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

Reply #9: that's a claim, and your own evidence undermines it [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
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. that's a claim, and your own evidence undermines it
Again, you posted evidence that the gap between lever and paper votes in New York was (to use your hyperbolic word) "uniform" in 2000, 2004, and 2008. If that suggests anything, it suggests that the level of miscount on lever machines was similar (whether high or low) in those years, and therefore, that at least some of the exit polls were wrong.

(I think this is far from the best evidence that the exit polls have been wrong, but hey, it's your evidence, so I'm trying to work with it. I think we all noticed that provisional voters aren't exactly a random sample of the electorate. Didn't we?)

For a moment, you tried to solve this problem by arguing that the gap wasn't uniform at all -- that, properly construed, it was narrower in 2000. That didn't work, so now apparently you are back to trying to change the subject.

The EVIDENCE shows that the late votes closely MATCHED the exit polls.

That is incorrect. Your table actually shows that the closest "MATCH()" between late votes and exit polls was in 2004.

That EVIDENCE was CONFIRMED by the STRONG CORRELATION between the exit polls and the late votes.

That inference is incorrect, and rather jarringly so. Using your data, I was able to replicate your finding that for the 50 states plus DC, the correlation between late vote and exit poll share is 0.72. I was also able to calculate that the correlation between initial vote and exit poll share is 0.976. By your reasoning, surely, this is very strong evidence that the initial vote totals are correct and some of the late votes have been corrupted. I can't imagine how to construe it as evidence that the late vote count is more accurate than the initial vote count.

Limiting the analysis to your top 20 states narrows the gap but doesn't fundamentally help your cause. Again, I replicate your correlation between late vote and exit poll share, 0.92; the correlation between initial vote and exit poll share is 0.984. This might be construed as evidence that some of the late votes have been corrupted -- or that some late-vote counts are more representative (or differently biased) than others.

I further reckoned, using your data, that the correlation between WPE and "change" from initial to final vote is 0.095, p = 0.51 -- exquisitely non-significant. (In the top 20 states, it's actually negative and non-significant.) This result constitutes strong prima facie evidence that these two quantities do not measure the same underlying variable (fraud or anything else).

Maybe we could at least check whether the late votes are more strongly correlated with the initial votes or the exit poll returns? Certainly we could. In the top 20 states, the correlations are 0.948 and 0.920, respectively, which could be construed as weak evidence that the initial votes are more accurate than the exit poll results. Across all 50 states plus DC, the correlations are 0.726 and 0.721, basically indistinguishable (although the difference is in the same direction). I don't think any of these results amount to much, but they surely don't support your argument.

Since these correlations are reckoned from your own data, it's hard to fathom how you could have failed to compute them, or failed to report them, whichever is the case. At this point, you might want to consider asking readers to forget all about the late vote counts.


I don't claim that the official vote count was strictly correct, but I do believe that the exit polls were wrong (i.e., that the error exceeded the statistical "margin of error"). As a separate issue, I also believe that a full recount (if possible) would confirm that Bush received more votes. None of this amounts to claiming a fair election. It's hard to believe that you're incapable of making these distinctions.

