You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #5: Ron, thank you for every thing you're doing on FAIR ELECTIONS [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-25-05 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
5. Ron, thank you for every thing you're doing on FAIR ELECTIONS
I don't know you but I know your work and I am totally aware as to its importance. I am grateful to you for everything you are doing to try and get the rest of us the right to vote and know it's counted.

autorank
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Ron Baiman: Sunmmary of the USCV/E-M and Liddle Debate eomer  May-25-05 01:49 PM   #0 
  - "convey...some, of my...colleagues, frustration and outrage over this..."  tommcintyre   May-25-05 02:04 PM   #1 
  - I look forward to reading this tonight. Ron Baiman deserves our thanks  TruthIsAll   May-25-05 02:28 PM   #2 
  - A "digest" of Ron's post  tommcintyre   May-25-05 06:26 PM   #7 
     - Regarding this, Febble keeps sending me messages....  LightningFlash   May-25-05 07:28 PM   #8 
     - Deleted message  Name removed   May-25-05 08:03 PM   #9 
     - A bad case of cognitive dissonance?  tommcintyre   May-26-05 05:49 AM   #16 
     - fact check  OnTheOtherHand   May-26-05 07:05 AM   #20 
     - SIMPLE QUESTION: Do you agree that USVC should be allowed to....  tommcintyre   May-27-05 06:29 PM   #38 
        - Autorank pointed me to your question  OnTheOtherHand   May-28-05 04:55 PM   #39 
           - Thanks for responding  autorank   May-28-05 08:15 PM   #40 
     - I'm not trying to plead my case  Febble   May-26-05 01:31 PM   #23 
        - "since at least 1988"? Are these three posts just a coincidence?  tommcintyre   May-26-05 07:31 PM   #24 
        - 1988 is the earliest year  Febble   May-26-05 10:57 PM   #26 
        - Any WPE data from those years Febble?  Bill Bored   May-27-05 12:48 AM   #29 
           - Those are from the E-M report  Febble   May-27-05 01:58 AM   #31 
           - just a few more numbers (and a bit of history)  OnTheOtherHand   May-27-05 05:56 AM   #32 
              - Yes, I used the state-level  Febble   May-27-05 06:23 AM   #33 
        - See Votescam on George the first in 1988: here  Amaryllis   Jun-09-05 03:26 PM   #82 
        - Again, while you state it is not so.  LightningFlash   Jun-04-05 03:39 AM   #71 
           - census data  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-04-05 07:20 AM   #73 
              - I'm surprised I even have to debate this with you.  LightningFlash   Jun-04-05 03:52 PM   #79 
     - Much gratitude to you, tom, for breaking this down and  Ojai Person   May-26-05 01:31 AM   #12 
  - This is in fact what I had suspected all along...  LightningFlash   May-25-05 02:43 PM   #3 
  - "guess"??? I think you're being too kind ;)  tommcintyre   May-25-05 03:10 PM   #4 
     - Mitofsky now reminds me of John Bolton...  LightningFlash   May-25-05 03:55 PM   #6 
        - Interesting point. And like Bolton, I have this question about Mitofsky  autorank   May-27-05 01:10 AM   #30 
  - Ron, thank you for every thing you're doing on FAIR ELECTIONS  autorank   May-25-05 03:12 PM   #5 
  - Yes, we're lucky we have the likes of USCV and Conyers fighting for us n/t  tommcintyre   May-25-05 11:32 PM   #10 
  - Bookmarked. Nominated. Much gratitude to Ran Baiman!  understandinglife   May-26-05 12:29 AM   #11 
  - Thank you for clearing this up, once again.  Ojai Person   May-26-05 01:48 AM   #13 
  - Well... Kathy Dopp said pretty much the same thing. She "filched" 'em  tommcintyre   May-26-05 05:43 AM   #15 
     - Well, I didn't  Febble   May-26-05 06:11 AM   #17 
        - If I recall correctly, you said Ron would vouch for you...  tommcintyre   May-26-05 06:34 AM   #19 
        - Rashomon, maybe, not cognitive dissonance  OnTheOtherHand   May-26-05 08:56 AM   #21 
        - Partisan Response Rates  RonB   May-26-05 09:54 PM   #25 
           - Thanks, Ron  Febble   May-26-05 11:14 PM   #27 
           - Welcome to D U RonB!  Melissa G   May-26-05 11:59 PM   #28 
  - Point by point:  Febble   May-26-05 04:42 AM   #14 
  - Correction to response to point r)  Febble   May-26-05 06:24 AM   #18 
  - On the New E-M/Liddle "Zero Linear Correlation rBr Hypothetical"  RonB   May-27-05 01:42 PM   #35 
