poster. When you look at it that way, you've got:

TIA: serious questions about the legitimacy of the election(Land Shark's point on this thread, "legitimacy); serious questions about the connection between funny numbers from exit polls and outrages on the ground; serious questions about defenses of the exit poll discrepancies and inconsistencies including the demolition of "reluctant Bush responder;" a demand for release of all the data (save that which identifies the individual) including Precinct level data (which is essential to validate the fraud hypothesis); over 100 individual threads where the work is shown in detail and anyone who wants can question the work; years on DU; an unabashed Democrat.

OTOH: questions, questions, questions.
When you go to Paris or New York City, you can get hung up on the superficial style of the denizens and miss the true substance of the people's character (in both cases wonderful) and the great assets the cities have to offer.

I'm here for substance. The substantive contributions, arguments; the substantive demand for election reform and investigating election fraud is 100% in TIA's corner. That's why I pay attention what he produces and find it compelling.

It all ties together-- problems with voting machines -- take a look at how odd the results of elections are--both issues interact and support each other; problems with hacking -- take a look at how odd the results of the elections are -- both issues interact and support each other; problems with obvious voter suppression -- both issues interact and support each other.

IT ALL FITS TOGETHER AS A STRONG CASE TO DOUBT THE LEGITIMACY OF BOTH PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS (AS YOU SO CORRECTLY POINT OUT IN A LATER POST DOWN-THREAD). YOU'RE *NOT* BEING SLAMMED, JUST REDIRECTED TO...
SUBSTANCE.

***********************************************************************************
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) -resorts to calling the subject heading a "pre-emptive smear" of anyone who disagrees with the analysis
Thu Aug-18-05 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #78
94. but your paraphrase does not match the subject headers

What TIA and you offer at the top of this thread is not "serious questions" or a "strong case to doubt" -- it is absolute certainty, coupled with what looks to me like a preemptive smear of anyone who dares to challenge the case.

Which is why I will ask, yet again, because I don't think anyone has answered me yet: am I supposed to take the arguments seriously, or are they just intended to rally the troops?

Because the dual claims that (1) we _know_ that Kerry won the election, and (2) anyone who disagrees is (whatever) are, in my opinion, incorrect, incendiary, and counterproductive.

If you and TIA actually stuck to "serious questions" and a "strong case to doubt," you would never get guff from me. Lots of people around here offer serious questions, and I have serious questions myself, and we actually try to make progress on them together.

***********************************************************************************
TruthIsAll (1000+ posts) - I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt in the assumptions; you have not refuted a thing
Thu Aug-18-05 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #94
104. OTOH, let's review where we are right now
Edited on Thu Aug-18-05 12:30 PM by TruthIsAll

I have presented a sensitivity analysis of 120 scenarios of Bush/Gore voter turnout and Kerry share of new voters. You appear to object very strongly to this study on its face.

OTOH, do you know the purpose of sensitivity analysis? Have you ever used this methodology? Just because I am using this very standard approach to illuminate the implausibility of a Bush win, you accuse me of rallying the troops and avoiding the facts.

On the contrary, as you purport to be a quantitative analyst, you should commend me for the effort. There is no justification in your personal attack. Why does it bother you so?

To your credit, you have attempted to reconstruct the numbers. But I must give you an I for Incomplete, professor. You neglected to check your work and fell 4mm votes short (118mm), coming up with a virtual tie vote. I then showed you that the shortfall had to be due to New voters and since Kerry won a clear majority of them, he also wins the scenario - as I said he did.

You have not refuted that.
Well, let's take a look at the model.
Let's look at my assumptions.
Then we will look at your facts.
And we look at your assumptions.

I gave Bush (and you) the benefit of the doubt in the assumptions.
-I gave you a 100% turnout of Bush 2000 voters.
You have not refuted that.

-I gave you the final exit poll 37% Kerry share of 2004 voters.
You have not refuted that.

-I gave you the final exit poll percentages which had Bush a winner at 13660 respondents because the numbers were matched to the vote. All prior exit poll time lines up to 13047 at 12:22am showed that Kerry was the winner.
You have not refuted that.

In spite of all these assumptions in favor of Bush, Kerry still won all the scenarios.
You have not refuted that.

So now you resort to shrill, desperate personal attacks.
You said I had "a lot of nerve" because I agreed with the Mitofsky MoE table, which shows a 1% MoE for exit polls over 10,000 respondents.
You have not refuted that.

And what is the reader left with after all of this? Your "false recall" argument. It is a very weak, unsubstantiated faith-based case when juxtaposed next to the numerical voter turnout sensitivity analysis, which is based on facts, not "faith".
You are asking us to assume "on faith" the hypothetical that Gore voters forgot that they voted for him in 2000 when asked the question. But at the same time, we should also accept "on faith" that Bush voters did in fact recall who they voted for. Do you realize how utterly ridiculous that conjecture is? I did not base the sensitivity analysis on faith.

I understand your position. When you are devoid of any plausible explanation to refute the sensitivity analysis of cold, hard numbers, you must resort to faith-based arguments.

You are left with a very, very shaky hypothesis based on your last gasp 2002 poll argument. I have asked you for details on that poll, as if it is even germaine to my analysis. It's a Hail Mary pass on your part. Still waiting.

As Land Shark has stated, this argument brings us to the abyss.

And as he has also pointed out, there is absolutely nothing wrong in the way I have presented the analysis - to show the extreme implausibility of Bush win since Kerry won all 120 scenarios.
You have not refuted that.

Know this: I will keep posting the analyses. And they will continue to withstand your vain attempts to refute them.

Eventually, you will just give up trying.

***********************************************************************************
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) - avoids discussing the evidence of the sensitivity analysis
Thu Aug-18-05 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #104
106. a few corrections
since I can't go through every argument every time.
Yes, I am familiar with and have conducted sensitivity analysis. But of course the validity of the analysis can't be measured by the sheer number of scenarios tested. You could have run one scenario, or five million, and the force of the argument would be determined by the limiting case.

I did not fall 4 million votes short, but you come to this conclusion by apparently failing to read my post #9 beyond the line labeled "Totals." Not that I am wedded to the assumptions in that post.

As I explain elsewhere (at least twice), you cannot extract the marginals for reported 2000 vote and apply them to your estimates of actual 2000 vote. That is your faulty assumption.

I will let others tally the personal attacks as they will, but they have no bearing on the arguments regardless.

Since you have ducked the question twice: the E/M table reflects a design effect square root (multiplier) of approximately 1.5, at least if we can trust the "15" at lower left. Be advised, however, that these are described as "typical sampling errors" because the design effect varies from question to question. This is something you could actually read about.

You say I am assuming some desperate hypothetical. But false recall is demonstrated in many surveys, and I and others have provided the figures and the links, and you have ignored them. The "faith-based" and "Hail Mary" rhetoric is, well, rhetoric.

***********************************************************************************
TruthIsAll (1000+ posts) - OTOH shows a complete misunderstanding of the sensitivity analysis and turnout
Thu Aug-18-05 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #106
110. As I expected, your counter is very weak..
Edited on Thu Aug-18-05 01:09 PM by TruthIsAll

You:
Yes, I am familiar with and have conducted sensitivity analysis. But of course the validity of the analysis can't be measured by the sheer number of scenarios tested. You could have run one scenario, or five million, and the force of the argument would be determined by the limiting case.

Me:
The number of scenarios reflect incremental changes to the assumptions. It does indeed increase the force of the argument.
You can't argue that any plausible scenarios were ignored.
You
I did not fall 4 million votes short, but you come to this conclusion by apparently failing to read my post #9 beyond the line labeled "Totals." Not that I am wedded to the assumptions in that post.

Me
But you do not dispute the fact that, contrary to your premature result, Kerry won the scenario. As he won all 120 scenarios.

You
As I explain elsewhere (at least twice), you cannot extract the marginals for reported 2000 vote and apply them to your estimates of actual 2000 vote. That is your faulty assumption.

Me
Sorry, you have never refuted the fact that Bush could not have received 43% of the 2004 vote. This is your Achilles heel and you know it.

You
I will let others tally the personal attacks as they will, but they have no bearing on the arguments regardless.

Me
Nevertheless, I have noticed a distinct change in your attitude.
Maybe its due to frustration on your part.
You never expected I would be so relentless, did you?

You
Since you have ducked the question twice: the E/M table reflects a design effect square root (multiplier) of approximately 1.5, at least if we can trust the "15" at lower left. Be advised, however, that these are described as "typical sampling errors" because the design effect varies from question to question. This is something you could actually read about.

Me
Then why is the MoE = 1.0% for 10,000 respondents?

You
You say I am assuming some desperate hypothetical. But false recall is demonstrated in many surveys, and I and others have provided the figures and the links, and you have ignored them. The "faith-based" and "Hail Mary" rhetoric is, well, rhetoric.
Me

I have yet to receive your response regarding that 2002 survey.

I asked you to document the purpose, advocates, executors, internals and results of the poll. You have shown us nothing. It was just a poll. The numbers were not in agreement with the actual 2000 vote.

I fail to see relevance nor any facts to substantiate your "false recall" hypothesis.

Is that the best you can do?

***********************************************************************************
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) - does not believe his lying eyes re" the NEP 1.0% MoE
Thu Aug-18-05 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #110
111. of course I believe that a plausible scenario was ignored
namely that Kerry won less than 90% of actual Gore 2000 voters who voted in 2004.
I have never even _denied_ the fact that Bush could not have received 43% of the 2004 vote. That isn't the argument. I tried to understand _your_ argument, now it is your turn.

I have never doubted your relentlessness. I wish it were more discriminating.
The NEP table does not assert that the MoE is "1.0%", as anyone can readily verify. There is obviously some freehand rounding in the NEP table, since it is mathematically impossible for the cut-point between 2 and 1 to be at 8000 voters in both the third and fourth rows. However, the 15 at lower left seems to imply a design effect square root between 1.45 and 1.55. Conveniently, a DESR of 1.45 would yield an MoE of precisely 1.45 for n = 10000, and a DESR of 1.55 would yield an MoE of 1.55. The mean value, 1.5, could be rounded either down to 1 (not 1.0) or up to 2. If you can find a DESR estimate that fits the table values better, I would be interested to know.

I sent you a link from which you can learn all about the National Election Study, if you care to. Yes, the 2002 NES was just a poll (and the other polls in which false recall has been documented were just polls). The exit poll was just a poll. Why would you assume that false recall in the 2002 NES would have no bearing on false recall in the exit poll?

