Reply #7: A "digest" of Ron's post

[tommcintyre]

<For much of us here at DU, the mathematics (though obviously necessary) can be a barrier to our understanding of what is happening. So I have "digested" Ron's excellent post in an attempt to make his information more accessible to all. (Please refer to the appropriate parts of his post above for more details.)

Thanks again for ALL your hard work at USCV. I (and many others here) are committed to getting your information before the public.)>
-----------------------------------------

"c) Liddle may have unknowingly reinvented the “wheel”...all these terms are based on the derivations developed in the April 12 USCV report..." "The importance of this is not only one of correct attribution of credit..., but also to point out that USCV and Liddle have been looking at the same variables...derived in a mathematically equivalent fashion."

"d) <Mitofsky> seems to be mistakenly, or deliberately, trying to create the impression that the Liddle analysis is based on some new, hitherto undiscovered “artifact” or “confounding”, that resolves the debate and shows that the mean rbr hypothesis can, after all, in spite of appearances to the contrary, explain the data."

"...may partly be a result of...Liddle’s paper...she derives...in a rather complicated and convoluted manner...without reference to the equations...presented in earlier USCV reports.

"e) Liddle came to an opposite conclusion to that of USCV." <Even though her conclusion "...was based on the very same...response rates patterns..."

"f) How could she have come to such a different conclusion?" "USCV reports...values diverged markedly in implausible ways across partisan precincts." "Liddle...simulated...to get the suggestive pattern displayed by Mitofsky...By looking at an exaggerated...simulation..."

"g) ...Appendix B...shows why the “inverted u” pattern appears...also points out that mean calculations that were already done in the USCV (April 12) report show that the “inverted u”...makes the jump in WPE <rBr argument>... even more implausible..."

"h) This “mathematical nit” cannot possibly explain the dramatic asymmetry in the E-M data..." <In others words, the "holes" (fallacies) in Mitofsky's rBr claim>.

"i) This debate with Liddle went on for some weeks." <With USCV pointing out to her how unrealistic her claims were.>

"j) USCV showed that...were mathematically infeasible in high Bush precincts and highly implausible in high Kerry precincts..."

"k) Liddle attempts to address this...skirts the issue." "USCV’s first report also showed that these small response rate variations contradict the E-M hypothesis."

"l) ...USCV did some output simulations...showed that...<assumptions made to support rBr were>...highly improbable to impossible..."

"m) Liddle...published her paper...was hailed as holding the key to saving the...<rBr>...hypothesis. The fact that it was based on the very same data (and pretty much the same analysis that USCV had be doing to show the opposite) was overlooked."

"n) USCV felt pressured to respond to the Liddle paper by releasing the May 21 paper, and sending representatives to the AAPOR conference. This new USCV paper in addition to the calculations...also included an input simulation that showed that the <rBr> hypothesis could not explain the <Mitofsky> outcomes, even under the most extremely (favorable to the hypothesis) <scenario>...these simulators (one of which is in completely transparent Excel form) have been put on the USCV website so that anyone can verify these results."

"o) The Liddle and E-M hypothesis had been rejected...in at least three different ways."
"a) Analysis of “representative”...precincts showed that it was mathematically infeasible or highly implausible..."

"b) “Output simulation” shows...with a high degree of certainty...matching...response rates...requires significant unexplained changes..."

"c) “Input simulation” shows that it is impossible, under the most extreme favorable to the Hypothesis circumstances, to get E-M reported results from an E-M constant... In particular this simulation shows that the E-M reported...<supporting claims>...Are all unobtainable under the E-M hypothesis."

"p) None the less, <Mitofsky>...has embraced the Liddle analysis as providing conclusive evidence for the...<rBr>...hypothesis." "The question of how such a simple...analysis could trump the data already presented by USCV...and the more recent conclusive simulation outcomes, seems to have been lost or deliberately ignored."

"q) No solid statistical evidence...is offered to support this <rBr> hypothesis."

"r) Mitofsky claimed...to have done the regressions but not released them. This is doubly unacceptable! If they were done, the public has a right to see them! <This is Mitofsky's typical obfuscating modus operandi!>

"However, I am somewhat skeptical that they have been done, or at least done in a thorough and complete manner..."

"It seems to me that this hypothesis, stated with such certainty on p. 31 of the E-M report, could not have come from an in-depth and serious statistical analysis by some of the “best analysts” in the country!

"s) ...the kind of...<data>...that E-M has released to the public, would never pass muster as supporting evidence in any kind of serious academic journal (including one that I am an editor of). The gullibility of the media in support of the constant mean bias hypothesis without any serious evidence for it has been a travesty. The notion that “these things take time” etc. is also unacceptable. The credibility of our election system is an extremely important national issue – it should not take six months or more to provide a serious analysis (especially if some of the “nations best” analysts have been looking at it) of such an important issue. Moreover, there is no reason that private business contracts or personal confidentiality should trump critical public interest in this data. There are ways to release this data that protect confidentiality (as has already been done for Ohio). There is no sufficiently important or legitimate reason for E-M not to release the data and very good reasons, relating to a minimal sense of public responsibility and survey ethics, for E-M to immediately release the data without further delay. This is what I meant by “E-M needs to release the data”.
<snip>
"z) The...<rBr>...conjecture remains an unsupported (and largely inconsistent with the data that has been made public) hypothesis. Six months after the election, we still have no serious explanation for the large exit poll discrepancy. The shoddy (if I could borrow a term) and inadequate analysis (claiming for example that tabulations and linear correlation analysis are sufficient to support the E-M hypothesis) that has been released to the public has just deepened the uncertainty about what happened in the 2004 elections. I don’t see how this could be viewed as anything other than a national disgrace. The volunteer work of USCV, and other citizen activists who are deeply concerned about the credibility and/or integrity of our electoral system, and have refused to be satisfied with this pabulum, may, in fact, be the one glimmer of hope in this mess."