Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bradblog, 2:47 AM: Chris Matthews: Raw EXIT POLL Data 'Indicated Significant Victory' for Obama in

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
deminks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 06:39 AM
Original message
Bradblog, 2:47 AM: Chris Matthews: Raw EXIT POLL Data 'Indicated Significant Victory' for Obama in
This is a hint of the raw data that is not released to the public, and is not adjusted to match the actual results. It is something that Chris Matthews hinted at in his show. This is just a hint. We will not have the raw data, and I suspect we will never have it. I don't know that we have 2004's raw data.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5535

Even the Exit Polls showed that Obama should have won, according to Chris Matthews on Hardball today. It's the first specific indication that we've seen that the raw, unadjusted Exit Poll data, which only corporate mainstream media folks, not mere mortals, are allowed to see, confirmed all of the pre-election polling which predicted an Obama win.

He introduced his segment today this way (video at right):
MATTHEWS: So what accounts for Hillary Clinton's victory in New Hampshire? What we don't know is why the victory is so much different in fact, then the polling ahead of time, including what we call the Exit Polls were telling us. Obama was ahead in those polls by an average of 8 points, and even our own Exit Polls, taken as people came out of voting, showed him ahead. So what's going on here?

(snip)

(BTW: They disavow their own Exit Polling from 2004. So, naturally, the MSM news consortium hired the same folks to do the job again in 2008. Perhaps it was the company's apparently spot-on Exit Polling in Ukraine, in December of 2004, cited as evidence of fraud by George W. Bush and Colin Powell, that the challenger should have won, rather than the incumbant, as the election results announced, in contradiction of the Exit Polls...but don't get us started.)

And yet, as all the talking heads continue to use data from those post-election-adjusted Exit Polls, as speculative reasons why Clinton was announced the winner ("higher than expected female turnout" "voters who make less than $50k"), Politico's Roger Simon, at the end of the Hardball segment, asks the question about NH '08, that we've been asking about 2004 for years: "If the exit polls got the results wrong, why do we think they got the demographics right?"

(end snip)

Emphasis mine. My question, too. Why would we know if people over 50 let's say voted for Hillary if the exit polls were wrong? There is no proof yet, just a lot of questions. I find it amusing that we blame the voters that the exit polls are wrong.

Sorry if this has been posted before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 06:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. Who'd a thunk it? Oh, wait. Most of us who followed 2004 Ohio.
Thanks/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 06:46 AM
Response to Original message
2. If Diebold is involved, you can't believe a bit of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 06:47 AM
Response to Original message
3. Why is it that we distrust and loathe Chris Matthews when
he's saying what we don't want to hear, and take his word as fact when he's saying what we *do* want to hear?

Just wonderin'....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deminks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 06:51 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. I would quote KKKarl Rove if he let go of a hint like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #3
66. I don't trust him - I would trust a hand count of the NH optiscan ballots.
Okay?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 06:55 AM
Response to Original message
5. My head is officially spinning. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 07:08 AM
Response to Original message
6. So Does This Happen Every Time Obama Loses A Primary?
It didn't take very long for the tinfoil hats to come out. When the corporate media didn't declare things for Obama the second the polls closed, out came the voter fraud howls...how somehow Diebold, Hillary and Rove were all conspiring here.

POLLS ARE NOT VOTES...and the polls leading up to the vote was very misleading. Few cited the large number of undecided voters who swung on the last 24 hours. I can relate to those people cause if my primary were held today, I'd be on the fence until the last minute as well. The "Iowa" model the corporate media tried to put on New Hampshire didn't work and the people didn't play with the reality show polling that was going on. If anything, it was this overkill that energized Hillary's voters and supressed the independents who voted for McCain rather than Obama.

Remember, Obama's from Illinois...more specific the Chicago machine. If there are any people who know about election fraud and rigging it's David Axelrod and his staff. If there was any fraud going on, we would be hearing it from the campaigns.

It's starting to get Pavlovian for some to immediately blame voting machines when their candidate doesn't win or meet expectations. The real problem is this constant crying wolf distracts attention and weakens interest in the real voter fraud and suppression efforts going on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 07:18 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. This has nothing to do with Obama.
The term is election fraud.

Raising questions about the result of a vote on unaudited insecure machines ahead of a general election after we have been robbed TWICE is not crying wolf and it's not Pavlovian. It's logical consequence.

If after all the information we now have on these machines, you still need a tin foil hat, it's because you like the look.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. Most Of New Hampshire Had A Paper Trail...
If this system was so flawed, then why do we hear about it AFTER the election? Why aren't the machines being impounded?