***********************************************************************************
TruthIsAll (1000+ posts) - OTOH: rationalize Gore defection; consider a 50% cluster effect
Thu Aug-18-05 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #111
113. SURELY, YOU JEST. KERRY LESS THAN 90% OF GORE VOTERS?
Edited on Thu Aug-18-05 03:07 PM by TruthIsAll
What are you smoking?
I would like you to rationalize over 10% of Gore voters willing to forgive Bush for stealing the 2000 election by voting for him in 2004. Do you really believe that over 5 million Gore voters would vote for Bush? If anything, there is substantial anecdotal evidence that Bush lost more voters to Kerry than vice-versa. Get real.

As far as the MoE is concerned, you are really stretching it.
The Moe for 13047 voters is 0.87%. Go ahead. Add your 50%
cluster and you are at 1.3%. That's if you buy 50%.
I will read the link.

***********************************************************************************
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) - will not rationalize; falls back on NES results (again ignoring the fact that 43% was an impossible weighting used to force a match to the vote.
Thu Aug-18-05 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #113
115. I am not rationalizing anything
I am _reasoning_ about the implications of the fact that, in surveys, some folks who actually voted for Gore in 2000 (or who did not vote) presumably report having voted for Bush in 2000. That is not something I desperately made up; that is something supported by the 2002 and 2004 NES, the 2002 GSS, and by analogy in a host of other studies from the U.S. and Britain. (And no doubt some Bush 2000 voters now "recall" having voted for Gore, although all survey results known to me indicate that the tide runs in the other direction. Incidentally, Febble has pointed out that the tide of false recall does not always favor the incumbent; she knows of at least one counterexample in Britain.)

The fact that you and I can hardly imagine having voted for Bush in 2000, much less falsely remembering having voted for him after the fact, does not constitute a refutation of poll results evincing false recall.

I think that my quantitative evidence can at least hold its own against your "substantial anecdotal evidence." Of course, if you can come up with some reason why (or at least some evidence that) exit polls are uniquely immune from false recall, then we have something further to discuss.

When it comes to the MoE, please bear in mind, again: I am not trying to argue that the exit poll error was within the range of sampling error. It is worth getting the MoE calculations right because any calculation worth doing (yadda yadda yadda). It also may shed some light into why no one called Ohio and Florida for Kerry based on the exits, although that could be explained in lots of ways.

While we are at it, let us consider what we are arguing about. I get the sense that, in your heart, you think I am trying to convince everyone that Bush won the 2004 popular vote. I am not. I plunged into this thread based on your invitation (dare?) to refute your arguments one by one, but even if I had time to undertake that challenge, I would not wish to dispel real, legitimate questions and doubts about the 2004 outcome. I sincerely deny that your 120 scenarios are any sort of "clincher."

I think we need to look for clinchers somewhere beside the exit polls -- and, for that matter, somewhere beside the past. And I think we need to recognize that a lot of people think that Bush won the 2004 election, and probably a lot of them will continue to think that, and in order to get election reform we will need support from some of them, too. (And, yes, I am one of those people, but it's just a current personal opinion, not a cause I intend to prosyletize for.)

***********************************************************************************
autorank (1000+ posts) -why is OTOH even bothering to study polls if he disbelieves them?
Thu Aug-18-05 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #115
121. Reality time...
Edited on Thu Aug-18-05 06:07 PM by autorank
"And I think we need to recognize that a lot of people think that Bush won the 2004 election, and probably a lot of them will continue to think that, and in order to get election reform we will need support from some of them, too."

We do not need to agree with those who think Bush won, nor they with us, in order to agree on the need for election reform. That makes no sense at all. Everyone who wants honest elections, and I'm sure that includes the overwhelming majority of Republicans and Democrats, will agree on reasonable procedures. The problem is that the HAVA and other methods of "reform" are really just vendor jamborees where decisions are made based on schmoozing rather than real issues. We could go back to paper ballots tomorrow and provide machines for the handicapped from the current stockpile and every objection to the election, from the standpoint of machines would be answered. Then the observation of the count, tally and reporting could be monitored as well, something everyone except the thieves would agree on, and we'd be done with it.

The theft of the election 2004 is a separate question. Separate arguments.
I've noticed that you're starting to deny the entire validity of polling in your discussion of 2002. You are, at times (not always) reminding me of Elizabeth Loftus PhD. She made a name for her self as a "researcher" and defense witness asserting that eye witness testimony is rarely valid (radical epistemology). In the case of 2002, who cares, it's after the fact. In the case of the exits, we care a lot because it is contemporaneous data collection. "Lets see, I just voted for Kerry and I'm going to talk to this pollster, so, yeah, I'll lie"...please.

If you think that polling evidence is as tainted as it is, why are you even involved in studying it and why are you taking so much time with people who do, according to your view that reporting is largely meaningless?

On edit: And the reality is that as * approaches the mid thirties, people will cry out and ask how did this guy get selected/elected twice. We know he stole Florida (that evidence will come forward)! Damn it, we now suspect he stole 2004 (that evidence is there). That's the political reality. The argument that prevails will follow the political realities. Formerly, only a minority thought it was a stolen election. Now we're in a state of flux (I assume since I have not seen any polls, which would be meaningless by your criteria anyway). Soon, the * team and the apologists for Election 2004 will be in full retreat because the majority will be willing to listen to and accept the arguments we've been making. The arguments are valid and persuasive regardless of the popular mood and trends but they will be come delightfully explicated as the crescendo grows for relief from the misery brought to us by lousy elections and judicial decisions, i.e., * and company.

***********************************************************************************
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) - OTOH says "false recall" is an observed phenomenon (but still misses the point that 43/37 was not a survey result; it was changed from 41/39 to match the vote count)
Fri Aug-19-05 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #121
143. excellent, we have a huge and crucial agreement
"The theft of the election 2004 is a separate question. Separate arguments."
Yes.
"I've noticed that you're starting to deny the entire validity of polling in your discussion of 2002."
No.
Look, false recall is an observed empirical phenomenon -- we can't (or shouldn't) just discount it. I don't see how recognizing sources of error in polls is tantamount to arguing that polls are meaningless. In fact, it isn't. (But there may be a confusion here: I am not suggesting that Kerry voters, or anyone else, consciously lied in the 2004 exits.)

If you are counting on convincing the country that Bush stole the 2004 election, I hope we can find better evidence. Otherwise, with respect to the election reform agenda, I prefer a Plan B.

***********************************************************************************
Melissa G (1000+ posts) - OTOH, you criticze but do not present your case; let's see your analysis
Fri Aug-19-05 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #115
131. I have a problem with you OTOH, I do not believe you are reasoning
Edited on Fri Aug-19-05 01:20 AM by Melissa G
.. I believe you are just doing crit...You may not have a problem with this but I do..
This is why..

TIA is doing something. Quite a lot of Something. Febble did something also. They produced work. They put their work out there and took and take a lot of heat for it. I have a lot of respect for both of them because of it. I agree with TIA (though not so much with Febble, much as I might possibly like her) but I respect them both for their efforts and the C### they have to take because of it.
Now we come to you, OTOH... You have a skill set and you had promise. I had my popcorn ready. I was informed that you were likely an earnest fellow so in the face of a fair amount of heat I have stood up for you to say your piece in peace.

Mostly, so far, you have delivered nit picky goobledy gook. I have waited for a decent effort on your part to put up a coherent counter argument or alternate scenario. IMO it has yet to be presented. This IMHO BS argument about any significant number of DEM's forgetting the election was stolen from them in 2000 and misremembering their vote is IMHO LUDICROUS! Febble is in the UK she could maybe get away with saying this but you, as an American, must have been on Mars at the time to try to get away with that statement. I own a business...Everyone was glued to their tv's at that time... Restaurants that were usually full had only three tables being occupied. Commerce shut down. It is is ridiculous to suggest some huge memory loss on something that impacted folks so strongly. It was economically as impactful as 9/11 to many small business owners.

OK, for some to my mind, utterly incomprehensible reason, you believe the Shrub won the election. (Damn few of us here do). Make your case.

Explain to us how you believe this sorry excuse for a resident who had driven the country into financial disaster and lied us into a war the majority of the country did not want in the first place kept all his votes and found 9-11 million more?
'Splain it to me please... (Edit clarity)

***********************************************************************************
Febble (1000+ posts) - ignores the statistical evidence; admits she cannot explain the Bush margin.
Fri Aug-19-05 04:51 AM
Response to Reply #131
134. Well thanks, Melissa
but I need to correct you on the subject of HARD WORK. Just because you weren't there with the popcorn to watch doesn't mean it wasn't done.

Quite apart from a HUGE amount of work for USCV, OTOH last week delivered the substance of my paper at a meeting of the ASA in Minneapolis, having developed it very much further (in collaboration with myself and Rick Brady) than I had done.

And, contrary to the way my work has been interpreted on DU, what I started to do, and what OTOH, Brady and myself have continued to do, is to attempt to develop a much more sensitive measure of "bias" (ie. discrepancy between poll and count) than the WPE, so that more valid analyses of the factors that contribute to the bias can be done. It's not as easy as it looks. It's not as easy as I thought it was. In fact it's been HARD WORK. But it's important, because blunt an instrument as the exit polls are, anything that can be done to sharpen them is likely to shed light on what went wrong. People scoffed at my work when I described it as "noise reduction". But noise reduction is what is required here.

But here is the problem I have:
If we (generic we) start from the premise that Bush cannot have won the election, ANY argument to the contrary will fail. OTOH (and I) raise the issue of false recall - you laugh it out of court, despite good evidence that it happens. We raise the issue of sampling bias in the poll - it is laughed out of court ("do you believe such a wonderful pollster as Mitofsky could have run such a bad poll?). We raise the issue that the pattern of bias in the poll does not support the hypothesis of highest fraud in Bush strongholds - or widespread vote-switching - and are accused of - I dunno, statistical incompetence, using bad data, you name it.

Fair enough, if you believe Bush lost, you are free to believe it. I wish I still believed it (though I still think Kerry may have won Ohio had the playing field been level). But the fact is, it is possible to wish Bush had lost, to believe that the election was corrupt, to believe that electoral reform is vital for the future of American democracy (and for the world) - and to believe that he probably won. Furthermore, it is possible to believe that the best hope of electoral reform is to look this possibility (probability, in my view) squarely in the face, and to construct an argument for electoral reform that is consistent with the statistical evidence as it is viewed by a great many statistically literate people who also support the case for electoral reform.

Because OTOH, and I, and others, do not believe that TIA's evidence is anything more than suggestive (if that) and certainly not "the clincher" that he claims, does not mean that we do not earnestly want, and work for, electoral reform. It means that we want good, not flawed, statistical arguments to make the case. TIA's interpretation of the data he cites (in itself) is perfectly plausible. So is OTOH's. Statistics will not tell you which is correct. Suggesting they can is a misuse of statistics, and sets up a straw man which, IMO, runs the risk of damaging the case it attempts to support.

