Reply #33: Edited post

[Febble]

This makes me very cross (previous version was crosser).

You can think what you like of me, but you are simply wrong. I would love to see evidence that it was the count, not the polls that were "wrong". (I would even more like to see some legal action over the shenanigans in Ohio for which there is incontrovertible evidence).

And I have produced a mathematical formula that could help the process of finding out what happened, by clearing irrelevant noise from a variable.

We can now use that variable to investigate the factors that were associated with variance in whatever you like to call it - mismatch, bias (in count or poll) what-you-will.

Frankly my computer doesn't give a damn what I name I give a variable. What I want to know is: is it greater in places that would indicate fraud (swing states, precincts with touch screen voting machines) or is it greater in places that would indicated polling foulup (precincts with inexperienced interviewers, precincts where interviewers had to stand a long way from the precinct). So far the evidence suggests the latter. But there is a potential confound that so far has prevented us testing the former.

I have fixed that confound. It will enable us to test the fraud hypothesis.

If you don't like the name I've given the fix, fair enough. It won't affect the math one jot.

Now I am simply not going to post any more, as debates that get bogged down at the start over issues of perfectly innocent terminology are not worth having.

You can both fight over my carcass. I'm outta here.