No this isn't election fraud...and to paint Obama's loss as such is dishonest to the real voter fraud that does go on. I'm still waiting for the first trial and conviction on a hacked Diebold machine. Yes, it's possible, but there's never been a fail-safe system...it all comes down to the people who operate them. If they're corrupt, it doesn't matter. Why rig an election when its easier to keep them away through voter suppression...picture IDs and other tactics that many here seem to not to be paying attention to. New Hampshire was using Diebold scanners...not Touch Screens...a lot different than the machines in Ohio and Florida.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. It's not a paper trail but scanned ballots.
Edited on Thu Jan-10-08 08:06 AM by sfexpat2000
You hear about it after the election because you don't hang out in the Election Reform forum.

The machines aren't impounded because no candidate will stick their neck out and maybe, shouldn't. Election reform is largely a citizen enterprise.

There have been indictments in OH over 2004. You might want to check it out.

Scanners have memory cards that can be hacked.

The Republicans are working on suppressing the vote and also on kicking people off the rolls all over the place.

/grammar

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #16
23. Paper ballots=paper trail.
They can be recounted by hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #23
32. Unfortunately, most recounts need a trigger threshold.
If the machine reports results outside of that threshold, no recount.

In Ohio, where they used opti-scan, a recount was triggered and SoS Blackwell had to illegally manipulate the count by selecting the precinct and limiting the count in order to avoid triggering a wider recount.

It's nice to have the ballots on file, I agree that they can be used to verify the machine totals, but they most often aren't.

The point is that the machine totals are centrally tabulated and therefore very easy to manipulate. Hand-counted ballots are the only way to avoid these problems when there are so many hurdles to triggering recounts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #23
35. Yep. We have a similar system here. But I seriously doubt
there will be a recount. No one wants to go there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #35
46. Well, there doesn't seem to be any real reason to in this case.
If the raw exit poll data were shown to be wildly at variance with the official count, then you'd have something. But there's no indication that that's the case, I don't think. Of course, it's crazy that the raw data is proprietary. You'd think maybe a consortium of left blogs could pool their money and buy a license, so they could actually get a look at the data.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #46
49. That's a good idea. This is ridiculous already, n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #46
50. No one has seen the raw exit poll data. I beg of you to review the actual facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #50
52. No one?
Isn't the raw data usually fed to news organizations as it comes in? It was in 2000, and in 2004, I'm pretty sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #52
65. The news organizations are not at all experienced in analyzing the data
And the news organizations are also more interested in keeping the Corporate State model alive and well, than in this country remaining a democracy...


But voting activists who are experienced in such analysis have asked for the data and been refused any sort of exmination of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #23
48. but they weren't recounted were they? Not even a random few as an audit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #48
55. Why should they be?
The results were clear. There's no reason to doubt them, other than the fact that most of the pre-vote polling was wildly wrong. Stewart had John Zogby on last night, and I'm here to tell youJohn Zogby is a fucking moron. If he's anywhere near the intellectual standard for pollsters, it's no wonder they're all fucked up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #16
28. Any Convictions?
Ohio used Dieblold Touch Screens...not the scanners. For years I was a poll watcher on election day...back in the golden age of the huge pull-lever machines. Those machines were easily hacked...all it took was someone turning a little wheel when no one else was watching.

I used the scanned ballots here...and when the machine was installed for the '04 elections a bunch of us were extremely cynical but were given a demonstration by the county clerk's people (all Democrats)...there was a receipt system inside and the results on the memory card was checked against the paper trail before the votes were certified. Yes, someone intent on hacking the system can do it...but there's other ways that are easier...like hacking the main computers (seems like they sure crash alot).

I see the voter suppression efforts happening before they even come close to a Diebold machine. The ongoing suppression efforts in Indiana and Georgia that may soon be passed in a bunch of other states (all Repugnican) with the blessing of the SCOUTS! If you don't have a drivers license or photo ID, you can't vote. Or the never-ending problem of not having enough machines at certain locations...forcing people to wait in long lines which drives down voter participation.

Sfexpat...I always respect your opinion and if you have a link about a prosecution or conviction involving tampering with a Diebold machine during an election, I'd appreciate it. I don't downplay the problems and was avidly reading all the BBV stuff...Bev and Andy and others back in '04...but I do think there has been some progress made here...and most importantly, there are more Democratic Secretary of States in place this year than there was in '04 (no Blackwells this time).