And no, I cannot explain how Bush found those votes, if he found them. But then I cannot explain how Britain voted for the disaster that was Thatcherism for all those years. But it did. And the only way Labour could finally regain power was to become, in some senses, almost as Thatcherite as Thatcher. Almost. And not in all senses, thank God.

***********************************************************************************
Dynasty_At_Passes (254 posts) - no one talks about the forbidden voting machine evidence
Sat Aug-20-05 02:58 AM
Response to Reply #167
169. Complicity? Money? Racketeering? All of these charges are equally valid..
Does it not seem odd to anyone that the DLC never talks about the machines? It is a fully forbidden topic, as in, it may be how the DLC type democrats are getting elected into office through under the table means?

Why can't all citizens follow this initiative?
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Citizens_Request_Recount_...
This proves without doubt, and with backing of the authorities that illegal machine tampering was putting GOP candidates and dishonest politicians into office by a 4% swing!

Someone is making big bucks off this scam, and the audit proves Donna Frye won the election. Make a huge issue of this everywhere, and Diebold/Sequoia/ES&S will retreat and be forced to abandon the game.

But too many leaders seem to be unwilling to stand up to these coy crooks, as if they are completely unworthy of opposing the establishment. Please get over it, they say. Well as long as we get crooks into office I say never get over it, and lets sink these losers with a full assault.

Bob Taft convicted of bribery pay to play, and Thomas Noe covering up the election. Ring any bells?

***********************************************************************************
autorank (1000+ posts) - shine a light on the crooks
Sat Aug-20-05 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #169
192. We agree totally...a "bright light" will scare the crooks off even as
we get checks and balances in place. San Diego is inspiring and so is Arcata, CA's resolution. The money involved must be huge given the stakes, literally control of trillions of dollars, a kick-ass military, and a court system that can enable great progress toward repealing the New Deal (the Holy Grail of the extremists). It is appalling that there is NOT ONE major Democratic leader shouting from the roof tops on this. It's just pathetic. I've been complaining about this, locally to my party folks, and nationally for some time.

***********************************************************************************
Febble (1000+ posts) - a lot of evidence has been reported, but the stats don't tell us much
Sat Aug-20-05 03:50 AM
Response to Reply #157
172. the poster asked
why this compilation of evidence had not been reported on.
My answer was that a lot of it had, and that the report itself was a Wikipedia piece. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not itself a published report. Which might explain why it hasn't been reported on as a piece, although it contains material that has been reported and critiqued fairly widely, on the internet. In fact the piece cites some of the media reviews that the material has received.

As to the substantive material in the report, well, as I said, some of it's stuff I did myself (on machines in Florida), so I could comment on that. The issue of whether touchscreen or optical machines benefited Bush or Kerry in Florida is difficult to resolve as touchscreens were not used in small counties, and optical scans were not used in very large counties, so there was a major demographic confound. I looked at mid-size counties only, in order to compare counties where both types of machines had an equal chance of being selected, which also eliminated most panhandle counties, where it had been suggested a "Dixiecrat" effect might be a confound. Mitteldorf and I concluded that Bush did significantly better that expected in counties that used optical scanning. However there were significant demographic differences between the two groups of counties even so (percentage of party registrants; percentage of ethnic groups), so the differences cannot be clearly attributed to the machines. Moreover, Hout's Berkeley team found that when the whole state was considered, and a large regression model was used, it was the E-touch counties that looked suspicious. But it turned out they had omitted a crucial term (interaction between machine type and county size).

So regarding machines in Florida, I think machine type doesn't tell us much, except that statistics is an enfuriating field, and doesn't give the unambiguous answers people would like. The evidence certainly doesn't rule out fraud - as people here have pointed out, any machine can be used to implement fraud, and in any case, if it's the central tabulators that were hacked, then the voting machine type won't be the critical factor.

So there's my comment on the one bit of analysis cited that I know something about -because I did it.

***********************************************************************************
Dynasty_At_Passes (254 posts) - you are not addressing my question re: FL
Sat Aug-20-05 04:07 AM
Response to Reply #172
173. But this doesn't answer the underlying question....
My point is, why isn't this study about the Florida counties being widely discussed not to mention dissected?

It seeks to make the issue more complicated by factoring in demographics and all these other variables, and from where I'm sitting, this is not a complicated issue in any respect.
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Citizens_Request_Recount_...

Reading this information and on how they weighted the results, has shown this issue is very cut and dry and displays a clear factor of certain machine vendors exhibiting unexplained 4% swings.

It isn't complex, it isn't a huge enigma, its a very simple problem largely and it has gone under recognized and not reported. The problem isn't with the counties, all the different demographic adjustments or anything else and clearly that is not the purpose here.

The problem is with the machines plain and matter of factly, and the machines by vendor, not by type are the culprit. A Diebold manufactured tabulator or ES&S tabulator are almost guaranteed to show a disproportionate swing or be involved in some fraudulent activity. Another machine/tabulator such as the new model by Hart Intervic is about 90% less likely to show gross manipulation or errors. That's the clear problem, and there is not any study to address it.

I ask about the study by registered machine vendor and lobbyist, not by model, type, or demographic. What has become of this, given the reported bribery charges and allegations?

***********************************************************************************
Febble (1000+ posts) - I analyzede voting machine vendor data; found no significant effects since demographics "confounded"
Sat Aug-20-05 04:23 AM
Response to Reply #173
175. Sorry, which study are you referring to?
You linked to a compilation at Answers.com which included links to work done by myself and Josh Mitteldorf, and by a team at Berkeley.

I did analyse the data by vendor (Sequoia, ES&S, Diebold, etc), and found no significant effects. Machine type was what I found significant - but because machine type was "confounded" with demographics, it is not possible to say whether any difference was due to machine type or demographic differences. It was suggestive, nonetheless.

If you can link directly to the study you are referring to, I may be able to answer more fully.

***********************************************************************************
Dynasty_At_Passes (254 posts) - But the touch screen anomalies were in Democratic areas; did you investigate that
Sat Aug-20-05 04:37 AM
Response to Reply #175
176. I've been referring to this parallel study that has been ongoing.
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65665-2,00.html?...
http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/new_web/VOTE2004/election04_...
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm#...

They discovered that in the 15 counties using touch-screen voting systems, the number of votes granted to Bush far exceeded the number of votes Bush should have received -- given all of the other variables -- while the number of votes that Bush received in counties using other types of voting equipment lined up perfectly with what the variables would have predicted for those counties. The total number of excessive votes ranged between 130,000 and 260,000, depending on what kind of problem caused the excess votes. The counties most affected by the anomaly were heavily Democratic. "

"Sociology professor Michael Hout, who chairs the university's graduate Sociology and Demography group, said the chance for such a discrepancy to occur was less than 1 in 1,000. 'No matter how many factors and variables we took into consideration, the significant correlation in the votes for President Bush and electronic voting cannot be explained...'"

When you say "significant effects" what differences are you citing? Doing a study by machine vendor, would mean studying all of them in counties which were democratic or republican, I.E. the largest counties and analyzing the swing percentage on a statewide basis. I have seen no such study investigated.

***********************************************************************************
Febble (1000+ posts) - analyzed FL county party registration vs. machines; but not convinced of fraud even though the data suggested it
Sat Aug-20-05 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #176
194. I wondered if you meant that study.
It was interesting. I'm not convinced however, for the same reason that I am not, ultimately convinced by my own. IIRC there was a critical variable they failed to include in their model (county size x voting machine type). There have been a number of critiques of the study.

The study I am "citing" regarding machine vendor was my own. I investigated machine vendor across all counties, and had data on party registration for both 00 and 04. I did not find anything significant, so have not reported anything. The only thing I found were machine effects, which, as I have said, do not necessarily convince me. I found greater Bush advantage for Optical Scanning. Hout et al found the same for mid-size counties but an advantage for e-touch in large counties (Broward I think was the greatest). I excluded these for reasons I have given, so the studies are not actually at odds. I think both are flawed.

Regarding Mebane's piece "The Wrong Man is President": you have NOT read it correctly (you have even mis-spelt his name). He does not say Optical scanners were "accurate" in 2000. Look at the table on page 29. It was a detailed and meticulous piece of work investigating just one mechanism by which votes for Gore were lost in 2000. He concluded that precinct-tabulated optical scanned ballots recorded fewer over-votes than any other type of ballot, and that if all the ballots in Florida had been cast and counted this way, Gore would have won Florida.

There may well have been other problems with optical scanners in Florida in 2000 (though you do not make it clear about what incidents refer to which election) but that does not invalidate Mebane's finding, which is very important. Whatever is wrong with electronic voting, one heck of a lot was wrong with levers and punchcards in 2000 in Florida, and probably still is where they are still used.

continued

Dynasty_At_Passes (254 posts) - shows internal Diebold memos refute Mebane.
Sat Aug-20-05 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #194
213. Regarding the Mebane piece.
"He concluded that precinct-tabulated optical scanned ballots produced fewer over-votes than any other type of ballot,"

But the problem is he stated this would have ENSURED GORE WON THE ELECTION BY 30,000 VOTES when the very opposite is true.
This is the red flag I'm talking about.

"A "faulty memory card" was cited as the cause by the manufacturer. Experts and Diebold's own technical staff dismissed this as implausible for substansively the same reasons cited by the author:
"A memory card is like a floppy disk. If you have worked with computers for any length of time you will know that a disk can go bad. When it does, which of the following is most likely? In an Excel spreadsheet that you saved on a 'bad disk,' might it read a column of numbers correct the first time: '1005, 2109, 3000, 450...' but the second time, replace the numbers like this: '1005, 2109, -16022, 450...' Or is it more likely that the 'bad disk' will ... fail to read the file at all, crash your computer, give you an error message, or make weird humming and whirring noises."'

Diebold internal emails:

Ken Clark (Diebold ES R&D Manager) - January 18, 2001 1:41 PM
"My understanding is that the card was not corrupt after (or before) upload.
They fixed the problem by clearing the precinct and re-uploading the same card.
So neither of these explainations washes. That's not to say I have any idea what
actually happened, its just not either of those ... The problem is its going to be
very hard to collect enough data to really know what happened. The card isn't
corrupt so we can't post-mortem it (its not mort)."

John McLaurin - Diebold ES - 18 Jan 2001 15:44:50
"...the negative numbers ... occurred when Lana attempted to reupload a card or
duplicate card. Sophia and Tab may be able to shed some light here, keeping in
mind that the boogie man may me reading our mail. Do we know how this could occur?"

Tab Iredale - Diebold ES - 18 Jan 2001 13:31
The problem precinct had two memory cards uploaded ... on the same port approx.
1 hour apart. As far as I know there should only have been one memory card uploaded.
I asked you to check this out when the problem first occurred but have not heard back as to whether this is true. Given that we transfer data in ascii form not binary and given the way the data was 'invalid' the error could not have occurred during transmission. Therefore the error could only occur in one of four ways:
...
<4> There is always the possiblity that the 'second memory card' or 'second upload'
came from an un-authorised source.

