Reply #74: so the clincher is, there is no clincher?

[foo_bar]

There is no support in the Exit Polls for a "Gore 2000 voters defection" thesis.

There's no Exit Poll support (in caps, like Divine Truth) for plenty of things that actually happen. Take time and space, for instance:

From our post-election survey, the exit poll interviewers reported the distances that they were forced to stand from the polling location on election day:

Location of Interviewer # of polling locations mean WPE * Miss Rate
Inside the Building 506 38% -5.3 9%
Right outside the entrance 235 17% -6.4 10
10-25 feet away 239 18% -5.6 11
25-50 feet away 165 12% -7.6 13
50-100 feet away 148 11% -9.6 16
More than 100 feet away 53 4% -12.3 18

http://www.exit-poll.net/election-night/EvaluationJan192005.pdf

And that's before the Febble function (as taught in undergrad statistics, unlike the quasi-Kabbalahist credo), so you might imagine what kind of scatter plots you get from a universe of fickle mushheads (to paraphrase Mayor Quimby). That's why Asimov's Psychohistory is still science fiction, and not something TIA worked out in Excel.

Thus, fraud... Quite Easily Done (QED).

That's axiomatic without inserting the false dilemma between faith-based tabulations and faith-based polls. Both can be wrong without contradiction, the paradox only appears when you insist that garbage out proves flowers in. Hence the TIA clincher and the anax game are both reversals of the burden of proof, because there isn't much to build on when the premise is a set of exit polls with Bible Code properties*.

"Has it come down to this? Laymen debating experts about technical matters in which they are totally ignorant?"
-TruthIsAll, before the election
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=60466#60547

*

When the authors used a randomization test to see how rarely the patterns they found might arise by chance alone they obtained a highly significant result, with the probability p=0.000016. Our referees were baffled: their prior beliefs made them think the Book of Genesis could not possibly contain meaningful references to modern-day individuals, yet when the authors carried out additional analyses and checks the effect persisted.

That is, the probability of getting the results they did was 16 out of one million or 1 out of 62,500. The authors state: "Randomization analysis shows that the effect is significant at the level of 0.00002 the proximity of ELS's with related meanings in the Book of Genesis is not due to chance." Harold Gans, a former cryptologist at the US Defense Department, replicated the work of the Israeli team and agreed with their conclusion. Witztum later claimed that, according to one measure, the probability of getting these results by chance is 1 in 4 million. He has apparently changed his mind and now claims that the probability p = 0.00000019 (1 out of 5.3 million).

http://skepdic.com/bibcode.html