Cheers...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #28
34. Two convictions, iirc. Let's see if I can find a link.
Edited on Thu Jan-10-08 08:36 AM by sfexpat2000
They did 18 months for tampering with the recount, I think.

ETA: And, the convictions came about because Op scan ballots were stacked instead of being randomly recounted per the law. Op scan ballots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #34
37. Link to Free Press article on Cuyahoga Co. convictions:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #34
43. The Central Office...
Waaaaay back in the 80's, I put on my leisure suit and had the chance to watch the first run through of a new fangled computerized system here in Cook County. It was very similar to how the Diebold system works now...but the memory chip was the size of a brick and had to be driven to a central location and then "modemed" into the main center. The big concern then was how that data was treated as there was little oversight into that system and would be easier to hack one machine than 100 separate ones. It was easier to fudge votes when you're dealing with hundreds or thousands than on the precinct level where it can be noticed and more easily traced.

I remember reading about the stacking case on TPM...and that sounded like a "central office" problem being it was a recount than an actual tampering of machines in the precincts or during the actual election. The fact that people were aware of ways of rigging the system has made pulling this type of stuff more difficult. I'm still looking for someone who was arrested for replacing a memory stick or hacking into a machine to manipulate the results.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #43
44. I don't know. In my opinion, those will be harder to get simply
because the case is harder to make to people who don't understand the tech. We're more likely to see cases like this one because it's easier to explain to a courtroom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #44
53. I See It Easier To Catch 'Em At The Local Level
Every time I vote I have the same precinct captains...they work for the county (patronage) and get a paid day off to sit around and snarf donuts all day. These people not only know about their precinct but can pretty much tell whose voting for whom...if they did their final count and saw different results or picked up the paper and saw different numbers in there than they saw in the count, I know these people would make a lot of noise.

Hell...I have this picture of some chickenhawk in mom's basement hacking into the HAL9000 and moving numbers.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #12
25. Paper trail means jack shit without meaningful audits. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #12
27. Historically, Exit Polls are accurate to within a 2% MOE, that's a 4% 'swing'.
The more people are polled, the more accurate the EP is.

Only in two types of cases have exit polls significantly exceeded the MOE;

1) Where there is fraud.

2) Where electronic/centrally tabulated voting machines are used.

That's it.

Now, you asked, "If this system was so flawed, then why do we hear about it AFTER the election? Why aren't the machines being impounded?", which proves you have absolutely no idea what has been going on with these machines.

We have been fighting for years, many since before the 2000 debacle, to get rid of these machines. Everyone who is pointing to this discrepancy has known about these machines and likely mentioned it somewhere before this election. People all over the country have been trying to get rid of these infernal devices in every state that has them, and they have been decertified in some places after very long, very hard battles.

If you have to ask why it's been so hard to get rid of them, then you are certainly naive... but I'm sure someone would be willing to fill you in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #27
36. And Polls Are Infallible?
Yes...if there are elections that are being stolen by Diebold machines, why haven't there been challenges and prosecutions? Why aren't machines impounded? Is this company soooooooo powerful that it scares every candidate?

I didn't see an exit poll until after the results came flowing in...all the polls prior to that were before the election and many were seriously flawed. Few noted the large number of undecided voters...others weighted in favor of a similar turn-out model to Iowa where more young people voted than were expected in New Hampshire. The numbers were rushed and the corporate media played with the numbers that made Senator Clinton look the worse...leaving out the 15-20% who went in undecided. They totally ignored polls prior to Iowa that showed Senator Clinton with a similar margin over Obama as we saw on Tueday.

So where's the fraud? It's with the corporate media weaving a narrative and manufacturing and manipulating numbers to fit it. Now they're weaving a new narrative...like Tweety saying that people lied to pollsters cause they're really racist...and other nonsense...that destroys their credibility further.

Now how many remember the exit polls of 2004...some here in the early hours of that election were predicting a Kerry landslide. It didn't happen and it wasn't just because of Ohio.

Voter suppression is a far greater problem now than Diebold. If you're not paying attention to that issue right now, then you're missing the real story. It doesn't make much sense to complain about the machines when there's an effort going on to keep people from even getting into the voting booth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #36
39. Go educate yourself. Here's a link;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I simply don't have time to educate someone today. Yes, there is supression, it's huge. The machines are utilized to skew results as well, and if you don't think so, then you are ignorant of quite a bit of information. Go into the forum and ask questions, you'll be amazed at how serious this is... if you're sensate that is.