John McLaurin - Diebold ES - Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:56:06
I will be visiting with Lana on Monday and will ascertain the particulars related
to the second memory card. One concern I've had all along is 'if' we are getting
the full story from Lana.

("Lana" is Lana Hires, the Volusia election employee described by Blackboxvoting as "particularly unhappy about seeing the Black Box Voting investigators in the office" in Nov 2004, described by BBV as having initially rejected their request to visit the warehouse containing election voting data, and "ordered them out")

BBV summary of Diebold memo's:
"What we know from the memos can be summarised as follows...
Two memory cards were uploaded from Volusia Couny's precinct 216, the second one was loaded sometime close to 2am in the morning. It automatically replaced the first card's results and reduced Gore's total by 16,022 votes and added several thousand votes to Bush plus a variety of minor candidates;

Both memory cards loaded into the system clean and without errors, indicating (contrary to the official line) that they were not faulty;
After the error was noticed the original card was reloaded and the mistake was rectified;

The error was introduced in such a way that the total number of votes remained unchanged (again something that could not happen by chance);

According to the technical boffins, the chance of the memory card being corrupted and still passing the checksum error test are less than 60,000 to 1;

The technical managers at Diebold Election Systems considered it a reasonable possibility that the second card was part of deliberate conspiracy to rig the election results." "
http://www.answers.com/topic/2004-u-s-presidential-elec...

Now, Mebane says that the optical-scan machine would have given Gore the election based on its ability to filter out overvotes. This is false, because it was this very optical-scan machine which virtually costed Gore the election. 16,000 votes in the deciding chapter, were lost by a "blamed memory card" Theresa LaPore says referring to Diebold. However the memory card was switched, and was proven to not be faulty. So someone basically deleted 16,000 votes at least, which erases Gore's margin, and it was the optical scanner who was the culprit in 2000.

This is a very serious distinction which harms Mebane's credibility immediately, because he gusses on the probability of Gore's win without citing the facts. If the optical scanners were really better and a lesser liability than the other system, it would not have costed these politicians the race. The fact is it is just as insecure, because the memory cards can be preprogrammed to alter and delete votes. That is what Diebold did here and Mebane does not even scan over it, hence why his argument about the Al Gore race falls apart.

***********************************************************************************
Febble (1000+ posts) - realizes that she cannot refute Dynasty's info. Defends Mebane. Cannot understand why his work is being "thrashed".
Sun Aug-21-05 04:47 AM
Response to Reply #213

222. Mebane did a study of the over-vote problem
in Florida, in 2000, and it was a problem. Relative to the system that had the least over-vote problem (precinct-tabulated optical scanners), the other systems (county-tabulated optical scanners, levers, punchcards) lost Gore 30,0000 votes. The butterfly ballot cost another few thousand didn't it? And your Volusia incident would also have done if it hadn't been rectified.

But Mebane wasn't addressing these last two. He was saying that levers, punchcards and county-tabulated optical scanners alone cost Gore 30,000 votes in over-votes.
Don't knock Mebane for addressing a different problem to the one you want him to address. Of course it doesn't harm his credibility. Over-votes are a serious problem. He tells us what it cost Gore. He's not saying "therefore you should use insecure precinct-tabulated optical scanners". I expect he'd recommend secure precinct-tabulated optical scanners.

OK, I'm done. Trash Mebane if you feel you need to. I fail to understand this compulsion to trash good people on the same side. But there it is.

Mebane concluded Gore would have been president if equipment less good at preventing over-votes than precinct-tabululated optical scanners had not been used. If precinct-tabulated optical scanners are also less secure than the other systems used in 2000 (probably) then that needs fixing too.

***********************************************************************************
Dynasty_At_Passes (254 posts) - again states that Mebane fails to see the problem with Optical Scanners in FL
Sun Aug-21-05 04:57 AM
Response to Reply #222
223. I understand what he was trying to say.
Edited on Sun Aug-21-05 04:58 AM by Dynasty_At_Passes
But it just came off as completely hack-jobbed in the context he was saying it.
If he had said that had overvotes not happened for Al Gore and a secure based precinct counter had been used than Al Gore would have won, I would have understood.

But he specifically stated optical scan machines being used in three of those counties would have eliminated Gore's problem, and given him a victory.

And he did so without realizing that those optical scan machines had their memory card switched, and ended up losing votes of at least 16,000 that threw the election. Did those problems ever get rectified? No, not in the recount. That's why the court decision came down the way it did. No one wanted to count the real votes. But that is not the issue here.

The issue is a serious oversight relating to security, and I guess I've addressed that. I just wish that if someone is going to do a study on one vague area of e-voting, they explain specifically what the study is out to address rather than lump it together and call it a comprehensive study.

I want to see scientists take responsibility for that, and if a comprehensive study is going to be done get a team of at least 100 people and staff and then explain all the basis of the study, the logistics, and compare machines by vendor. Its that kind of study which will really be able to tell and indicate what level of fraud and disenfranchisement is happening.

And it takes place with citizens such as in San Diego, who decided they should run another election alongside the "machine" election. This is what uncovered the discrepancies, not a statistical guess.

***********************************************************************************
Febble (1000+ posts) - cites title, rather than content of Mebane's paper pn FL 2000 overvotes.
Sun Aug-21-05 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #223
229. You say:
"I just wish that if someone is going to do a study on one vague area of e-voting, they explain specifically what the study is out to address rather than lump it together and call it a comprehensive study."

Who called it a comprehensive study? And what is vague about the title:
"The Wrong Man is President! Overvotes in the 2000 Presidential Election
in Florida".

Headline grabber (nice!) followed by a very specific indication as to what the paper is about.

And if you think most science ventures can "get team of at least 100 people" to address a question, you are certainly an optimist. This was a good piece of work. Don't knock if for not answering the question you wanted it to answer. It tells you the question it addressed, and tells you the answer. Nothing vague about it at all.
The reason for the precinct-tabulated optical scanner comparison was presumably to give a practical baseline. So the conclusion was not "if there had been no overvotes, Gore would have won" but "if the overvotes had been no worse than in precinct-tabulated optical scanners Gore would have won". In other words, even within the realms of available technology, over-votes could have been reduced to a level at which Gore would have won.

Nowhere in the paper does Mebane argue for insecure systems. That is a separate issue, addressed by others. And as far as I know, no-one has ever claimed that this study was a comprehensive study of electoral problems in Florida in 2000. Try this paper for references to more studies of Florida 2000 (including one by Mebane and others on the butterfly ballot).
http://www.capc.umd.edu/rpts/MD_EVote_HerrnsonNiemi.pdf

***********************************************************************************
Dynasty_At_Passes (254 posts)
Mon Aug-22-05 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #229

241. Ok, and I understand that. But the way the title came across....
Was very vague, saying this was an "overvote study related to the election" (2000)
When Mebane was writing that piece I thought he was going to discuss what the affects were in Ohio, or what was actually happening in Ohio. I thought the whole point for him being on the team was to address that issue, not study the differences between overvotes for a totally different election.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is it was simply worded poorly to be able to address what the report was about. If he wanted to do a seperate study about overvotes, I would have preferred it to be a cliffnotes version or something like that. It didn't make any sense to me to put out misleading information about Al Gore in the middle of the Ohio election investigation, it just didn't really make sense.

And I think it is possible for 100 people to do a comprehensive study, but they must first have the will and the money to do that study, as at this point it is completely neccesary.

We need to know exactly how many votes are getting lost, stolen, or likewise and discover a permanent solution to this problem. This is only getting done by citizens standing up and rolling out parallel elections like in california, its not getting done by throwing numbers back and forth using statistical guesswork I'm sorry to report.

***********************************************************************************
Febble (1000+ posts)
Mon Aug-22-05 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #241
244. Please look at the date on the piece I linked to
and you claim to have read. It was a study of over-votes in FLORIDA in 2000 . It was published on the 6th April 2004.

Mebane could scarcely be expected to address the issues of the NOVEMBER 2004 election in OHIO, when the 2004 election had not yet occurred
People do tend to be a little out of date when writing about things that have not yet happened. Give the guy a break.

Critique his analyses in the DNC report on Ohio 2004 by all means, but don't expect him to cover Ohio in a different paper written seven months before the event, about a different election in a different state.

***********************************************************************************
Dynasty_At_Passes (254 posts)
Mon Aug-22-05 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #244
247. Well where I read about it was in the DNC VRI report.
He didn't go into lengthy detail about the election 2000 but he compared touch-screen and other voting systems to opti-scan, and this seemed to be the general conclusion in the machine index.

Opti-scan machines were far better off because of their ability to filter out overvotes is what jumped out at me. It was un-neccesary I feel in this research report, and he would have been better off to simply have a cliffnotes section and link to his "earlier" report where this whole thing gets discussed.

To me it detracted from the overall paper. That just didn't seem to correlate with the problem.

***********************************************************************************
TruthIsAll (1000+ posts) - links to the FL 2004 voting machine data by county
Sat Aug-20-05 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #172

204. Florida 2004 - Touchscreens and Optiscans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

***********************************************************************************
Febble (1000+ posts) - criticizes TIA probability calc
Sat Aug-20-05 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #204
208. So you sided with me, rather than Hout et al?
I found that OpScans benefited Bush. But it WAS apples and oranges. There were no touch screens in the smallest (pop. wise) rural counties, and no opscans in the largest urban counties. This was what undermines Hout's study, IMO - they found that it was touchscreens that benefited Bush. I tried to control for that by considering mid size counties only, where both machines were equally likely to be chosen. But there were still big demographic variables.

The thing is, TIA, that it is one thing to say that the probability of something happening by chance is gazillion to one (though it wasn't that significant once you leave off the rural counties). It is quite another to say that the factor you are considering is the critical one. It's what collinearity is all about. If machine choice was related to some other factor, you can't tell whether it was the other factor or machine that was the critical one. Sometimes you can control for other factors in some way, but in this case the collinearity was high - presumably because touch screens had been introduced to replace the old levers and punchcards that had disenfranchised so many African American voters in 2000.

So that's really where we tend to differ, you and I - you like to keep things simple - and it's often a virtue. But there's a reason for the development of multivariate statistical methods - most things in real life have multivariate causes. It makes analysis complex. And appealing to complexity can look like nitpicking. But I would argue that it isn't - it's trying to get things right. Mebane and Sekhon did a study of Florida where they modelled many demographic variables, and didn't find a machine effect. Which doesn't mean there wasn't fraud -it just means if there was fraud it wasn't particularly associated with one type of technology rather than the other.

