Reply #63: Febble, I wish you well. You have provided the reasonable doubt.

[autorank]

Thank you. Of all the many visitors to DU Elections, you are the only one who will actually engage in a debate and follow through to a logical conclusion.

We're at the point where you have accepted TIA's mathematical calculations (perhaps even aided the latter versions of his work through your 'stimulus,' his work is better than ever). You say it's not proof beyond any doubt to the contrary. Well, we agree. However, this statement is what is needed to justify a full investigation.

Essentially, you have agreed that fraud is a logical, although not exclusive, interpretation of TIA's analysis. On that we all agree. You seem to offer a 'behavioral' explanation: either rBr or amnesia on the part of Gore voters in responding to their preference. rBr has been addressed thoroughly and I believe fails the acid test. Gore voter amnesia, well, consider this. Gore voters would be a major subset, a majority, of Kerry voters and responders. Part of the argument has centered around exuberant Kerry responders. So bear with me here, if I'm an exuberant Kerry responder, I'm extremely likely to be aware that I was an Gore voter (maybe very aware). Thus I'd not only be an exuberant Kerry responder, I'd also be a exuberant Gore recollector. Given the co-occurrence of Kerry voter 2004/Gore voter 2000, and the imputed exuberance of Kerry voters, there's no reason to think that the behavioral argument on former Gore voter amnesia/reluctance holds any water.

Three choices: 1) fraud; 2) rBr; 3) Gore voter amnesia/reluctance.

You're intellectually honest. You know that the conclusion is 1) fraud, not as proof beyond any doubt, but as a STRONG INDICATOR THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING VERY WRONG WITH 2004 AND THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A VIGOROUS INVESTIGATION.