"The election? It's over... we won! It's all over but the counting, and we'll take care of the counting." - Peter King (R-NY), White House lawn, spring, 2003, with beer in hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #39
45. And How Does This Relate To New Hampshire???
I've said that I consider voter supression a far greater problem than rigged machines. You can't rig votes of people who are being kept away from voting. THere was a SCOTUS hearing the other day about what's going on in Indiana...and it appears the court will codify some of the Rovian games...that's a far greater outrage in my book and little was mentioned here.

Let's not lump all the efforts to steal elections in one broad stroke...supression is far different and more systemic than technically flawed machines. I've seen a lot of good work that has been done over the past couple years to alert voters to the hazzards of Diebold and several states that have dropped the system. It didn't seem to hurt Democrats in '06.

One big change in the past couple years has been the changeover of state governments to Democrats. There's no Ken Blackwell in Ohio this year. Electing more Democrats on the state level will ensure even more tranparency and accountability of elections...and will be a major advantage in the next redistricting.

Again...I'm still looking for an actual conviction of someone tampering with a Diebold machine during an election. With the thousands of elections that have been held all over the country with the machines you'd think there'd be something there.

My concern is to put the focus on the suppression efforts right now that will hurt ALL Democrats this fall...one of the few tricks the GOOP has in their playbook.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #45
81. good points
As far as I can tell, disenfranchisement mattered more in 2004 than vote miscount did. It just doesn't have the same tug on the imagination.

I think it's important to deal with the machines, but not to be monomaniacal about them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #39
58. speaking of education...
Your gut feeling:
Only in two types of cases have exit polls significantly exceeded the MOE;

1) Where there is fraud.

2) Where electronic/centrally tabulated voting machines are used.

Consensus reality:
To be more specific, the report shows that:

* The average WPE this year (-6.5) was almost as high (-5.0) in 1992 and favored the Democrats in 2000 (-1.8), 1996 (-2.2) and 1998 (-2.2 - p. 31).
* Within states, the degree of error in 2004 at the state level tended to correlate with the degree of error in past elections, especially 2000 and 1992 (p. 32). As the report put it, "seven of the ten states with the largest WPE in 1992 were also among the fifteen states with the largest WPE in 2004 (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Vermont)" (p. 32).

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2005/01/the_war_roo...

In the 1992 general election, the final opinion polls gave the Conservatives between 38% and 39% of the vote, about 1% behind the Labour Party. In the final results, the Conservatives had a lead of 7.6% over Labour. As a result of this failure to 'predict' the result, the Market Research Society held an inquiry into the reasons why the polls had been so much at variance with actual public opinion. The report found that 2% of the 8.5% error could be explained by Conservative supporters refusing to disclose their voting intentions; it cited as evidence the fact that exit polls on election day also underestimated the Conservative lead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shy_Tory_Factor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-10-08 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #58
63. So, there is no difference between "Within Percent Error" and "Margin of Error"?
MOE defines 'percent variation' in +/- terms.

WPE would be 'swing'.

That would mean, unless I'm wrong, that a 6% WPE = 3%MOE.


A 3% MOE is not much more 'significant' than a 2% MOE.


The other questions are "how are these averages arrived at?", "Was fraud investigated where the MOE was so far off in 1992?" (Unless you forgot, we determined there was election fraud in the Ukraine in '04 for less a MOE than in Ohio... and we turned out to be right.), and, most importantly, "Are there examples of such great margins of error using paper ballots where it was determined NO fraud occured?"

If the respective answers are "Not sure"/"No"/"I don't know"... then you haven't really made a point at all.

I know that in the most recent elections, paper ballots were very close to the MOE where used, where the count was significantly deviant from the MOE, DREs were used, and all but one of the most extreme deviations on DREs favored Republicans, most notably Bush.

Then there's this sloppiness from Wiki; "The report found that 2% of the 8.5% error could be explained by Conservative supporters refusing to disclose their voting intentions"

Assuming this is correct, this means that they allowed non-answers to weigh in the poll? If so, they were building error into their polling.


So, the crux question is; "Are you saying that DRE machines were not used to commit fraud in the 2004 elections?"

Yes or no eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #63
68. to the contrary
Edited on Fri Jan-11-08 12:23 AM by foo_bar
MOE defines 'percent variation' in +/- terms.

