Reply #51: TIA: Still not clear to you? OK, let's try again.

[caruso]

FEBBLE
I have no idea, TIA, what you mean by "weights".

--------

What is NOT a factor in computing the weights is answers to the question "how voted in 2000". I do not know what you mean by "weights" in this context. You are either confused as to how the weights are computed, or you are using the term in a different sense. If the latter, you need to make it clear what you mean. It is not at all clear to me what you mean.

TIA
Still not clear? After all these months?
OK. Let's try again.

Please answer the following very simple questions. They are very straightforward. If it's not too much to ask, keep your responses short and simple. Just answer the questions.

1. Do you agree that no more than the Bush, Gore, and Nader voters still living could have voted in 2004?

Yes or No

2. Do you agree that the above number of Bush, Gore and Nader voters is a maximum and assumes 100% turnout?

Yes or No

3. Do you agree that since 100% (maximum) turnout is unrealistic, it makes sense to assume a certain percentage turnout of those who actually voted in 2004? Let's call this the 2000 voter turnout percentage.

Yes or No

4) Do you agree that we have now derived a good approximation of the number of Gore, Bush and Nader voters who actually came out to vote in 2004?

Yes or No

5) Do you agree that given a) the number of Gore, Bush and Nader 2000 voters who came out to vote in 2004 and b) the total 2004 recorded vote, we must subtract (a) from (b) in order to approximate the number of first-time and other voters (DNV2k) who did not vote in 2000?

Yes or No

6) Do you agree that we now have the data needed to calculate the following feasible vote share "multipliers"?

GW = Gore 2000 voter turnout in 2004 as a ratio of the total 2004 recorded vote
BW = Bush 2000 "
NW = Nader 2000 "
DNVW = Others who did not vote in 2000 "

Can we call these multipliers weights?

Yes or No

7) Do you agree that we have not said anything thus far about the National Exit Poll, much less sampling error or voter response?

Yes or No

8) Do you agree that the ONLY remaining unknowns are Kerry and Bush vote shares of returning Gore, Bush, Nader and DNV2k voters?

Yes or No

9) Do you agree that the 12:22am National Exit Poll vote shares can be considered to be the base case assumptions in calculating the National vote shares?

Yes or No

10) Do you agree that since there is a margin of error (which we need not argue about here) for the base case vote share assumptions, it makes sense to "stress test" the base case by analyzing alternative vote shares?

Yes or No

11) Do you agree that the best way to "stress test" the base case is to employ a sensitivity analysis (two-way table) for the vote shares? In other words, to play what-if?

Yes or No

Well, that is what I have done. It's all right here.
________________________________________________________________________

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#NatExitPollSens

Sensitivity Analysis I
Effect of changes in demographic vote shares on Kerry’s national vote.

The base case scenario assumes the following:
1) 12:22am National Exit poll vote shares
2) annual 0.87% mortality rate
3) 95% voter turnout of Gore, Bush, Nader voters
Kerry wins the base case by over 7 million votes: 52.56-46.43%
________________________________________________________________________

I hope that my use of the following in the above context makes sense to you now: weights, feasibility, sensitivity analysis, stress test, plausibility, scenario, turnout, base case, mortality, maximum, multipliers, vote shares, assumptions, facts.

On the other hand, I'm confident the above logic will make sense to unbiased viewers of this thread who remember from Junior High how their teacher calculated the number of students attending class on any given day: It was simply the total who were registered in the class minus those who were sick or just decided not to show up.