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 #86: Channelling back.... [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 Nov-24-05 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #84
86. Channelling back....
Even if the Final Exit Poll (43/37) says otherwise.

But, but....
You agree that 43/37 is impossible.
And that 43/37 implies

1) Bush 2000 voters were oversampled; in fact, they were anxious.

but, but...

2) Bush 2000 voters could not have comprised 43% of the 2004 vote.
That would mean Bush got 52.57mm votes.
We know he only got 50.45.
But 1.75mm of them died.
So at most 48.7mm Bush 2000 voters (39.8%) could have turned out in 2004.

Sorry, but...
There goes your rBr (reluctant Bush responder).
There goes your Gore Voter False Recall.


This makes no sense. It is perfectly possible for Kerry voters to have been sampled at a higher rate than Bush voters, and that hypothesis is simply not incompatible with the Gore-Bush recall data, given what we know about recall. People may choose to disbelieve either but there is nothing inherently impossible about either.


To quote Febble (my responses in UPPER case):
"If you read both pieces you will see that there are a number of ways in which the plot could be compatible with fraud, even with widespread fraud..."
THANK YOU

it is, however, very difficult to reconcile the plot with a fraud mechanism that could have contributed substantially to the exit poll discrepancy.
DEFINE SUBSTANTIALLY.
BUT WAS IT ENOUGH TO STEAL THE ELECTION?


If fraud was confined entirely to precincts in which Bush was doing badly, and scrupulously avoided in precincts where Bush was doing well, then I suppose, theoretically, about half. But that is theoretical. To do this would require a sophisticated algorithm which would have to applied at county tabulation level in about 40% of precincts and at machine level in about 60%. And it would have to devised in such a way as to undo any vote-flipping if a precinct turned out to be going too far Bush's way - or done on the final totals. No-one to my knowledge has yet proposed a workable algorithm to do this, but I would be interested to know if anyone has done.

It would therefore seem more likely than not that the exit poll discrepancy was caused largely by polling bias rather than fraud.
WHAT ABOUT THE PRE-ELECTION POLLING DISCREPANCIES?


I was watching every pre-election poll, and I was not expecting Kerry to win without a lot of assumptions going his way. You made those assumptions apparently, and predicted a Kerry win. I hoped for a Kerry win but predicted a Kerry loss, on the basis of the pre-election polls.

And the take-home message is: stop regarding the exit polls as prima facie evidence of a stolen election. There is plenty of other work to be done, and frankly, the exit polls are getting in the way.
NO, FEBBLE, THE EXIT POLLS WERE THE FIRST MECHANISM TO RAISE SERIOUS FLAGS.
SINCE THEN, WITH THE ANALYSIS OF THE NATIONAL EXIT POLL TIME LINE
(THE ONLY ONE MATCHED TO THE PURLOINED VOTE)
AND WITH PROOF OF THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE FINAL'S
BUSH/GORE 2000 WEIGHTS, THE EXIT POLLS HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED AS
THE GIFTS THAT ALWAYS KEEP ON GIVING.


Yes, the exit polls raised serious flags (though the first flag to me were the long lines in Ohio). That's why I got interested in them.

OF COURSE, YOU WOULD LIKE ALL EXIT POLL DISCUSSION TO CEASE.
YOU WANT US TO "MOVE ON".


Only because I don't think they support the fraud case. I think other evidence supports it far better. I actually think that what we now know about the exit poll data indicates that the discrepancy is unlikely to have been due to fraud. Fraud may nonetheless have occurred, particularly voter-suppression and vote rejection.

.

However, the channeled spirit correctly spots one of the fraud mechanisms that could account for the exit poll discrepancy and not produce a swing-shift correlation:
THANK YOU

On further reflection, I'm not sure that this is correct.

If fraud in 2004 was precisely calibrated to the fraud that occurred in 2000 (and I mean precisely), then yes, that might do it.
NO THANKS
2004 FRAUD MUST BE BE PRECISELY CALIBRATED TO 2000 FRAUD?
SURELY YOU JEST.
THERE ARE INFINITE SCENARIO COMBINATIONS WHICH WILL YIELD
RESULTS SIMILAR TO THE MODEL WHICH YOU JUST REFEREED TO.