Since you don't know what "margin of error" means (it has nothing to do with "variation", but rather describes an estimate of random sampling error at a given confidence level) you might leave "education" to someone with a passing familiarity of the subject.
The margin of error is usually defined as the radius of a confidence interval for a particular statistic from a survey. One example is the percent of people who prefer product A versus product B. When a single, global margin of error is reported for a survey, it refers to the maximum margin of error for all reported percentages using the full sample from the survey. If the statistic is a percentage, this maximum margin of error can be calculated as the radius of the confidence interval for a reported percentage of 50%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error

The margin of error is an estimate of a confidence interval for a given measurement, result, etc. and is frequently cited in statistics.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MarginofError.html

That would mean, unless I'm wrong, that a 6% WPE = 3%MOE.

You're wrong, but WPE is a lot like what you think MOE means:

"Within Precinct Error (WPE)
Within Precinct Error (WPE) is an average of the difference between the percentage
margin between the leading candidates in the exit poll and the actual vote for all sample
precincts in a state. The signed WPE gives the direction of this error; in this report a
negative WPE represents a Democratic overstatement in the exit poll and a positive WPE
represents a Republican overstatement in the exit poll. The absolute WPE represents the
total error."

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2005/01/media_whore...

So, the crux question is; "Are you saying that DRE machines were not used to commit fraud in the 2004 elections?"

The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
<...>
"OK, so if you don't think the grey aliens have gained control of the US government, can you prove it?"

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.htm...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. LMAO! Pseudo-intellectual condescension does not become us.
"The margin of error is usually defined as the radius of a confidence interval for a particular statistic from a survey."

Ummm... yes, and it's expressed as a 'percent variation'. :silly:


Did you not read this part? "The absolute WPE represents the
total error."


"Total error" would be the "swing" I mentioned.

Therefore +/- WPE would be equivalent to MOE, and 'AWPE' would not.


But then there's this bit;

So, the crux question is; "Are you saying that DRE machines were not used to commit fraud in the 2004 elections?"



With your 'response'; "The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something."

My question was intended to find out if you've made up your mind. If you want "proof", there's enough evidence in the forum I linked to to prove The Virgin Mary was a prostitute. So unless you've already made up your mind on the subject and no amount of fact or data will change it, I urge you to avail yourself of the 'Election Reform' forum here; http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... , and educate yourself.

Have fun.

:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #69
70. self-delete, wrong place.
Edited on Fri Jan-11-08 04:55 PM by Dr_eldritch
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #69
72. you not only lost the argument, you're making stuff up to pretend you didn't
Edited on Fri Jan-11-08 05:15 PM by foo_bar
"Total error" would be the "swing" I mentioned.

Therefore +/- WPE would be equivalent to MOE, and 'AWPE' would not.


Can you explain, in your words, what you believe a "margin of error" represents? Because the preceding paragraph (you just invented the term 'AWPE' in a statistical context) is the equivalent of stating "I've never taken a stats course in my life, and I'm hoping there's nobody here to call me on it." I've already cited sources that contradict your magical beliefs about what statistics would be like if you ever cracked a book on it, and you've discarded the concept of proof itself to relieve any implications of these technical meanings that you improvised definitions for, so all I can do is try to teach in spite of the epistemological chasm.

That would mean, unless I'm wrong, that a 6% WPE = 3%MOE.

There wouldn't be much need for a WPE variable if it were always 2*MOE, would there? A margin of error represents the theoretical boundaries of random sampling error at any non-100% confidence, while Within Precinct Error measures the average of two candidates' spread using an actual vote compared to the predicted result, so equating the two in a single formula is akin to "Fish = Bicycle" (paraphrasing Gloria Steinem).

f you want "proof", there's enough evidence in the forum I linked to to prove The Virgin Mary was a prostitute. So unless you've already made up your mind on the subject and no amount of fact or data will change it, I urge you to avail yourself of the 'Election Reform' forum here; http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

I seem to remember when it was 'Election Reform and Discussion', but anyway, providing a link to a forum page is always a lame cop-out when someone asks you for, well, anything but a link to a forum page.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. Lame.
If this isn't evidence of Psuedo-Intellectual Condescension; "(you just invented the term 'AWPE' in a statistical context)" when it should have been obvious I was using the extant term "absolute WPE", which would read "Absolute Within Percent Error", and turning it into an acronym for brevity's sake, then no such thing as PIC exists.

I'm very familiar with what MOE means. I was using it as an index as the function of the WPE is comparable to the funtional basis of the MOE. Either you couldn't figure that out, or you're just looking for something to be a prick about.


You wanted proof, I gave you the link, your response is "I didn't ask for a link".

