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 #147: Well, let me clarify: [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 Tue Jun-19-07 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #142
147. Well, let me clarify:
I DON'T agree with your finding that there no manipulation in the 2004 election (if that is what you claim, and I apologize in advance if that is not what you meant).


It is certainly not what I meant and not what I have ever said.. I think there was very probably manipulation in the 2004 election, and I have spent a few hundred hours trying to uncover some of it. However what I found was evidence that contra-indicates the hypothesis that the manipulation was on a scale to account for the exit poll discrepancy (i.e. the theft of a Kerry margin equivalent to Bush's winning margin), nor even that of manipulation on a scale to account for Bush's popular vote win.

You did not find evidence with your particular parametric analysis. You may not have power in the data to detect the difference in such a test.


On the contrary, because of the large amount of power in the data, I was able to put tight confidence limits on the size of the effect.

Your finding DOES NOT MEAN that there was not a problem - only that your test was not able to detect the problem and reject the null.


Which means that the effect was either a) extraordinarily uniform, which no-one to my knowledge has claimed or b) much smaller than the theft of the popular vote. When you retain the null, as you know, the next step is to calculate the confidence limits. I went further, and explored the degree of uniformity of fraud one would have to hypothesise in order to account for the data in the presence of popular vote-over-turning election theft.

As for Ohio - I am not yet persuaded that Kerry would have won Ohio, and therefore the Electoral College vote, and therefore the presidency, on a level playing field, but I am damn sure the playing field was not level, there, or anywhere. Particularly New Mexico. I think Kerry probably won New Mexico.
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