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

Election fraud analysis evaluation [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
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 12:45 PM
Original message
Election fraud analysis evaluation
Advertisements [?]
As previously advertised--http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

First off, several involved in this enterprise have been impatient with me. Somehow this went from a collective effort to being mine alone. I've been away on vacation, recieved a new duty statement when I returned to work, have been doing voter education for my union, have been getting the ranch ready for spring, and needed some lurker time last week to get back up to speed--my apologies.

I think that the brainstorming hit a snag (which I suspected would be the case--folks here are generally conditioned to tear an argument apart, rather than augment it) but I have several observations that may muddy the waters a bit further:

1. The use of linear arguments ran smack dab into the fact that the various factors for election fraud are best addressed as a reticulation, and the categories I proposed were not all that precise. The fact, as both Febble and Land Shark (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... ) seem to present, is that a cafeteria approach to fraud seems possible to evade forensic detection by statistical measures. One can critique LS's specific arguments without necessarily refuting his main point (e.g. the models, mechanisms, pathways thingie of mine and Popper)as ongoing new mechanisms can be proposed (my only criticism is that the method appears too have too much hind sight for a one shot deal, but I am not an insider statistician, so what would I know).

2. No one seems interested in addressing the various motives for why fraud would occur. This is somewhat of a hidden assumption (although comment 33 addressed this head on) that I think needs much closer analysis, and may explain why we cannot detect the deception mathematically. One of the things I was intrigued by early on was on Mad Cow Prod News(definately tin hat)(http://www.madcowprod.com/mc6912004.html ;http://www.madcowprod.com/11242004.html ;http://www.madcowprod.com/12092004.html ;http://www.madcowprod.com/12142004.html "Curiously, gambling was the burning issue on the ballot in state elections at the same exact time") that put forth the possible argument that the primary objective of vote hijacking in Florida may have been to pass the gambling initiative. I am wondering if a similar argument can be made with Ohio for the gay marriage initiative. In other words what if it is not the Republican party behind it, but their fellow travelers?

3. Elsewhere it is argued that votes were stolen from the Kerry column and put into the Third party column. This vote migration has some peculiar resonance about it that I think needs exploring. Why are we confident that votes for Gore were not moved into the Nader column in 2000? What was the stake for the Greens, Libertarians and Nader to explore recounts throughout the election in 2004? Were votes stolen from their column (just the opposite for what's being argued)?

4. What is the precise relationship between the exit polls and voter suppression? Here in California I recall explicit mention of long lines on the national radiocast for CBS (at about 1600PST), would such reporting suppress both democratic and republican turnout? Was this known locally in Ohio or Florida?

So pick your particular fact(iod)or argument, and give some argument for its strenghts or weaknesses. Lets try to avoid the snarkiness of another recent thread (and which I seem to excel at even when not trying--see comment 31!); and also keep within the informal rules I laid out in the previous thread.

Mike

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