Yes there are infinite combinations. What we need is the probability distribution of those combinations. If you can compute the probability distribution, I will listen.

If every extra 1 percent in Bush's vote share due to fraud in 2000 was mirrored by X times 1% fraud in 2004, yup, maybe you could pull it off.
UMM, THANK YOU...
I GUESS.

An alternative would be uniform fraud in all precincts.
POSSIBLE.
NOT LIKELY.
WHY LEAVE A TRAIL?
BETTER TO TARGET INDIVIDUALLY.


I agree. On reflection, I don't think the calibrate-to-2000 will work. My best shot so far is link vote-flipping to Bush's 2000 performance regardless of fraud in 2000, and only target precincts where Bush is doing badly. This is not as easy as it may sound.

Another alternative is fraud confined to precincts in which Bush was anticipated to do badly relative to 2000 (although you would have to be careful to cover a substantial majority of precincts and be sure to avoid any where he was doing well).
AGAIN, POSSIBLE,
BUT NOT LIKELY


No, I agree, not likely, which is why I think the non-correlation argues against widespread vote-flipping fraud. But YMMV.

THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO SKIN A CAT.
TOUCH SCREENS.
OPTI-SCANS.
PUNCH CARDS.
CENTRAL TABULATORS.
AND THE VOTERS WOULD NEVER KNOW IT.


No, but a statistician might if they found a swing-shift correlation.

BUT YOU NEED COOPERATION AT THE STATE AND/OR LOCAL LEVEL.
LIKE IN FLORIDA AND OHIO.


Yes.

If anyone can suggest an practical algorithm that could achieve this, bearing in mind that it in all NEP precincts where the vote counts for are collected at the precinct, that the fraud must be perpetrated at precinct level, not at tabulator level (about 60% of precincts) while the remainder has to be done at tabulator level, then I will concede, yes, perhaps the exit poll discrepancy was due to fraud.

NOW WE MUST COME UP WITH THE THEFT ALGORITHM FOR YOU?
YOU ASSUME THERE WAS JUST ONE.
THE SMOKING ALOGORITHM...
SURELY, FEBBLE, YOU JEST.
FRAUD CAME IN MANY SHAPES AND SIZES.
IT HAD TO BE FLUID.


I absolutely agree. The problem is, if there is variance in the methodology, and the methodology involves vote-flipping, then it will produce a swing-shift correlation. As long as it involves voter suppression, or vote suppression in precincts where there has always been vote suppression of the Democratic vote (eg provisional ballot rejection, undervotes, overvotes etc) then it won't show up as a swing-shift correlation. Nor will blanket spoilage in Dem precincts. And this may well have happened - there is lots of evidence that it did. However, most of this kind of fraud won't show up in the exit poll (differential spoilage/suppression of Dem ballots will, but not in a swing-shift correlation).

I agree - it had to be fluid. And I would argue that vote-flipping had to be a minor component, given the lack of swing-shift correlation. The form of fraud that would produce red-shift but not correlated swing-shift is differential spoilage. Other forms could swing the election, but not the exit poll.


But remember - there is very little room for any deviation from the fraud perpetrated in 2000. It has to be directly proportional.
MUST BE DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL?
SURELY, FEBBLE, YOU JEST.
WHY DO YOU EXPECT THE PERPS WOULD USE A SIMPLE FRAUD FORMULA?


No. This is my point. Only if they used a simple formula could they avoid the swing-shift formula - or if the methodology was mainly voter/vote suppression.


LET'S BACK UP HERE.
I CHALLENGED THE NAYSAYERS TO COME UP WITH A SINGLE
PLAUSIBLE BUSH WIN SCENARIO.


SO I ASKED THE NAYSAYERS TO COME UP WITH ANOTHER SCENARIO.
YOU ARE WELCOME TO DOWNLOAD MY EXCEL INTERACTIVE ELECTION MODEL.
IT'S FREE.

BUT NO ONE TOOK ME UP ON THE OFFER.


No, because, I don't accept the assumptions underlying the model.

AND NOW YOU CHALLENGE ME TO DEVELOP A RIDICULOUS, IMPOSSIBLE ALGORITHM?

Take it or leave it.

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