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 #79: Further discussion.... [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
althecat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #58
79. Further discussion....
I found it interesting that turnout was supposed to be increased by 66% in the Big Cities according to the National reweighted numbers (and not dissimilarly in tne pre-reweighted numbers). Then I realised that the actual numbers of precincts in each category would be very small, and so the 66% is almost certainly wrong (as the official returns suggest). So the most likely explanation is that the Big City precincts in the NEP National sample were unrepresentative.


The 66% apparent increase in turnout in the Big Cities in that table is I presume an artefact of the reweighting. Though that in itself is also a guess.

Your guess is simply that a guess. And your explanation that it is due to simple polling error doesn't really cut it. That presumes that almost no thought went into compiling that table - and that in turn smacks of the unprofessionalism that I mentioned earlier.

I also would have thought that actual turnout numbers would have gone into the mix when compiling that table.

2, I'd look into actual turnout figures, rather than the NEP estimates made on such a tiny sample.


Yes. Seems a sensible place to start. However, do you actually think it is worth doing so.... or have you already decided that there will be nothing to find?

3. I am not at all sure what is inferred by the OP, because it not only suggests that the NEP data indicates padded turnout in the big cities but that this is belied by the actual returns.


Why do you and OTOH keep saying that. The actual returns show a substantial increase in turnout in the big cities. They also show an actual larger increase in the bush vote than for the gore/kerry. This is not NEP data it is real data. It is also counter intuitive and it deserves further investigation.

I suppose one could argue that the NEP data is correct, that the turnout was fraudulently padded, then covered up in the official returns. But there is a much more parsimonious explanation.


I don't know. But I think it deserves exploration.

So you are not looking for vote-switching? Or vote deletion? Or ballot stuffing? What are you looking for? Those are what I was looking for, when I wasn't also looking for voter suppression (which I found).


As explained I am looking for ballot stuffing. My background is as a political journalist. Bush's turnout figures in 2004made no sense before this analysis - they make even less sense if the bush vote is stacked in places where it shouldn't logically be.


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