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 #33: So did Myagkov et al actually analyze the U.S. (S)elections? NO! [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
WillE Donating Member (150 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-06-09 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #25
33. So did Myagkov et al actually analyze the U.S. (S)elections? NO!
Edited on Sun Sep-06-09 08:21 PM by WillE
Where do they apply their techniques to the U.S.? They are focused on the elections in Ukraine and Russia. In fact, the author's warn of the dangers in applying their methods without due consideration of an elections substantive context and the characteristics of the data at hand.

So where did they analyze Florida or any other state for that matter?
Why don't YOU apply their methods to the 2004 election?
You can't. You just blow more smoke by appealing to those who analyzed Ukraine and Russia!

A summary review of their book:
This volume offers a number of forensic indicators of election fraud applied to official election returns, and tests and illustrates their application in Russia and Ukraine. Included are the methodologys econometric details and theoretical assumptions. The applications to Russia include the analysis of all federal elections between 1996 and 2007 and, for Ukraine, between 2004 and 2007. Generally, we find that fraud has metastasized within the Russian polity during Putins administration with upwards of 10 million or more suspect votes in both the 2004 and 2007 balloting, whereas in Ukraine, fraud has diminished considerably since the second round of its 2004 presidential election where between 1.5 to 3 million votes were falsified. The volume concludes with a consideration of data from the United States to illustrate the dangers of the application of our methods without due consideration of an elections substantive context and the characteristics of the data at hand.

Contents

Introduction; 1. A forensics approach to detecting election fraud; 2. The fingerprints of fraud; 3. Russia; 4. Ukraine, 2004; 5. Ukraine, 2006, 2007; 6. The United States.
Reviews

The Forensics of Election Fraud by Myagkov, Ordeshook and Shakin presents a novel, creative and powerful methodology to detect the possibility of vote fraud using aggregate precinct data from several elections. Their approach is to detect patterns that flag vote fraud. They do not use standard statistical methodology because it is not appropriate for their problem but instead their method presents evidence that may be due to fraud. I consider this book to be one of the best three book manuscripts in political methodology that I have ever read. I believe that it will be considered to be a masterpiece in the field.
-Melvin J. Hinich, University of Texas at Austin

This book is a milestone accomplishment: original, compelling and of utmost and immediate policy relevance. It brings the latest in social science theory and methodology to bear on the detection of electoral fraud in post-communist states. As a control, it then applies the techniques to US elections. The result is a seminal forensics toolkit for methodologists and policy makers alike.
-George Breslauer, University of California at Berkeley

The Forensics of Election Fraud is powerful, persuasive, and vigorously written. The book is important, not only for its substantive findings about Russia and Ukraine, but, perhaps even more, for the ingenious methodology its authors have devised for uncovering large-scale vote fraud. One of their major findings is that in recent years in Russia, the practice of vote fraud has spread from a relatively small number of ethnic republics, which are dominated by authoritarian leaders, to a much larger number of regions. So by the time of the 2004 presidential election and the 2007 Duma election, fraud was widespread. They also argue that the 2008 presidential election was so heavily manipulated that it is not worth applying their methods to it. Myagkov, Ordeshook and Shakin also analyze fraud in the famous 2004 Ukrainian presidential election, where massive falsifications provoked the Orange Revolution. They show the very different patterns of voting from the (corrupted) run-off election in November 2004 to the (largely free and fair) new run-off in December, which followed the massive popular protest over election falsification and the world-wide condemnation of the attempt to steal the election. This book makes a major contribution to the literature on the methods by which authoritarian rulers manipulate election outcomes, and offers an ingenious set of tools for detecting them.
-Thomas Remington, Emory University


SO, OTOH, WHERE IS THEIR U.S. ANALYSIS?
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 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