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

Reply #6: I am not sure exactly what you mean [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
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-05 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I am not sure exactly what you mean
by the "virtually impossible skew to Bush" in the battleground states, and in any case was not what I was addressing in my paper.

It is true that Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida had larger errors than some other states, but the one of the largest errors was in New Hampshire, not a battleground state, and they also had a recount that satisfied Nader.

I would like to know whether the within-precinct error was larger in battle ground states or not. My own analyses of the WPE suggests it was not, although as I have said elsewhere, I think these analyses need to be done with a different (my) variable. Of the three big battleground states Pennsylvania was the most out of line, but not statistically significantly so. Other, less sensitive states were further from the mean.

I think you misunderstand the "reluctant Republican responder" hypothesis. The E-M analysis was based solely on votes, regardless of party affiliation. It is normally called the "reluctant Bush responder" hypothesis, as the hypothesis is that voters who voted for Bush were more likely to refuse to respond than voters who voted for Kerry. Both were reluctant - but the figures estimated by E-M are that while 46% of Kerry voters managed to avoid the pollsters (by luck or design) 50% of Bush voters did. Not a huge difference, but enough to seriously upset the predictions.

But my paper does not argue for the reluctant Bush responder hypothesis. It only argues against the "Bush strongholds have more vote-corruption" hypothesis. If you want to read my paper as evidence for much more wide-spread vote-corruption (which there has to have been if the exit polls really reflect vote-corruption), feel free. I think there is other evidence against that view, but that is not what my paper is arguing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

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

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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