***********************************************************************************
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) - resorts to generalities: people have different beliefs.
Fri Aug-19-05 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #139
145. let me make another point
Most of the substance of this article is about the voting machines, yes?
I'm not in a position to say how sound all the analysis is -- there are several people here who know the issues inside out -- but I think we all agree that the electronic voting machines stink.

In pluralistic polities, concentrated interests tend to beat diffuse interests. The voting machine manufacturers know what they want, and the public doesn't -- or, if it does, isn't organized to act upon it.

Some people think the manufacturers intend to throw every election to the Republicans; some people think they just want to sell lots of machines. Some people think the machines were used to steal the 2004 election, others don't, and others are unsure. And many people don't think about the machines because they are busy doing something else.

***********************************************************************************
autorank (1000+ posts) - back to reality: GOP firms tabulate the votes
Fri Aug-19-05 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #145
158. 80% of the votes will be tabulated by Reich Wing Republican Firms
Dominionists etc. Are you comfortable with that.
It's all very clear if you just look and pay attention. The game is rigged. You'd do better to bet on a three card Monty game.

Read about the absence of certifications for security for example.

The public doesn't have to get organized' to have its constitutional right to a free and fair election where all votes are counted and tabulated fairly.
Wake up, it's already too late for many efforts that should have been recognized and made, i.e., global warming (how about that ice formation the size of France that broke off of the Polar cap; or 5 f'ing years without stem cell research and people in pain and dying as a result! This is why we care and take the evidence seriously. People are dying because of crappy, fixed elections. Enough with the quibbling. It's tedious and very costly.

Are you working on Melissa G's project?

***********************************************************************************
Melissa G (1000+ posts) - the naysayers are not focusing on the real evidence
Sat Aug-20-05 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #134
164. Okay Febble, Thanks for your articulate response..
Edited on Sat Aug-20-05 12:55 AM by Melissa G
Is this possibly a case of blind folks describing an elephant?

Here is my thinking. Your group is looking at the tail and we are looking at the trunk or vice versa if you will, but I am slightly colored by my perspective (grin) We will all in this group admit the enormous elephant of an unfair unverifiable election fraught with problems... The framing of the question then diverges.
In my group here in this forum and other places as well there was the question of were the Blivet votes came from when Dems did an unmatched effort of new voter registrations and motivated base turnout. This was unequaled on the repub side. We frame our analysis from this question. Your group doubts the validity of our approach.

Your approach, and I am being purposefully very vague here, centers around technicalities about polling noise and polling process. There are other threads where i have gone into detail on why i have my doubts about this approach but i am being general here and am just responding to concept. (No personal disrespect to you or OTOH but note my reference to the anatomical reference of what part of the elephant I ascribe this question to. grinning here)

Since it does not really answer the part of the elephant I am looking at, I think your question is more useless than you do. This in no way means I am right merely that I am more interested in my question than yours, which I generally understand as questions that speak to the technicalities of the polling process. Your group's work might give us valid information about process but it does not IMHO really do much to explain what is interesting to me about the enormous unexplainable vote shift. I find the heavily re weighted republican pre election poll defense unmoving and very weak as a supportive argument of the alleged shrub victory which is a rationale which has been posited as reason for the blivet win elsewhere..
Neither question is complete. They are tiny parts of a big elephant.

Bill Bored has another leg of the elephant, Tabulators and election management systems. He thinks we election poll watchers are noisy too...
Best,
Melissa
edit clarity

***********************************************************************************
Febble (1000+ posts) - admits vote supression in OH; but dismisses exit poll evidence; "devil in details" (TIA: where is the detailed analysis?)
Sat Aug-20-05 07:11 AM
Response to Reply #174
180. Well, we probably won't, Melissa
but I would nonetheless argue that my concerns are not irrelevant, are not red herrings (except in the sense that I think the exit polls are a probably red herring) nor of merely academic "interest". My own academic interests are quite other.

And if your estimate of the magnitude of the alleged vote-shift is based on the exit poll evidence, then I think it is shaky. The strongest evidence that the exit poll discrepancy was not due to fraud is given in the ESI study of Ohio - at least for Ohio. Discrepancies were not greater where Bush's increase in vote share was greater.

It is of course perfectly possible that Ohio was won by voter suppression rather than vote fraud. Or that vote fraud swung it, but escaped the exit polls (also perfectly possible). But that undermines the exit poll story in itself, as Ohio has been the poster child for the exit poll evidence. In other words, if the exit polls were not more off in Ohio where Bush's increase was greatest, it looks as though some other explanation is required for the exit poll discrepancy in Ohio. NH is also a stumbling block (though not an insuperable one, as Land Shark has pointed out - the discrepancy could have arisen through vote destruction - but that is not the mechanism generally alleged for the exit-poll red shift).

You may consider these nit-picking details. But the devil is often in the details. An apparently simple case can fall apart when looked at closely. And I don't want this case to fall apart. It was a corrupt election.

***********************************************************************************
anaxarchos (777 posts) - ok let's get down to business!
Thu Aug-18-05 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #111
122. Finally, after all this sound and fury, we get to it....
Good.
You were wrong when you said: "I don't need to change any of the facts you cite. I only have to attempt, over and over, to explain why they don't prove your case (even in a very weak sense of "prove")."

You also have to present an alternative thesis which explains the data as well or better. You just did that (at least the "present" part). In fairness, there weren't many options to chose from. As you pointed out, there are only those who voted for Bush, voted for Kerry, voted for someone else or those who didn't vote in 2000. It's kinda like a water balloon, isn't it? You push in here and it pops out there. So, if you reject fraud and you reject Mitofsky's mix of 2000 Gore and Kerry voters (I won't quibble with your "notoriously unreliable", etc. - I might quibble with Febble, though, because that almost rhymes) and instead you believe that "Given the extreme partisan polarization of views about Bush, I imagine that turnout among Bush2K and Gore2K voters was fairly similar", then all you are left with is a red-shift larger than that implied by the NEP survey questions in one or more of the groups listed above (I think Mitofsky has used the "all groups" option already in his final weightings).

You choose Bush2K voters. OK.
Now all we need is some empirical evidence.... Make the case.

***********************************************************************************
anaxarchos (777 posts) - OTOH. how much red-shift among Gore voters was needed for Bush margin?
Fri Aug-19-05 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #111
130. Ooops... I meant
you chose Gore 2000 voters, of course.
So since I can't edit the above, let me restate the question:
If you stipulate that Gore2K and Bush2K voters were roughly equal in turnout and that those that voted for others in 2000 and those that didn't vote broke roughly in the way indicated by the NEP... then:

Exactly how much red shift among Gore 2000 voters was needed (using any assumptions you like) in order to give Bush his plurality?
AND

Where is the empirical evidence (pre-election/post-election polls, etc.) that supports such a previously undetected red-shift among those who voted for Gore in 2000?
Simple question....

***********************************************************************************
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) - "I will try to doodle up some numbers". (no mention of the Final NEP)
Fri Aug-19-05 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #130
146. I will try to doodle up some numbers
of how the splits may have gone.
I don't know whether any pre-election polls (from 2004) ask about 2000 vote as well as vote intention. I believe there is a 2000-2002-2004 NES panel study which may shed some light.
But let's not get too subtle. The pre-election polls typically showed a very close race with, on average, Bush slightly ahead (see http://pollingreport.com/2004.htm ).

If we assume, as we seem to with decent warrant, that new voters (i.e., non-voters in 2000) split for Kerry, then as with your water balloon, Bush's lead or even competitiveness had to come from somewhere else. Wouldn't the obvious back-of-the-envelope inference be that more Gore 2000 than Bush 2000 voters were either defecting or opting out?

It is of course possible to subject the pre-election polls to a style of meta-analysis that indicates that properly understood, they clearly showed that Kerry had the advantage. I was open to those arguments before the election, and I still am. But I daresay that they are speculative, not definitive.

I suspect that for forensic analysis of the 2004 election, attention is best focused on particular states -- but if you have a killer argument that generates new avenues for testing the fraud hypothesis, please do share. (It could even be a half-baked argument in progress. We are all friends here, on good days at least.)

***********************************************************************************
anaxarchos (777 posts) - lays the groundwork for the "game"; TIA is right; "This IS "the clincher".
Fri Aug-19-05 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #146
150. I think that it is worthwhile to doodle up some numbers...
I've been doodling them up since the day after the election. Sometimes, I remind myself of the scene in the old movie "War Games", where the computer is trying to find a winning scenario to nuclear war. "Let me try the New Voters break evenly/Limited War option...", etc.

Let me put the math problem out front (in the spirit of friendliness). Of the four groups (Bush2K, Gore2K, Other, New), only Bush2K matters (because they break 90+% to Bush). You could have New break to Bush but to make up for Other and the 3M Bush plurality, you need to break significantly to Bush. That leaves "trace", to use your forensic analogy. 'Snot "plausible". You could leave Gore voters at home (snot plausible either for the reasons you stated). You could make Gore2K "red-shift" but it is a BIG shift and you have the trace problem again. You could do all of the above but then you end up defending many "slightly less plausible scenarios" at once... "I tell ya it was the perfect storm, dammit!"

The easiest way is to have more Bush2k voters. The problem is 122 million votes. You need more Bush2k voters than actually exist. A minor inconsistency. (BTW, I'm not saying Mitofsky did this... I think the exit polls "don't matter" except as a detector of "trace").

The irony is that it is NOT a killer argument. It is too obvious, much like a bar bet to win a beer.

I take all of your posts VERY seriously, OTOH. But I think TIA is 100% right this time. This IS "the clincher". Game, set, and match. But hey, its a friendly game as you say and he beat me too (he has this "sleeper" serve which kinda creeps up on you and then he "trash-talks" you while you are trying to figure it out). And... let's go through the scenarios anyway.

MUCH more importantly than all this, I think the fuckers stole the election. I'm still not exactly sure how. I'm not sure what constitutes "proof" or to whom one offers such "proof". I dunno what to say to your friend. But I am certain of this.

***********************************************************************************
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) - appears to be taken aback ; what is anax's "problem"?; doodling
Fri Aug-19-05 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #150
154. very interesting
I take your posts very seriously, too (especially the funny stuff -- I've found myself humming, "quibble, Febble, fibble, quebble, let's call the whole thing off!").

From first principles, I don't deeply see what your problem could be. It always drove me nuts that Bush was leading in some polls even though I was pretty sure he was gonna lose among new/returning voters, but it never seemed to me that this could be mathematically impossible.

But I do know that sometimes the more one doodles, the more doo-doo one discovers. So I accept your friendly warning about the sleeper serve.

Right This Moment I am doodling with Febble on something quite different. Do you have some doodles that I could look at? You could either post them here or e-mail them -- I will PM you with an address in case you don't have it.
Or in the alternative, I think Febble and I have also done some preliminary doodling on _this_ question, so maybe we can compare scrawls.