It's apparent that, for whatever reason, you want to dismiss much of the uncomfortable facts and focus on a point of barely pertinent minutia.

You say that 'exit poll have been wrong before' without knowing for certain whether there was fraud on those occasions, forget the fact that in the last 8 years, my statement seems to hold true.

You would rather avoid going to one of the best resources for information than educate yourself, and your lame excuse is that it's a "link". I suppose if someone provides a link to anything, you will be just as dismissive if your aim is condescension.

Go learn some stuff. If you have specific questions, I'll answer them until you've proven you're really not interested in election fraud.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. "I was using it as an index as the function of the WPE is comparable to the funtional basis"
Hopefully another sane human being will confirm to you that you're inventing gibberish on the spot, such as "That would mean, unless I'm wrong, that a 6% WPE = 3%MOE.". If not, it's probably your loss.

You would rather avoid going to one of the best resources for information than educate yourself, and your lame excuse is that it's a "link".

You posted a link to the ER forum. This is the ER forum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #74
76. So you don't realize they use the same function.
No surprise. Yes, "MOE" is 'established', but it needs to have a function in order to mean anything. You really don't get that?

Sad.

You rode this thread to the ER forum from GD. Stay here and learn something.

Otherwise I'm done with you.

B'bye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #76
78. Your hovercraft is full of eels?
No surprise. Yes, "MOE" is 'established', but it needs to have a function in order to mean anything.

Continuum transfunctioner? Oral pleasures?

that a 6% WPE = 3%MOE.

I don't believe you sincerely believe this, at least if you read one of the Wiki/mathworld links (except they would make little sense to you in your current state), but I've seen worse examples of both prevaricators and the deluded, so I haven't formed a theory. It needs to have a function, man!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #73
80. at foo_bar's request, or whatever...
MOE is an estimate of the expected variability in a sample statistic due to random sampling error. WPE is the calculated difference between exit poll sample margin and the official margin. You appear to be so confused about this that I don't even know what I could say next. The first approximation is that they are totally different.

Anyone who can write, "Was fraud investigated where the MOE was so far off in 1992?" will have a hard time convincing me that s/he understands what MOE means. But I will try to keep an open mind. Maybe you could give another example?

You would do well to stop haranguing foo and start paying closer attention. I don't expect you to believe this, but maybe eventually you will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #80
86. I merely misphrased it. It should have read; "So far off FROM the MOE"
I'm quite familiar with the differences and likenesses. Do you not recognize that the MOE uses the same functional standard as the WPE? Do you not understand what I'm saying?

I'm beginning to think I'm dealing with people who think they know more than they really do. So far no one's told me anything I don't already know.

When I tried to figure out where foo was coming from, he went 'condescending asshole' on me, so fuck him.

I'll ask you; "Do you understand the discrepancies (deviation from MOE in this case) tend to be greater where there is either A) Fraud. or there are B) DREs/central tabulating computers?"

If the answer is 'no', then I know I'm wasting my time because the facts are pretty conclusive on that question.

NOW... I know that I used an absolute when I said "It only 'ever' happens when...", and I know that it must be possible for EPs to be off where no fraud has occured, but foo came at that exactly wrong in two ways;

1) Without definitive evidence, ie; vindication of methods where the MOE was significantly exceeded, no one can know that my statement is wrong. In the case of the statement I made, there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence to back up what I said. Otherwise I acknowledge my error in the use of an absolute... I seldom make that mistake.

2) Accusing me of 'deception' when the facts do more to support my assertion than detract from it.


If he didn't go asshole on me, we might have got to the bottom of it.


Now... do you understand what I just said?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #68
71. Oh, so you DO spend time there. That's good.
Edited on Fri Jan-11-08 05:02 PM by Dr_eldritch
Although it seems you have only been going there sporadically until recently, and only to poo-poo the people asking too many questions.

Are you there just to poo-poo fraud? Or are you just a Hillary supporter? Either way, I recommend you study up more.
I'm a bit rusty on the subject since I burned out on it '06, but I'm well acquainted with the basics.

What is your particular special understanding of election fraud?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #71
75. you're having trouble with the concepts of "there" and "here"
Oh, so you DO spend time there.

There is here. Since this represents the Piagetian development level of an average 2 year old, I fear you've learned enough for the evening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. There's that PIC (Psuedo-Intellectual Condescension) again.
This thread started in another forum. It is obvious that being a conceited asshole is most important to you, so kindly fuck off.

Bye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top