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 #90: interesting [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 Thu Aug-18-05 05:38 AM
Response to Reply #67
90. interesting
and depressing.

But it seems sensible to probe your own case for flaws in advance, even if you still present the case.

Isn't this how you prepare a case?

In this instance, the first thing a cross-examiner is going to do, I would have thought is the same thing a peer-reviewer would do - raise the issue of false recall, especially if, as in this case, he can cite prior evidence that people do, in fact, tend to falsely recall having voted for the incumbent. This argument needs to be addressed. Simply to accuse OTOH of being a Republican, or worse, as has been done here (not by you), for raising it, seems rather ostrich-like, to me. It is your cross-examiners who will raise it.

Ditto with New Hampshire. NH was recounted, to the apparent satisfaction of those requesting the recount. The vote count had a large "red shift" relative to the poll. Any cross-examiner/peer-reviewer is going to raise the argument that the NH recount results appear to confirm that the exit polls can differ widely from the count, even when the count is correct.

It is not freeping to point this out. It merely points to the importance of gathering evidence in NH if you want to make the case that the exit poll discrepancy "could not" have been due to polling error. NH is a big obstacle to shift.

However, I think there are other grave problems with the exit poll evidence as evidence for fraud. The strongest is the finding, cited by Mitofsky in the press as well as in the E-M report, that bias was greatest where interviewing rate was lowest. This strongly implies that as the opportunity for non-random sampling increased, bias also increased, and leads to the interpretation that non-random sampling contributed to bias. If so, the MoE becomes useless, as it is predicated on a random sample.

Again, raising this does not make me, or anyone else, a freeper. It makes me what I am, a concerned non-American who cares about the way the president of the world's most powerful nation is elected, and keen to see a watertight case made for electoral reform. Which means your electoral system must be fair, secure and auditable. At present it is none of these things. My concern is that the exit poll evidence merely muddies the water, and is too easy to destroy.

Because in the end it doesn't matter whether Bush actually stole the election or not. The fact that he could have done, and that no-one could stop him, or know for sure that he'd done so, is what needs to be fixed. The essence of a democracy that the minority consent to be governed by those elected by the majority. If there is no confidence in the election (your point) the consent of the people to be governed is compromised. Whether or not the minority is, in fact, a minority.
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