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 #53: OK [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #51
53. OK
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.

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

Yes or No


Yes.

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

Yes or No


Yes.

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

Yes or No


Yes.



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


Yes.

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

Yes or No


Yes.



6) Do you agree that we have now determined feasible vote share weighting "multipliers"?

Yes or No


Well what do you mean by "feasible vote share weighting "multipliers" "? What are you multiplying? The only thing that makes sense is that you are "weighting" some cross-tabulation from the National Exit Poll, and you say below that "we have not said anything thus far about the National Exit Poll".

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


Well, what on earth are you multiplying ("weighting") if not the NEP?

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


Well, assuming that what you are trying to calculate is the proportion of voters who voted for Bush or Kerry in 2004, no, of course I don't agree, because we have no way of knowing the voteshares for Kerry and Bush among those who didn't vote in 2000 either. That's a huge unknown, unless we are considering the exit poll data, which you just said we weren't considering at this point. On the other hand, if what you are calculating is the proportion of 2000 voters who voted for Kerry and Bush, then, yes, I agree it is an unknown - presumably that's why you are trying to calculate it.


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


Well, I suppose you have to start somewhere. I would have started with the NEP spreadsheet myself (and did), not the derived crosstabs.

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?


I certainly don't consider that the total error in the NEP in the was limited to sampling error, and so I therefore would not agree that there was any inherent limit to any "stress test". In other words, demonstrating that only by "stressing" the data beyond the MoE could the data produce a Bush win would not demonstrate that a Bush win was "mathematically impossible" as you appear to conclude. It would merely demonstrate that if Bush in reality won, then the error in the poll was not limited to sampling error. For which there is abundant evidence, evidence you consistently ignore.

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, I agree that playing "what-if?" is the right approach. It's called hypthesis testing, and, in essence, it's what I do for a living. However, I do not agree that the plausibility limits to any such test can be computed from a calculation of sampling error. In the end, what limits the plausibility of your inference is your own credulity. Arguments from incredulity are not mathematical arguments.



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

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQRes ...

Sensitivity Analysis I
Effect of changes in demographic vote shares on Kerrys 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.


No, it isn't clear to me at all. Your "search space" is bounded by plausibility assumptions that you do not state. There are many other "solutions" that you do not test because they would violate your implicit assumptions.

On the other hand, I'm confident the above logic will make sense to unbiased observers of this thread who remember from Junior High School that the number of students who attended class on any given day was the simply the total who were registered in the class minus those who were sick or just decided not to show up.


Any inference is only as good as your assumptions. There are implicit assumptions in your analysis that go far beyond the perfectly justified assumption "that the number of students who attended class on any given day was the simply the total who were registered in the class minus those who were sick or just decided not to show up."

You need to state what they are, and justify them. I do not consider them justified by the evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

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