Reply #49: they are definitely not peachy keen on the current system

[OnTheOtherHand]

and neither am I. I hope this does not come as news! What I have tried to say over and over again (although Febble has been more diligent about repeating it) is that one does not have to believe the 2004 election was stolen in order to believe that the system is broken. This seems really obvious to me, but apparently it is not obvious to some of the people who posted on this thread.

Yes, indeed, the way scientists (even social scientists) are trained to operate is that we don't profess certainty where uncertainty is appropriate. Note, nevertheless, that the report leans heavily against the irregularities being decisive. I am not saying that everyone should agree with the report. I do think it would be very, very helpful for folks to understand that not everyone who disagrees with them is ignorant or corrupt. (If you already understand that, please don't read the preceding sentence as implying otherwise.)

Another point may be worth underscoring. The way I think about election fraud and irregularities is as a bunch of subjective probability distributions: 'That thing in X probably cost Kerry somewhere between 800 and 1500 votes, although it could have been as high as 5000 -- I don't think any higher. That thing in Y, well, I really think that's a zero, but it might be several thousand votes....' My current answer to the question, 'How likely do you think it is that Kerry got more votes?' or '...that Kerry should have gotten more votes?' (depending on the meaning of "should") is, more or less, the sum of those distributions. I don't start with "I think Kerry won" or "I think Kerry lost."