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 #18: Yes, I have jioned with Freeman on some efforts... [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
Sancho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-01-09 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. Yes, I have jioned with Freeman on some efforts...
I have not seen precinct level data that compared multiple (local) races, nor have I seen item (question) analysis data, nor person fit data, nor a number of other things. Perhaps you have access to something that I don't have. The national poll data that I downloaded did not have connectivity to perform IRT analysis.

If there were a parallel election, that would be helpful if you wanted to have evidence of manipulation or fraud. Transparent code, mirrored tabulators, etc. might be useful in preventing hacking.

I don't think this is unusual or new. Others have said so on DU and in more scholarly papers.

I would suggest that there are plenty of local races in Florida that appear to have outlier results while other races in the same precinct with the same machines do not. Jenning's and Castor's losses were examples. Usually, there were no local polls of consequence, but there were registration and participation numbers. If there were five candidates (for example), a majority Democratic voters casting votes, and two amendments in a precinct - and all but one GOP candidate loses and that one candidate also showed unusual undervotes and multiple complaints of machine malfunction in that district...well, it's possible that error or hacking was the cause of the unexpected results. If that weird error happens three election cycles in a row across different brands of DRE's in key precincts, then random errors seems less plausible. If the same party is always the beneficiary of the error, that becomes more suspicious. On a micro level, there is not statistical power. Logically, there is a possible picture. Again, see John Snow.

In Florida (and maybe Ohio), the state legislature and governor's control would likely have made a difference in the national Presidential elections. State control may have been part of the manipulation that rivals the national polls and TIA's suggestions.

I don't know of anyway to do 100% parallel elections or exit polls without lot of money and effort, but I do think that random precincts could be paralleled or extensively polled to put a stop to some of the issues we are seeing, simply because the potential hackers might fear getting caught.

The current polling system is not attempting to find error or manipulation and lacks the power to do so with traditional certainty. There are some methods that have not been used often by pollsters (like IRT), and maybe that would be worth a try if the next poll was planned to do so.
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