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 #23: TIA, can we please discuss this calmly? [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
kiwi_expat Donating Member (526 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #12
23. TIA, can we please discuss this calmly?
I am very interested in discussing this further.   First of
all let me state very clearly: I DO NOT THINK BUSH WON OHIO.

I think we also both agree that there is legitimate sample
error in precinct samples.   Mitofsky assigns a 6% MoE to very
small samples.   THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT FRAUD DID NOT OCCURR
ALSO!!

****The question is, is it possible that the legitimate sample
error could tend to favour one candidate?****

Based on the Cincy4M observers comments, and based on my own
past experience as a part-time market researcher interviewer,
I think there are certain types of people who are more
receptive to being approached by a stranger and being asked to
answer questions.

We have very few NEP:canvass comparisons to examine.  One set
we do have is for Hamilton County, Ohio  (please see below).  
Notice that the largest discrepancies are at the polling
places that had the smallest samples.  I think it is possible
that the interviewers at those polling places were less
experienced/capable and that they were easily brushed off -
except by certain types of people (i.e., nice helpful people).
  Does that not seem plausable to you?


Thanks for considering this.


           Kerry raw-NEP|Kpolling-place|Kerry loss
(NEP#52)CINCINNATI 4-M  68%     46%        22%
     sample = 31

(NEP#57)HARRISON C       43%     29%      14%
     sample = 28

(NEP#55)FAIRFAX B        50%      37%     13%
     sample = 16

(NEP#49)ANDERSON JJ    32%       24%      8%
     sample = 34

(NEP#51)CINCINNATI 22-E 88%       82%     6%
     sample = 53

(NEP#63)SHARONVILLE 4-C 30%      30%      0%
     sample = 48

(NEP#54)EVENDALE D       25%     33%      -8%
     sample = 52
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