You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #24: F can be a negative number. [View All]

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
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-11-05 07:16 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. F can be a negative number.
In the equation:
I = R + S + F
F could be a negative number in some particular case.

If a candidate's Recorded count is higher than the Intended vote due to fraud (as we claim is the case for Bush in 2004), then F would be a negative number for that candidate. It would contain the net gain in votes due to fraud but expressed as a negative number.

So F should be defined as the net loss in votes by a candidate due to fraud. When F is negative then you can interpret its absolute value as the net gain by a candidate due to fraud.

If the 2004 election was stolen by flipping votes from Kerry to Bush then F for Kerry is positive and F for Bush is negative.

A vote that was flipped from Kerry to Bush shows up as an addition to F for Kerry and a subtraction from F for Bush.

An intended Kerry vote that was thrown away into the ether by way of fraud shows up as an addition to F for Kerry. In this case, F for Bush is not affected.

A vote that appeared out of the ether and was fraudently credited to Bush shows up as a subtraction from F for Bush. In this case, F for Kerry is not affected.

While we're at it, S should include any innocent mistake that records a vote that wasn't intended, such as a chad that spontaneously pops out when the voter intended to not vote for any candidate. An innocent recording of a vote that wasn't intended would be reflected as a subtraction from S.

So S should be defined as the net loss in votes by a candidate due to innocent mistakes. When S is negative (doesn't usually happen) then you can interpret its absolute value as the net gain by a candidate due to innocent mistakes.

Sorry that this post is on the pedantic side but the last few posts seem to be touching on this point but not quite coming out and saying it.

One final comment for those who don't agree that this is a proof of anything. What it does for sure is reframe the issue. Mitofsky is attempting to talk real fast and gloss over the issue. He pretends that the fraud component doesn't exist. Once we get the correct equation out in the open, then we can have a logical approach to the question instead of a fast talking, nothing to see here kind of approach.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC