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 #13: Clarification from Kathy [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
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-23-06 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. Clarification from Kathy
In reference to this thread, on a site to which I will not link, Kathy posts:

OntheOtherHand, here is your own paper where you made the statement that you now deny you made:

http://members.verizon.net/~mtlinde/doppresponse.p ...

where you state:

ESI argued that if exit poll error evinced vote shifting, one would expect exit poll error to be correlated with the change in vote share between 2000 and 2004. That is, where Bush did better in the 2004 vote count than in the exit poll, Bush would on average do better, compared to 2000, than in precincts where the exit polls actually overstated Bushs 2004 vote share.

Kathy's response to that paper of yours is here:

http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/exit-pol ...

Please OntheOtherHand, let us tell DUers the true facts.


In her footnote to page one of the document linked in the OP, Kathy states:

{...}and rephrased by Liddle and Lindeman: "If there is vote fraud, then there will be a positive correlation between Bush vote increase from 2000 to 2004 and the exit poll discrepancy."
http://inside.bard.edu/~lindeman/slides.html


she thus mis-cites the source (different document), mis-attributes it (to Lindeman and Liddle, not to Lindeman) and misquotes it anyway.

She has, in fact, "paraphrased" Lindeman's paraphrase of ESI, expressed it as a quotation (i.e used quotation marks), and misunderstood it.

The statement as she misquotes in the OP link is not a true statement, and would indeed be refuted by a single counter example. The sentence she correctly quotes above from Lindeman is a true statement. Expectations can be thwarted in statistics, which is why we deal in probabilities not certainties.

I suggest that until Kathy learns to correctly attribute quotations, and indeed to correctly quote other writers at all, she refrains from calling those she misquotes "liars". I also suggest acquires a basic understanding of the nature of statistical inference.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -"2004 Presidential Election Compendium of Attempts to Dismiss Vote Fraud papau  May-22-06 03:00 PM   #0 
  - fact check  OnTheOtherHand   May-22-06 03:37 PM   #1 
  - I read the "quote" as a paraphrase and the ESI method correctly  papau   May-22-06 04:43 PM   #2 
  - Well, the thing is, papau  Febble   May-22-06 05:25 PM   #4 
  - I don't quite understand what you are saying.  Usrename   May-22-06 08:14 PM   #8 
  - Hi Feeble - I just got done writing a DU mail praising you - sort of!  papau   May-22-06 08:20 PM   #9 
     - OK!  Febble   May-23-06 12:16 PM   #14 
        - I don't see the difference.  Usrename   May-23-06 01:04 PM   #18 
           - Well there isn't much  Febble   May-23-06 01:38 PM   #19 
  - actually, all three quotations are wrong  OnTheOtherHand   May-22-06 05:45 PM   #5 
     - OK-but isn't it if fraud, then more likely than not a positive correlation  papau   May-22-06 08:30 PM   #10 
        - see Febble's response above  OnTheOtherHand   May-23-06 12:34 PM   #16 
  - Clarification from Kathy  Febble   May-23-06 11:11 AM   #13 
     - ah, with "clarifications" like that...  OnTheOtherHand   May-23-06 12:20 PM   #15 
     - Misrepresented Lindeman's quote? How so?  katinmn   May-23-06 09:58 PM   #20 
        - And both the quotations you cite  Febble   May-24-06 02:04 AM   #21 
        - indeed, Dopp blatantly ignored those quotations  OnTheOtherHand   May-24-06 06:27 AM   #22 
  - Our elections must be monitored by legitimate agencies both  ladjf   May-22-06 05:21 PM   #3 
  - yes, there is no reason to object to valid monitoring, period  OnTheOtherHand   May-22-06 05:46 PM   #6 
  - What NEDA and Dopp are doing is absolutely essential.  Stevepol   May-22-06 05:57 PM   #7 
  - Rationally and fairly  Febble   May-23-06 12:50 PM   #17 
  - Let me put in a word for David Dill here  eridani   May-22-06 11:49 PM   #11 
     - another wise person pointed out - its like money  WillYourVoteBCounted   May-23-06 12:08 AM   #12 
 

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