Reply #54: I have to say

[OnTheOtherHand]

First of all, Febble's paper does speak pretty clearly for itself, it is by no means a naysaying screed, and if researchers aren't allowed even to raise methodological questions without being scored as "agreeing with Mitofsky," then -- well, as St. Teresa of Avila reputedly said to God, "If this is how you treat your friends, no wonder you have so few." Obviously, Chi, I don't mean "you" personally, but there really is a prevailing pattern here. The political scientists, survey researchers and such who _ignore_ this debate overwhelmingly remain happily unaware of its existence (many of them are happily cranking out and publishing papers about why Bush won); the shit storm is reserved for those of us who actually try to engage it.

I'm not gonna carry water for ESI -- I don't know most of the principals -- but Fritz Scheuren, who worked on the Ohio exit poll report, is president of the American Statistical Association, and he wrote the book (well, OK, the article) on data blurring. He would obviously be on the short list of people to do that work.

Mary Batcher was also in on that report, and while I'm not qualified to comment on her CV in the field of financial auditing, I can say that both in Minneapolis (Joint Statistical Meetings) and in Philly, she did a better job articulating an agenda for auditable, transparent elections than anyone else in the room. I had no idea who Mary Batcher was until I heard her at Minneapolis in August, but I can tell you, we need more of her. Financial Auditors for Transparent Elections -- has a ring to it, doesn't it?