Do you think your position is flattering to Democrats? I don't. But, more to the point, I don't think it's true. If you want me to change my mind, first you will need better arguments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
  -Late Vote Smoking Guns: 2000-2008 WillE  Sep-03-09 01:50 PM   #0 
  - the crucial error appears to be here:  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-03-09 04:14 PM   #1 
  - Yes, the NY late vote indicated a Gore bias. But there was NO Kerry bias in 2004. And 2008 ?  WillE   Sep-03-09 06:17 PM   #2 
     - it seems to me that you are simply ruling out an obvious possibility  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-03-09 08:46 PM   #3 
        - It seems to me that you easily dismiss the very strong State Late vote vs. Exit Poll correlation  WillE   Sep-04-09 08:35 AM   #6 
           - it seems to me that you didn't read my post  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-04-09 09:04 AM   #7 
           - You see, the point is: the exit polls were RIGHT in 2004. Kerry really DID win.  WillE   Sep-04-09 12:23 PM   #8 
              - that's a claim, and your own evidence undermines it  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-04-09 04:44 PM   #9 
                 - You still believe that Bush won, "the greatest miracle of all"  WillE   Sep-04-09 07:16 PM   #10 
                    - this is yet another non-responsive post  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-04-09 07:43 PM   #11 
                       - I asked you for YOUR evidence. You resort to whining.  WillE   Sep-04-09 07:54 PM   #12 
                          - umm, is post #9 actually invisible, or what?  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-04-09 08:48 PM   #13 
                             - Your obfuscation won't work. Late votes, exit polls and True votes INDEPENDENTLY expose you.  WillE   Sep-05-09 09:26 AM   #14 
                                - "what are you going to do, bleed on me?"  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-05-09 11:52 AM   #15 
                                   - You are in a state of pure panic; you are the one bleeding  WillE   Sep-05-09 08:03 PM   #16 
                                      - hahaha  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-05-09 09:27 PM   #17 
                                         - You are dreaming..  WillE   Sep-05-09 10:02 PM   #18 
                                            - do you have any substantive response to post #9?  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-06-09 06:19 AM   #19 
                                               - Give us some names...  WillE   Sep-06-09 07:39 AM   #20 
                                               - do you have a substantive response to post #9?  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-06-09 08:37 AM   #22 
                                               - Umm, did you read the reply in post # 14, or what?  WillE   Sep-06-09 08:19 AM   #21 
                                                  - any reader can verify that you simply ignored my points  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-06-09 08:49 AM   #23 
                                                     - Our evidence vs. your evidence  WillE   Sep-06-09 09:16 AM   #24 
                                                     - do you have a substantive response to post #9?  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-06-09 09:57 AM   #25 
                                                     - Back in the USSR Quoting two Ruskies? Show us their evidence  WillE   Sep-06-09 12:12 PM   #26 
                                                     - WTF?! "two Ruskies"?! (oh... got anything on post #9?)  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-06-09 06:41 PM   #27 
                                                     - Now I see where TIA, er, Wile E., gets that punch card lever machine.  Wilms   Sep-06-09 06:55 PM   #28 
                                                     - Phillips would NOT have written the article if he knew that the NY exits were off by 12%...  WillE   Sep-06-09 07:28 PM   #30 
                                                     - Wow. Just wow.  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-06-09 07:37 PM   #31 
                                                     - OK. You failed logic. So I won't expect you to make sense of what I'm about to say.  Wilms   Sep-06-09 09:29 PM   #38 
                                                     - YOU speak of science? Your method is faith-based belief...  WillE   Sep-06-09 10:14 PM   #40 
                                                     - When you demonstrate a rudimentery understanding of lever machines  Wilms   Sep-06-09 10:28 PM   #41 
                                                     - Educate us, then, since you are such an expert...  WillE   Sep-06-09 11:14 PM   #42 
                                                     - Round and round you go, TIA.  Wilms   Sep-07-09 12:26 AM   #43 
                                                     - No, keeping the NY facts hidden is distracting...  WillE   Sep-07-09 07:13 AM   #44 
                                                     - What's it like being irrelevant?  Wilms   Sep-07-09 11:15 AM   #48 
                                                     - Love your ability to link and not think .. n/t  WillE   Sep-06-09 08:22 PM   #35 
                                                     - So where is their evidence?  WillE   Sep-06-09 07:17 PM   #29 
                                                     - you're asking for kindness?  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-06-09 07:45 PM   #32 
                                                     - You replied just as WE ALL KNEW you would. With NOTHING.  WillE   Sep-06-09 08:06 PM   #34 
                                                     - "WE"? you and your imaginary friend? can he help out with post #9?  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-06-09 09:10 PM   #36 
                                                     - So did Myagkov et al actually analyze the U.S. (S)elections? NO!  WillE   Sep-06-09 07:56 PM   #33 
                                                     - OK, this time you actually needed to read your own post  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-06-09 09:13 PM   #37 
                                                     - Hehe. Not good enough. DISPLAY AND EXPLAIN THE RELEVANT ANALYSIS.  WillE   Sep-06-09 09:47 PM   #39 
                                                     - this time you're not even going to admit your blunder?  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-07-09 07:22 AM   #45 
                                                     - You just cut yourself off. You read the book? Then show us what you learned.  WillE   Sep-07-09 07:36 AM   #46 
                                                     - do you have a substantive response to post #9?  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-07-09 07:44 AM   #47 
                                                     - Uhm, er, pardon. But TIA just used a bunch of all caps.  Wilms   Sep-07-09 11:17 AM   #49 
                                                     - hey, if he does it seven times, my exoskeleton will collapse  OnTheOtherHand   Sep-07-09 12:10 PM   #50 
                                                     - Do you have anything SUBSTANTIVE to say?  WillE   Sep-07-09 12:16 PM   #51 
                                                     - TIA, you are the "one-track agenda". And it's all about you.  Wilms   Sep-07-09 02:15 PM   #52 
  - K&R!!  Stevepol   Sep-04-09 03:52 AM   #4 
  - K&unR.  yowzayowzayowza   Sep-04-09 04:50 AM   #5 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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