********************************************************************

continued

TruthIsAll (1000+ posts) Lays out two scenarios (12:22am and Final NEP vote shares) required to match the final recorded vote.
Bush needed 16.2%-17.7% of Gore voters!

Fri Aug-19-05 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #130
160. Googling? How 'bout crunching? Bush needed 16.2%-17.7% of Gore voters!
Edited on Fri Aug-19-05 10:23 PM by TruthIsAll
to get his 3 million margin, depending on the exit poll time
line..
We assume equal 100% turnout of both Gore and Bush voters.
USING THE FINAL 1:25PM EXIT POLL (13660 RESPONDENTS):
ONE OUT OF 6 (16.2%) GORE VOTERS HAD TO SWITCH TO BUSH,GIVEN
THAT ONE OUT OF 11 (9.0%) BUSH VOTERS SWITCHED TO KERRY.
THIS ASSUMES KERRY WON NEW VOTERS BY 54/45%.

AT THE 12:22AM TIMELINE (13047 RESPONDENTS):
KERRY WON NEW VOTERS BY 57/41%. BUSH NEEDED 17.7% OF GORE
VOTERS TO GET HIS 3 MILLION VOTE "MANDATE".
Note: I adjusted Nader/Other percentages slightly (21/71/8)
to 10/64/26) to back into the actual final numbers as close
as possible. In fact, it is more accurate, since the third
party vote totaled near 1%.



Final
1:25pm 13660 respondents
Voted Pct Bush Kerry Other Votes
No 17.31% 45.0% 54.0% 1% 21.16
Gore 40.25% 16.2% 83.8% 0% 49.21
Bush 39.82% 91.0% 9.0% 0% 48.68
Nader 2.62% 10.0% 64.0% 26% 3.20

Total 100% 50.81% 48.34% 0.85% 122.26
122.26 62.12 59.10 1.04

***************************************************

Pristine:
12:22AM 13047 respondents
Voted Mix Bush Kerry Other Votes
No 17.31% 41.0% 57.0% 2% 21.16
Gore 40.25% 17.7% 82.3% 0% 49.21
Bush 39.82% 91.0% 9.0% 0% 48.68
Nader 2.62% 10.0% 64.0% 26% 3.20

Total 100% 50.72% 48.25% 1.03% 122.26
122.26 62.01 58.99 1.26



***********************************************************************************
anaxarchos (777 posts) - assuming 90-85% turnout makes the numbers even worse
Fri Aug-19-05 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #160
161. Assume 90 or 95% (you can't really do 100%) and it gets worse....
What are the chances of one out of 5 or 6 Kerry voters going to Bush with no indication of that in the polls before or since? How often has this happened in U.S. history? How often has it happened at the same time that New or Other voters broke towards the challenger?
Nope...

Had to be more Bush voters. So what if they weren't alive? Ever read the old Russian novel Dead Souls (Gogul)? If it's more serfs we need, it's more serfs we get. Nobody said nothin' about LIVING...


***********************************************************************************
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) - finally, agrees to run some numbers
Sat Aug-20-05 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #161
183. I think that with 95% turnout, 16% Gore 2000->Bush 04 is close
I want to dood-- I mean, DO SOME SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS (grin) to see how things bounce around. (I assume that you meant "one out of 5 or 6 Gore voters," yes?)

I think that my own sleeper serve may have gotten by you. The national pre-election polls generally showed a close race with, on average, Bush slightly ahead. It was widely anticipated that Kerry would win among new voters (although we have to be careful here -- I think the main expectation was that he would win among first-time voters). And various surveys exemplifying false vote recall have been out there forever. (I think last time we went down this road, I used the online GSS interface to run crosstabs going back 30 years -- poor Mike Dukakis, by 1993, lost retrospectively by 41 points, but that was an extreme case. Some might think that Clinton would be struggling retrospectively against Bush in 1994, but nope, he was up 12 points, having won by less than 6. Other curious minds can roll their own at http://webapp.icpsr.umich.edu/GSS / .)

So I think we might have reasoned all along that Bush at least had a good shot at taking more Gore voters than Kerry took Bush'00 voters -- we could have made essentially the same argument, contemporaneously, from the pre-election polls that TIA is making from the exit poll weightings, except that he takes it as a reductio ad absurdum. And we should have anticipated that the retrospective crosstabs would confuse the hell out of us about the issue. We even might have expected that the exit polls would have a Democratic tilt, as they have in past years, although we wouldn't have guessed how large. I know some think it is contrived to say both that "exit polls favor Democrats" and "surveys retrospectively favor incumbents," and to apply both those generalizations (only generalizations, not laws) to the 2004 exit poll, but I don't see how one can not.

Now, I honestly don't know the answer to your questions. I don't know whether anyone ever bothered to work through the implications of false vote recall for retrospective crosstabs. But I imagine that this has happened rather often in U.S. history. Just as, rather often in U.S. and British history, the unweighted exit polls have diverged significantly from the official results -- something most of us hadn't noticed, so we didn't spontaneously laugh when some folks told us that they were uncannily accurate prior to 2004.

By no means do I think that this analysis rules out massive fraud. The 43/37 retrospective Bush2K/Gore2K split in the weighted 2004 exit poll seems plausible to me, and I don't think anyone could convince me that clearly it ought to be 40/40, but conceivably I might be convinced that it ought to be somewhere between. (I know that we are discussing Gore2K and Bush2K holds/steals, but again, my point is that false recall is gonna skew those figures.) I certainly don't see how anything in this line of analysis can be the "clincher."

***********************************************************************************
anaxarchos (777 posts) - proposes rules of the "game"
Sat Aug-20-05 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #183
193. You are WAY over-thinking this, PoliSciGuy,...
... and drifting toward comfort, I think. Let's stick to the de facto truce we just established above and see what we get. But, in order to do that, we also have to stick to some basic rules... which we just make up, of course.

Proposal:
1) The game is a game of "Best Fit" but the boundaries are subjective. Someone (maybe Descartes?) once said that "mathematics has a soul but it has no heart" (i.e. "conscience"), meaning any value is acceptable in calculation but not necessarily in life. We use a standard of "plausible", stretch our self-discipline to the max, and see where we end up.

2) The game gets played right here and anyone can play. Despite the "crazy" tone we sometimes adopt, there are close to 65000 experts here on what is "plausible" in politics. A few are truly nuts so we identify them early and make them the board of directors.
3) We keep it really simple, just as you said.

4) No changing assumptions in mid-stream without calling a time-out and saying... "This assumption can no longer be sustained because...". I am speaking specifically about: "Given the extreme partisan polarization of views about Bush, I imagine that turnout among Bush2K and Gore2K voters was fairly similar"(YOU) and "The 43/37 retrospective Bush2K/Gore2K split in the weighted 2004 exit poll seems plausible to me, and I don't think anyone could convince me that clearly it ought to be 40/40, but conceivably I might be convinced that it ought to be somewhere between." (also YOU). No shaving points allowed. This will test whether we can even get started. I'll start. I expect no more than a one to two point differential between returning Gore and Bush voters (I could argue it the other way). Some demographics favor the Republicans (re-registration) but others favor the Dems (Age). ...Let's see if we can even start this game.

5) No controversial applications of controversial interpretations of controversial theories (as in: "I don't know whether anyone ever bothered to work through the implications of false vote recall for retrospective cross tabs"), until simple sources of trace data are exhausted. We are dealing in gross magnitudes here and we have a thousand sources of info. For example, we are starting with the question of whether there was an erosion of the base for Democratic voters in 2004. On this, we have multiple survey questions in the 2004 exit poll (and from previous years) alone, on subjects such as "Were you contacted by the XXX campaign", where NO implication of response error applies.

6) You and I have a standing side agreement that I won't quibble with you about "post-election bandwagon effect"... I'll quibble with Febble (or was it queble with Febble?). If you really, REALLY need it, we will cut a new side deal.

7) I further agree not to comment on your serve until we get to the "double-dare-you" stage.

8) This game is only indirectly about Exit Polls and Polling in general. We are actually trying to reconstruct the election of GW Bush, in a "plausible" way.

9) This game is deadly serious for me, but turning it into a game avoids what is "conceivable" for some, what is "proof", what is "acceptable", and all the rest... the only standards for this game are "reason" and "virtue".

10) First one who says "the real vote count has to be right because it is the real vote count", loses.

Wadda you say?

***********************************************************************************
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) - agrees to play
Sat Aug-20-05 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #193
198. slight puzzlement
You invite me to this task by asserting that I am way over-thinking, and then propose ten rules of which one is to "keep it really simple"? Hmm. Probably I am in one of my hyper-literal moods.

I'm not quite sure where the "simple" starting place is here, but I can try to "play" it your way.

On point 4, I wonder whether you are seeing more wobble in my statements than I do. I would be comfortable assuming no difference in turnout between returning Bush2K and Gore2K voters, unless otherwise convinced. That being the case, I expect the retrospective question to yield more (reported) Bush2K voters, and a six-point gap seems fine. (I would have to download all the other exit polls to refine that, which I will not do any time soon.)

On point 5, I can't concede that rule if I don't know what it means. If you mean that I shouldn't spin the crazy idea that Gore2K voters would become Bush2K voters, I can't accept, because in the NES 2000-2004 panel study, some demonstrably did -- confirming my expectation from other panel and cross-section studies.

On point 6, ditto. TIA asked the reasonable question (only I think he thought it was rhetorical), whazzup with that 43/37 split? I think false recall is the obvious answer.

I think your point 9 is well put.

I'm fine with point 10. I thought the debate was whether the official vote count plausibly _could_ be right, not whether it _had to_ be right. And obviously people's criteria of plausibility vary, as per your point 9.
Nu?

***********************************************************************************
anaxarchos (777 posts) = open to negotiate the rules
Sat Aug-20-05 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #198
199. I've always thought that negotiating the shape of the table was legit...
As far as 10 points go, they are entirely arbitrary. There are only a few points in my post that really matter. The rest are to "keep it light", etc.
On wobble, if that is all you imply, I stand corrected.

On playing by "my rules", I'm making it up as I go along... same as you. I'm cool about any changes you may propose. Same goes for how we start... although we probably start with basic assumptions (i.e. 122 million votes, how many returning, how many new, etc.).

On 5 and 6, I'm also cool with setting aside the retrospective question entirely for now (Shouldn't be that tough if the object is the election and not the "validity of the exit poll", etc.). What concerns me are the obvious circular arguments: We can't trust the retrospective question because of response error ("notoriously unreliable") but that response error suddenly becomes "notoriously reliable" in order to prove a red-shift that is indicated by no other data... We'll use "reason" and "virtue" and self-restraint.

'Sok?
("I think we may already have started", he thinks to himself as he hits the ball in a long arching lob back over the net...)


