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 #91: I didn't say they were more accurate [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 Wed Jul-20-05 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #90
91. I didn't say they were more accurate
I said sampling was more likely to be random. Or at least that non-random sampling would be less likely to occur at voter selection level.

Anyway, why is not the point. The point is that the 1250 precincts in the subsample had a higher alpha.

They could have had more fraud.

But it doesn't mean the 56:50 is wrong for the full sample.

And I'm not even arguing against fraud at this point TIA. I am simply arguing that to be consistent with the data, it is worth looking at the Kerry end.
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