Reply #42: A quick point...

[flintdem]

I've only got a minute between classes...

Am I reading in your paper. (very quickly too) that touch screen and election day voting are one and the same, and absentee/provisional ballots and optically scanned are the same?

If true, touch screen is confounded with same day voting- you have one measurement meaning two separate things (you can't determine which variable is causing what effect). Same for optically scanned...

If I understanding this right, voting type can be an explanation for the differences or machine type can be the explanation. Do you have a breakdown like this of other washington counties- between machine types (it doesn't have to be touch screen versus optical)? If you saw the same pattern with two other types of machines used between the two voting types then it would be the vote type. If not then you have a case for machine type.

This repair business deserves further scrutiny. It is quite interesting but to really prove it you need to control for past precinct voting patterns. Did those precincts with repairs vote more republican or democratic in the past?

As far as carrying Snohomish- Rossi did do better statewide than more recent republican candidates and as you point out statewide races did go republican as late as 1992. While it usually goes democratic the presence of a trend is no guarantee that it will continue (or we would still hold Congress :) ).

Let me know if I got this machine voter thing right?

(To others- before you say "see he just doesn't want to believe fraud". This is the same kind of analysis I do all the time for journal articles before they are published. What is the analysis leaving out? What should it change? Does it prove its case? What as a reviewer will convince me?