     - Well Ron  Febble   May-27-05 02:00 PM   #36 
  - KICK  autorank   May-26-05 09:12 AM   #22 
  - Hey, Ron, thanks for the kudo for ordinary citizens and non-mathematici-  Peace Patriot   May-27-05 06:25 AM   #34 
  - kick.nt  kster   May-27-05 03:08 PM   #37 
  - I've tried very hard to compare your statement with Febble's response  Time for change   May-29-05 03:56 PM   #41 
     - Links to the plots  Febble   May-29-05 05:10 PM   #42 
     - TFC, I believe you are right except that it is not a U shape.  eomer   May-30-05 06:57 AM   #43 
     - The blue line only has that slope  Febble   May-30-05 08:27 AM   #44 
        - Aren't we mixing up ln(alpha) with WPE?  Time for change   May-30-05 02:58 PM   #45 
           - OK I could be confused  Febble   May-30-05 05:22 PM   #46 
           - I was referring to the study that eomer linked me to  Time for change   May-30-05 06:51 PM   #47 
           - Yes, you must be looking at the wrong graphs.  eomer   May-31-05 06:50 AM   #48 
              - yes it is a U  Febble   May-31-05 09:57 AM   #50 
                 - Slicing and dicing...  eomer   May-31-05 10:54 AM   #51 
                    - Yes, I think we might be!  Febble   May-31-05 11:35 AM   #52 
                       - Yes, I saw that diary and bookmarked it...  eomer   May-31-05 11:54 AM   #53 
           - Response to TFC #45  eomer   May-31-05 07:18 AM   #49 
              - Thank you for the clarification eomer  Time for change   May-31-05 04:17 PM   #54 
     - E-M's "Hypothetical" rBr and Zero Correlation Do Not Explain Exit Polls  RonB   Jun-01-05 01:13 PM   #55 
        - Thoughts on significance of non-significant slope  Time for change   Jun-01-05 05:08 PM   #56 
        - on what response rates "have to be"  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-01-05 09:43 PM   #59 
        - It seems to me that you're basing your argument on small numbers  Time for change   Jun-01-05 10:04 PM   #60 
           - The numbers are small  Febble   Jun-02-05 02:40 AM   #61 
           - no, think about this again  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-02-05 06:31 AM   #63 
              - Sorry I'm not entirely engaging your point  Time for change   Jun-02-05 10:11 AM   #64 
        - To: Ron, Bruce, Kathy, TFC, EOMER, FEBBLE, OTOH  TruthIsAll   Jun-02-05 04:28 AM   #62 
           - Thank you for the information TIA  Time for change   Jun-02-05 10:17 AM   #65 
              - So if "most of all of them understand the simulation process"  autorank   Jun-04-05 12:38 AM   #70 
                 - actually I was there  OnTheOtherHand   Jun-04-05 07:04 AM   #72 
                 - I can't speak for the others  Time for change   Jun-04-05 07:48 AM   #74 
                    - First you speak for them, now you don't?  autorank   Jun-04-05 09:34 AM   #75 
                       - I was just speculating about them, not speaking for them  Time for change   Jun-04-05 10:21 AM   #76 
                          - Be honest and open, proud of your affiliations. "The truth shall set you  autorank   Jun-04-05 10:48 AM   #77 
        - USCV's Working Paper - and this analysis of WPE - is fatally flawed  Bruce ODell   Jun-01-05 05:44 PM   #57 
           - Thank you for your clarification of this  Time for change   Jun-01-05 06:03 PM   #58 
           - Bruce, care to comment?  TruthIsAll   Jun-02-05 01:19 PM   #66 
           - I don't understand how to interpret your model  Bruce ODell   Jun-02-05 03:22 PM   #68 
           - I have started a new thread on Bruce O'Dell's statement  Time for change   Jun-02-05 03:03 PM   #67 
           - Deleted message  Name removed   Jun-05-05 06:16 PM   #80 
              - Deleted message  Name removed   Jun-10-05 07:00 AM   #84 
           - USCV's Analysis is not Based on WPE, "Aggregate" Analysis is not "Flawed"  RonB   Jun-02-05 04:04 PM   #69 
              - Ron, you're right that "more stuff needs to be explained," like...  Peace Patriot   Jun-04-05 02:24 PM   #78 
              - Thank you for saying this so well, Peace Patriot. Science (mathematics,  bleever   Jun-05-05 08:40 PM   #81 
              - High Bush Precinct findings + Detailed Analysis of O'Dell Simulation Data  RonB   Jun-09-05 05:08 PM   #83 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC