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 #90: I did respond to this one [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 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #89
90. I did respond to this one
but thought that pasting it in might be skating on thin ice, rule-wise.

It is perfectly true that the Gore-Bush2000 proportions are "impossible" when extrapolated to the population. I've already said this elsewhere. The question is: what are the possible explanations? One, of course is fraud. But using actual known "false report" percentages from longitudinal studies of 2000 voters, OTOH was able to reproduce the data in terms of false recall.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

You, and others, may decide that you don't believe the "false report" explanation, but unless you deny the evidence that 9% of people who voted for Gore in 2000 later "recalled" voting for Bush, then the "impossible" proportions are perfectly explicable in terms of known patterns of recalled vote.

I am not even saying that this is what happened. But I would certainly dispute that the "43/37" mantra is anything like a slam dunk for fraud, no matter how many times anyone cares to type IMPOSSIBLE in all caps, and given other evidence (lack of swing-shift correlation for one) I find the false recall explanation at least plausible.

WHICH IS NOT TO SAY THAT THERE WAS NO FRAUD (Caps seem to be catching).

But the harder I stare at the exit poll evidence the less it appears to me that more than a fraction of the discrepancy can be attributed to vote switching fraud, and IMO puts strong constraints on the amount of vote-switching fraud that could have plausibly happened. But the exit poll evidence does NOT rule out (IMO):

Voter suppression, including rationing of voting machines in Democratic precincts
Differential spoilage of Democratic votes in precincts where it has always happened (also rejected provisional Democratic ballots)
Spoilage of votes in largely Democratic precincts
A limited amount of vote flipping (but it has to be limited to avoid producing the swing-shift correlation).

And frankly that's enough to make me pretty mad.

(Love the photo - Delphi was the first place I ever travelled out of England, and I was bowled over - I can still recall the taste of the cold spring water in the sunshine, under the olives. I was thirteen).
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