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 #59: TIA: The "false recall" explanation for Voted2k weights is moot; focus on the vote share scenarios [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
caruso Donating Member (48 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #53
59. TIA: The "false recall" explanation for Voted2k weights is moot; focus on the vote share scenarios
Edited on Sat Feb-10-07 03:34 PM by caruso
TIA
You have said YES to points 1-5. In fact, you have implicitly agreed to all points except #10.

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

Yes or No

FEBBLE
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".

TIA
Yes, I am anticipating using the multipliers as weights for the NEP vote shares. And yes, I have not yet mention the National Exit Poll, so I will rephrase the question:

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

Yes or No

I take your answer to be YES, since I was referring to the NEP, although I did not explicitly say so.

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

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

TIA
Semantics. Of course, Im referring to the NEP. So lets move on.
Nothing to discuss here.

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

FEBBLE
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 vote shares 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.

TIA
Why the confusion? I calculate the ratio (proportion, share) of returning 2000 Gore, Bush and Nader voters to the 122.3mm total 2004 recorded vote. The remaining share must be the proportion of DNV2k voters to the total vote.

So I take your answer to be YES.

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?

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

TIA
I take your answer to be YES. NEP vote shares CAN be considered as the base case.

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?

FEBBLE
I certainly don't consider that the total error in the NEP 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.

TIA
The Final NEP weights are mathematically impossible (not feasible). Both you and OTOH have already stipulated to that in the Game thread of August 2005. So any discussion of the How Voted weights is moot. We passed that hurdle a long time ago. We were in agreement then. So why are we still talking about false recall when it is no longer an issue. I thought we agreed on the the use of feasible weights a long time ago.

The original false recall argument was predicated on how the 2004 NEP respondents said they voted in 2000. Are you now saying that false recall also applies to how the respondents said they voted in 2004, just a few minutes after actually voting? Why would they lie about it?

It should be obvious to anyone reading this thread that the false recall argument is a rotting carcass.

So now you must focus on the vote shares. In the Game thread, you and your buddy provided a vote share scenario forced to match the Bush recorded vote. But the votes shares are extremely implausible when put in juxtaposition to the Bush 48.5% rating on Election Day, the final 30-day undecided vote break to Kerry (60-38% based on the NEP), the many accounts of documented fraud in Ohio (including the recent recount convictions), the documented evidence of fraud in many other states. And to top it off, DNV2k and Nader 2000 voters were solidly for Kerry.

In light of all this, an impartial observer would clearly agree: any Bush win scenario is implausible and does not pass the smell test.
Know this: If Kerry won the popular vote in Ohio by 52-48%, as the documented vote-switching and spoiled vote evidence now indicates, he did better than 52-48 overall. The Ohio Democratic presidential vote share always trails the rest of the nation.

TIA
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.

TIA
I take your answer to be YES, playing what-if is the right approach.


FEBBLE
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.

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.

TIA
And just what are those implicit plausibility assumptions? What are the solutions I am not testing? Be specific. You are welcome to make your own assumptions as to the vote shares and turnout percentages.

I have provided you with a detailed solution space. Its the sensitivity analysis. Do you have another solution space? Then show us your scenario matrix. And tell us why yours is plausible.

The whole point of the sensitivity analysis is to provide a wide range of scenarios of alternative Gore and Bush voter turnout and Kerry and Bush vote share scenarios.

You have never shown us one sensitivity analysis. Why not? You just keep on displaying that same, lame scatter chart- over and over again. Is that the full extent of your analysis? You can do better than that.

Enlighten us. Provide one plausible Bush winning scenario.

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