***********************************************************************************
Febble (1000+ posts) Let's start a new thread
Sat Aug-20-05 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #199
201. Looking forward to the match
But why don't you start a new thread? It's hard to follow this one, now it's got all squashed against one wall (more like squash in fact). How about a proper court and a new title? I'll quibble as and when.

***********************************************************************************
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) Agrees
Sat Aug-20-05 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #199
207. I'm happy to negotiate
and restraint is good. I don't think it's dirty to say that some sort of retrospective reporting error could be expected, but the ground should swallow me if I even hint that it _proves_ (or offers strong independent support for) a red shift in the absence of other data.

Maybe I could make one more meta point about this "game," one I have made many times: I'm just as happy to "lose" as to "win," as long as we both feel at the end that the rules we made/played by together were fair. And with any luck, we might find some things to check out that hadn't occurred to us yet.

I agree with Febble that another thread makes sense. Either you can start, or I will keep working on my scenario of "what I think might've happened" and then figure out how to write it up.

***********************************************************************************
Melissa G (1000+ posts) this is what she wanted all along..
Sat Aug-20-05 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #207
212. Now THIS is what i bought popcorn for!!!
save me a ringside seat! Dueling Quants! I love it!

***********************************************************************************
anaxarchos (777 posts) states objective of the game: see what it takes for Bush to win "plausibly".
Sat Aug-20-05 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #207
217. OK, let's go...
As I understand the agreement: of the 10 rules, #4,#5,#6 go away as being paranoid fixations of mine (guilty as charged). Instead they are subsumed by rules #1 and #9 (which is now #6). I suggest we also get rid of rule #7 in order to cross OTOH's simplicity threshold (well known that 6 is simple but 10 ain't).

If you guys want to start a thread, it works for me. I think it should include the posts going back to OTOH's "of course I believe that a plausible scenario was ignored" and all those since so people know what we are talking about.

If I understand the form; the objective is to let George Bush win the White House "plausibly". One person puts out a scenario and puts forward an initial defense. Everyone then viciously attacks the plausibility of that scenario (but reasonably, virtuously, and with decorum). The defenders defend. We see what we learn and move on to the next.

I suggest one test scenario first to nail down the game. Then, I suggest we do the fraud scenario together (to the extent we can agree) because we all seem to agree that it is a "fit" even if some don't believe it is the "most plausible fit". Then, we try alternate scenarios that will fit equal or better. OK?

I suggest you set the initial assumptions, OTOH, and once we have agreed, I will drive the first test scenario. That will be "The Brilliant Karl Rove's super Brilliant strategy for Brilliantly winning in 2004". Mr. Rove has graciously agreed to let me drive this scenario for him as he has a previous engagement at his lawyers.

One agreement with TIA - if dead people vote, it counts as fraud.
One disagreement with everyone - notice rule #2. EVERYONE PLAYS.
Does that work for y'all?

***********************************************************************************
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts)
Sun Aug-21-05 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #217
232. sorry, delayed by children and antelopes

Although I decided to leave the antelope to its own devices, the children required a firmer hand.

I'm not sure I understand the relationship between the "initial assumptions" and the "first test scenario." But I will try to rough out something based on TIA's calculations and seemingly pertinent meanderings, and post it separately. Actually, I think I can do that fairly efficiently right now.

***********************************************************************************
anaxarchos (777 posts)
Sun Aug-21-05 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #232
233. OK, ...
If you don't think we ought to try it out first, then let's go straight to your red shift case. We can refine initial assumptions in that context just as easily. We'll do fraud later.
You SHOULD start a new thread though. This monster has become impossible.

***********************************************************************************
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts)
Sun Aug-21-05 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #233
234. I'm about to post it
A quick(?) problem summary and the redacted rules. You can amend to taste. I've finished the summary, just need to copy-paste-revise the rules.

***********************************************************************************
TruthIsAll (1000+ posts) Reminds them of the required stipulations of fact
Sat Aug-20-05 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #183
206. OTOH AND ANAX: BEFORE YOU START THE MATCH, READ THIS..
Edited on Sat Aug-20-05 07:44 PM by TruthIsAll
Before proceeding, let's establish some BASIC FACTS RIGHT NOW.
DO NOT start the match without stipulating to it.
The maximum number of Gore and Bush 2000 voters still alive in 2004 are FACTS.

USE THEM.
THESE ARE FACTS.
DO NOT IGNORE THE FACTS.
USE THESE FACTS AS A BASIS FOR THE DISCUSSION AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OR DON'T EVEN BOTHER TO PLAY THE GAME.

By that I mean, we must start with the MAXIMUM weightings:
Bush 39.82% of 122.26 million 2004 voters
Gore 40.25% of 122.26 million 2004 voters
THE FINAL EXIT POLL'S 43% for Bush is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE.
The 37% for Gore is POSSIBLE, though highly unlikely.
Start from there.
Work with the REAL numbers.
WORK WITH FACTS.
YOU MUST NOT IGNORE THEM.
YOU DO SO AT YOUR PERIL.
OTOH, don't try to split hairs.
UNBLOCK YOUR MIND.
ACCEPT YOUR SAVIOUR.
ACCEPT THE FACTS OF LIFE.
AND DEATH.
THIS WILL BE A FAIR MATCH IF:
YOU ACCEPT THE REALITY OF LIFE AND DEATH.
ONLY BUSH VOTERS STILL ALIVE COULD VOTE IN 2004.
ONLY GORE VOTERS STILL ALIVE COULD VOTE IN 2004.

THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF BUSH 2000 VOTERS STILL ALIVE WAS 48.7
HE GOT 50.456 MILLION VOTES IN 2000.
THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF GORE 2000 VOTERS STILL ALIVE WAS 49.2
HE GOT 50.999 MILLION VOTES IN 2000.
WE ASSUME AS GIVEN THE 0.87% ANNUAL U.S. DEATH RATE.
I HAVE ALREADY GIVEN YOU BOTH A HEAD START WITH ANALYSIS OF WHAT IT WOULD TAKE FOR BUSH TO WIN BY 3 MILLION VOTES.
YOU CAN ARGUE ABOUT THE COMBINATIONS AND PERMUTATIONS OF ASSUMED PARTISANSHIP SWITCHES.

BUT YOU HAD BETTER STIPULATE THIS BEFORE PROCEEDING:
THE APPROXIMATE 1.7MM BUSH 2000 VOTERS WHO DIED BEFORE ELECTION DAY 2004 COULD NOT HAVE VOTED.
I CANNOT BELIEVE WHAT I JUST SAID:
PEOPLE WHO DIE, STAY DEAD.
UNLESS YOU BELIEVE IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
AND THE IMMORTALITY OF BUSH VOTERS.
AGREED?

YOU MAY WANT TO BEGIN BY ASSUMING 100% TURNOUT.
FOR BOTH BUSH AND GORE VOTERS.
THAT'S WHAT I DID IN MY POST.

I HOPE YOU WILL REFER TO MY ANALYSIS.
BUT EVEN IF YOU DON'T, IT'S THERE.
IT'S NOT GOING ANYWHERE.

AND I JUST MAY CRUNCH SOME NEW NUMBERS.
JUST IN CASE.

OK?

WHO SERVES FIRST?

***********************************************************************************
Febble (1000+ posts)
Sat Aug-20-05 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #206
209. I'm sure OTOH won't invoke zombie voters
I've suggested a death rate of 8.25/1000 per annum, which I found on some website or other. That suit you?

***********************************************************************************
TruthIsAll (1000+ posts) Use the 0.87% mortality rate
Sat Aug-20-05 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #209
211. No, it doesn't suit me. My site said 0.87% No nitpicking, please.
Edited on Sat Aug-20-05 07:04 PM by TruthIsAll
Not that it would make a difference, Febble.

As long as you stipulate to the fact that BOTH Gore and Bush voters who died are no longer walking among us.
So what's the point?
Do you think making the ball slightly smaller will help your side?

***********************************************************************************
autorank (1000+ posts)
Sun Aug-21-05 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #211
220. What happened? OTOH call the game on account of "humidity"?

***********************************************************************************
Febble (1000+ posts)
Sun Aug-21-05 04:20 AM
Response to Reply #211
221. of course not
It's just that I found that figure here
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.ht...
and used it. I couldn't remember what you'd used. Thanks for providing the figure. As you say, it shouldn't make a difference.

PLEASE don't fly off the handle, TIA! I once knew a cat like you, much beloved, but boy did you have to be careful not to stroke his fur the wrong way.
I'm trying to make sure the playing field is level, not slant it in one direction. That's why I posted a figure for you to check. I'm sure everyone will be happy to use yours.

And as I said, no zombies sounds fair. I hate zombies too.

***********************************************************************************
Febble (1000+ posts)
Sun Aug-21-05 07:26 AM
Response to Reply #211
228. Apologies
Just noticed you gave a figure in that post. I DO wish you wouldn't use ALL CAPS! It makes your posts so hard to read. My trifocals aren't up to it.
0.87% is fine, I'm sure. Who knows where the CIA got their 0.83% figure from. I just used theirs as I had lost track of your previous posts.

****************************************************************************

continued

Edited on Sun Aug-21-05 06:34 AM by TruthIsAll
We can derive a mathematical relationship to calculate what it
would take for Bush and Kerry to tie. Given Kerry's percentage
of Bush 2000 voters (X1), we can determine the percentage of
Gore voters (X2)he needed to tie Bush. Or vice versa.

We hold the Nader and New voter percentages constant.



x1 x2
K%G K%B
94.94% 1%
93.95% 2%
92.96% 3%
91.97% 4%
90.98% 5%
89.99% 6%
89.00% 7%
88.01% 8%
87.02% 9%
86.03% 10%
85.04% 11%
84.05% 12%


Assume Final National Exit Poll percentages, with maximum
weightings based on actual 2000 votes:

Assume Kerry gets:
1) 2% of Bush's 2000 vote, he needs 93.95% of the Gore vote.

2000 Pct Kerry Bush Other Votes
DNV 17.31% 54.00% 45.00% 1.00% 21.16
Gore 40.24% 93.95% 6.05% 0.00% 49.2
Bush 39.83% 2.00% 98.00% 0.00% 48.7
Other 2.62% 71.00% 21.00% 8.00% 3.2

Total 100% 49.81% 49.81% 0.38% 122.3


2) 6% of Bush's 2000 vote, he needs 89.99% of the Gore vote.

2000 Pct Kerry Bush Other Votes
DNV 17.31% 54.00% 45.00% 1.00% 21.16
Gore 40.24% 89.99% 10.01% 0.00% 49.2
Bush 39.83% 6.00% 94.00% 0.00% 48.7
Other 2.62% 71.00% 21.00% 8.00% 3.2

Total 100% 49.81% 49.81% 0.38% 122.3


3) 8% of Bush's 2000 vote, he needs 88.01% of the Gore vote.

