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 #62: OK [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 locked.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 05:02 AM
Response to Reply #60
62. OK
The NEP National poll is a subset of the entire poll. That is why the precinct Ns by category are so small.

By "variance in poll-count discrepancies" I mean that the discrepancy between the poll and the count at precinct level varied. Some precincts had large pro-Bush discrepancies (count more pro-Bush than the poll). There were also precincts with large pro-Kerry discrepancies. Fraud would produce discrepancies such as these, so would a biased sample. If the OP is correct, and votes were padded in some places and not others, precincts with padded votes would have larger pro-Bush discrepancies than precincts than those without padding. They would also tend to show greater increases in Bush's vote-share (or smaller decreases). So the two measures - increase in Bush's vote share, and pro-Bush discrepancy - should be correlated. But they aren't.

If the Bush vote was systematically padded in urban areas, then we should see greater discrepancies in urban areas, AND these discrepancies should be associated with greater increase in Bush's vote share. That is what I looked for, and what I failed to find. There were rather greater discrepancies in urban than in rural area, but the increase was not associated with greater advantage to Bush, whichever way I sliced it, and I sliced it a lot of ways. There was some evidence that in urban areas, there were greater discrepancies associated with lever machines, which could be due to greater residual votes among Democratic voters. But it was strongly leveraged by New York. So you might argue that there was massive fraud on New York levers.

If you have to look somewhere, I'd look there. I do notice, however, that New Yorkers are not agitating to get rid of their lever machines.
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