2000 Pct Kerry Bush Other Votes
DNV 17.31% 54.00% 45.00% 1.00% 21.16
Gore 40.24% 88.01% 11.99% 0.00% 49.2
Bush 39.83% 8.00% 92.00% 0.00% 48.7
OtherN 2.62% 71.00% 21.00% 8.00% 3.2

Total 100% 49.81% 49.81% 0.38% 122.3


4) 10% of Bush's 2000 vote, he needs 86.03% of the Gore vote

2000 Pct Kerry Bush Other Votes
DNV 17.31% 54.00% 45.00% 1.00% 21.16
Gore 40.24% 86.03% 13.97% 0.00% 49.2
Bush 39.83% 10.00% 90.00% 0.00% 48.7
Other 2.62% 71.00% 21.00% 8.00% 3.2

Total 100% 49.81% 49.81% 0.38% 122.26


5) 12% of Bush's 2000 vote, he needs 84.05% of the Gore vote

2000 Pct Kerry Bush Other Votes
DNV 17.31% 54.00% 45.00% 1.00% 21.16
Gore 40.24% 84.05% 15.95% 0.00% 49.2
Bush 39.83% 12.00% 88.00% 0.00% 48.7
Other 2.62% 71.00% 21.00% 8.00% 3.2

Total 100% 49.81% 49.81% 0.38% 122.26


************************************************************

Derivation of the formula:

MaxVotes Pct2004
Gore 49.2 40.24% Gore
Bush 48.7 39.83% Bush
Other 3.2 2.62% Nader
Total 101.1 82.69%

NV 21.16 17.31% New voters
Kerry
KNV 11.4264 54% New votes
KN 2.272 71% Nader votes
KGV X1*49.2 X1 Gore votes
KBV X2*48.7 X2 Bush votes
Total 13.6984 + X1*49.2+ X2*48.7

Bush
BNV 9.522 45% New votes
BN 0.672 21% Nader votes
BGV (1-X1)*49.2 1-X1 Gore votes
BBV (1-X2)*48.7 1-X2 Bush votes
Total 10.194 +(1- X1)*49.2+ (1-X2) *48.7

Total Kerry = Total Bush

x1*g + x2*b +.54*nv +.71n = (1-x1)*g+ (1-x2)*b + .45*nv +
.21*n

2x1*g - g +2x2*b -b +.09*nv + .50*n = 0

g * (2x1-1) + b *(2x2-1) +.09*nv +.50*n =0

49.2 * (2x1-1) + 48.7 *(2x2-1) +.09*21.16 +.50*3.2 =0

98.4*x1 - 49.2+ 97.4 * x2 - 48.7 + 1.9044 + 1.60 = 0

98.4*x1 + 97.4*x2 = 49.2 +48.7 -1.9044 - 1.60

98.4*x1 + 97.4*x2 = 94.3956

x1= (94.3956 -97.4x2)/98.4

x1=.9593 -.9898*x2



***********************************************************************************
TruthIsAll (1000+ posts)
Sun Aug-21-05 06:58 AM
Response to Reply #226
227. Typo fix: Kerry% of Gore voters =X1; K% of Bush 2000 voters =X2
Typo fix: Kerry% of Gore voters =X1; K% of Bush 2000 voters =X2

TruthIsAll (1000+ posts)
Mon Aug-22-05 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #226
248. Are we done yet?
Edited on Mon Aug-22-05 10:29 PM by TruthIsAll
eKv Early Kerry Voter.
lBv Late Bush Voter.
oFv Overpolled Female Voter.
dEp Democratic Exit Pollsters.
iEp Inexperienced Exit Pollsters.
yEp Young Exit Pollsters.
hMe High Margin of Error.
kCe Kerry Cluster Effect.
kDe Kerry Design Effect
bBe Bush Bandwagon effect.
mFt Massive Fundie Turnout.
rBr Reluctant Bush Responder.
eBr Exuberant Kerry Responder.
lGv Lying Gore Voter.
fGr Faulty Gore Recall.
What's next?

***********************************************************************************
Melissa G (1000+ posts) discusses 2000 consortuium recount story buried by themedia
Wed Aug-17-05 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #32
74. Hi Febble, In all the really plausible recounts done by the newspaper
Edited on Wed Aug-17-05 11:14 PM by Melissa G
consortium that recounted Florida, Shrub lost! This story was buried by the press after 9/11 but i am happy to send you links.
Melissa
editing to include what I am responding to..your partial post below
" Bush won Florida without the help of Jeb Bush? (TIA)
Probably, but he might have helped anyway (febble)

***********************************************************************************
Febble (1000+ posts)
Thu Aug-18-05 02:48 AM
Response to Reply #74
83. I am convinced Gore won Florida in 2000
as I said.
I assumed this question this referred to 2004.

***********************************************************************************
autorank (1000+ posts) Al Gore presided over certification of an election stolen from him
Thu Aug-18-05 04:15 AM
Response to Reply #83
86. And isn't that the start of the illegitimacy! What a fiasco Florida was.
It's bothered me ever since the ugly events during which thugs stole the election. At least Gore fought back. He missed the boat, unfortunately, by not challenging on race and the felon purge (would you trust your private data with ChoicePoint).
The most tragic scene in modern American politics was Al Gore, as Vice President, presiding over the certification of the vote, having to gavel down the challengers, and watching 100 US Senators sit there and do nothing (these are the same folks who helicoptered out of the DC area right after 911 while the rest of us waited for the other shoe to drop).
The theft of the presidency 2000 and Florida 2000 are the beginning points of the new Voting Rights movement.
Here's an article of interest, my favorite long running outrage, "spoiled ballots" ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=artic...

***********************************************************************************
Melissa G (1000+ posts)
Thu Aug-18-05 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #83
127. I think Bush lost Florida in 2004 as well. I'll try to dig up supportive
documentation which I do not have at my fingertips before I try to convince you though...

***********************************************************************************
Melissa G (1000+ posts)
Sun Aug-21-05 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #83
238. Here is a Zogby article on how he believes Kerry won Florida
http://marc.perkel.com/archives/000642.html
and there is of course the Freeman paper about this..

***********************************************************************************
TruthIsAll (1000+ posts) Kerry wins the worst case scenario
Thu Aug-18-05 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #9

112. THE CALCULATION FOR THE 37% GORE/ 54% KERRY NEW VOTER SCENARIO - AND MORE.
Edited on Thu Aug-18-05 02:52 PM by TruthIsAll
He wins by 1.03 mm votes


.... Weight Kerry Bush Other
DNV 20.6% 0.54 0.45 0.01
Gore 37.0% 0.91 0.09 0
Bush 39.8% 0.09 0.91 0
Other 2.6% 0.71 0.21 0.08

Total 100% 50.22% 49.37% 0.42%
122.3 61.39 60.36 0.51

Because Kerry, Bush and Nader weights are given, the
remainder (for the 122.26 total) must be New voters.

But New voters comprised only 17-18% of the 2004 electorate.
Thus, Gore voters comprised more than 37%.

And Bush did not get 39.82% (his maximum).
Some Bush voters stayed home.

It was probably very close to:
Kerry 39.5%, Bush 39.0%

.... Weight Kerry Bush Other
DNV 18.9% 0.54 0.45 0.01
Gore 39.5% 0.91 0.09 0
Bush 39.0% 0.09 0.91 0
Other 2.6% 0.71 0.21 0.08

Total 100% 51.51% 48.09% 0.40%
122.26 62.98 58.80 0.49


BUT WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE THE FINAL EXIT POLL PERCENTAGE?
KERRY won 57%, NOT 54% of NEW voters,
ACCORDING TO THE PRISTINE 13047

That means he won by 6 million votes (52%-47%)
It was a Kerry landslide.


.... Weight Kerry Bush Other
DNV 18.9% 0.57 0.41 0.02
Gore 39.5% 0.91 0.09 0
Bush 39.0% 0.09 0.91 0
Other 2.6% 0.71 0.21 0.08

Total 100% 52.08% 47.34% 0.59%
122.3 63.67 57.87 0.72



***********************************************************************************
Chi (921 posts)
Sun Aug-21-05 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
236. WOW...Looks like the band's back together for this one
Chi grabs his slippers and kicks his feet up.....

***********************************************************************************
Melissa G (1000+ posts)
Sun Aug-21-05 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #236

237. Hi Chi! Come play on the other thread...
I saved some popcorn for you!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

***********************************************************************************
Chi (921 posts)
Mon Aug-22-05 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #237
239. Heya Melissa G
(waves spastic-ally)
Actually, I went to post something funny on two occasions, but I'm really intrigued by the game they're inventing/playing.
So I didn't want to distract.
Figured I'll pretend to be watching golf or tennis, since they're all playing so nice.
I'm warming up my golf-clap as we speak.
Thanks for the popcorn offer, if I run out before I , I'll take you up on it 8)

***********************************************************************************
anaxarchos (777 posts)
Mon Aug-22-05 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #239
240. Since when do you distract, Chi my man.... n/t

***********************************************************************************
Chi (921 posts)
Mon Aug-22-05 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #240
242. Awwww....Thanx.
Give me an A
Give me an N
Give me an A
Give me an X....
LOL
Heya Anax, how the hell are ya 8)
Been needing to ask since I read it....who the hell is the "Rocks eat Popcorn" guy?
Hehehe, my brain's been trying to make sense of that since I read it.
(Chi grabs two fist-fulls of hair and screams "MAKE IT STOP!")

***********************************************************************************
anaxarchos (777 posts)
Mon Aug-22-05 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #242

243. Rick Brady, Fundie Election Blogger...
His website is "Stones Cry Out" (What? I was close...).
He came to visit TIA once. Might have been the shortest visit in history (at least under that name).
A different one wrote to me once to ask since I used Abe Lincoln as an avatar, wouldn't I "reconsider" the Republican position?
I wrote back and said: "It's not Abe Lincoln... It's John Brown".
Never heard from him again....

***********************************************************************************
tommcintyre (1000+ posts) Responding to TIA being banned in the middle of the "Game" thread
Thu Aug-25-05 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
250. kick - In tribute to his tremendous contributions - WHY??? :( n/t


***********************************************************************************
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts)
Mon Sep-26-05 01:30 PM
Response to Original message

253. but it's as wrong as it ever was...
OK, if someone gets to choose some of his assumptions, he can vary others -- can come up with dozens, hundreds, millions, billions of "alternative scenarios" -- and always get the same result.
From shell game to Excel game.
Or maybe it's more like green exit polls and ham. "Would you eat them with a tart? Would you eat them in a chart? Do you like them good and plenty? Maybe times one hundred twenty?"
Grrrrrr.

*****************************************************************************

THE END

(to be continued in the "Game)