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

Reply #75: OK, these are my words: [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 Sat Dec-03-05 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
75. OK, these are my words:
"So I would argue that the Totality of the Evidence at present adds up to this:
1. The election was corrupt.
2. Democrats were the net losers from the corruption.
3. Voter (and vote) suppression remains a key problem, and may have cost Kerry Ohio.
4. Kerry probably lost the popular vote.
5. But we do not know for sure who actually won either the popular or the electoral vote, and this insupportable (sic.)"

The naysayser confirms the corruption in points 1,2,3.
But still keeps from going all the way in points 4 and 5.

So, my response:

Even though all available evidence says otherwise.

Not in my view

So let's summarize some important FACTS ...

Al Gore was ELECTED in 2000.
It was not just stolen from him.
It was stolen from US.
But at least Al fought.

Certainly Gore had more intended votes in Florida than Bush, and won the popular vote.

John Kerry was ELECTED in 2004.
It was not just stolen from him.
It was stolen from US.
John, we hardly knew 'ye.

Not facts.


The naysayers continue their relentless attempts to mask the overwhelming evidence provided by confirmation of hundreds of pre=election and exit polls:

Not a fact.

1) Pre-election state. Total sample: 50 polls* 600 = 30,000
2) Pre-election national. Total Sample: 18 polls *1500 = 27,000
3) Pre-election 48.5% Bush approval. Total: 11 polls*1000 = 11,000
4) 12:22am state exit polls: 73,600 respondents
5) 12:22am national exit poll: 13,047 respondents

These are facts in the sense that these polls were published. However the numbers are inferences from samples, and their margins of error assume random sampling. All the polls cited had high non-response rates, and cannot be assumed to consist of random samples, although one hopes they did.

And to this we must add have all the massive documented evidence of vote miscounts:

This is a qualitative statement, not quantitative. "Massive" needs to be supported by quantitative data before I will accept it as a "fact". But yes, I agree there is good evidence of "irregularities", and probably in all these states. More than vote miscounts, however - some of the best documented evidence includes incidents where the voter was unable to vote at all.

Were ALL these pre and post-election polls BIASED?

Probably not.

They ALL confirm that Bush lost.

A pre election poll cannot "confirm" what happened in an election. And I was following the pre-election polls closely, and they certainly weren't telling me that "Bush lost". And yes, they may have been biased, some more than others, some in on direction some in another.

What is it about these polls that is so difficult to understand?

I dunno - what is it about "too close to call" that is so difficult to understand?

Where is the evidence that the exit polls were biased?
Was it shy Bush voters (rBr)?
Debunked in NEP by Mitofksky 43%Bush/37% Gore?

I have no idea why TIA thinks the recalled vote data "debunks" non-response bias as an explanation for the discrepancy between poll and count. I certainly wouldn't describe the hypothesis as "shy Bush voters", but I find it perfectly plausible to postulate that slightly more of the "reluctant" voters (and we know there were a lot) were Bush voters than Kerry voters. Of the "non-reluctant" voters, I also find it perfectly plausible that some Gore voters mistakenly recalled voting for Bush; OTOH cited an actual longitudinal study in which voters who voted for Gore later recalled voting for Bush. If similar proportions did so in the exit poll, it would account for the exit poll data Bush/Gore proportions.

Was it early Kerry voters?
Debunked. View the time line Kerry led at 4pm, 7:33pm, 12:22am

Was it early women voters?
Female vote share
4pm: 58%, 7:33pm: 54%, 12:22am: 54%, 1:25pm 54%

Neither of these, as we both know. The timeline is irrelevant. The timeline simply reflects dynamic re-weighting processes. We know, in any case, from the E-M report that the problem was at the level of the precincts - a greater proportion of Kerry voters were sampled on the poll than were represented in the vote.

Was it False Gore voter recall?
Ridiculous on its face.
Bush voters recall who they voted for...
Gore voters suffer from Alzheimer's?

I have to believe this assertion (not a fact) is willful denial of perfectly good evidence. Check back to the Game thread for OTOH's source. Inaccurate vote recall is a well-attested phenomenon, and often favours the incumbent.

Was it Bad weather early in the day keeping Bush voters home?
Breaking News! Republicans buy umbrellas at Walmart.

Well, they didn't have to queue as long in Ohio, so maybe. But the evidence suggests not.

Was it inexperienced pollsters?
Mitofsky trained them. Who is better qualified?

This is my best guess. They had, I understand, a brief telephone training. Not enough for what is actually a remarkably difficult job.

Was it the exit poll "cluster effect"?
Do I hear 20%? 30%? 50%?

TIA should stop using these scare quotes, and find out what a DESR actually is (I've attempted to explain, and even gave him a link).

Ok, enter your "design effect" into the Interactive Election Model.
Let's see how many states will deviate beyond the MoE for Bush.
The model will calculate the probabilities.
Maybe not 1 in 19 trillion (16 exceeding MoE), but still astronomical.

No, because I do not share the assumption of the model that the only source of error in the polls is sampling error (DESR is also an estimate of sampling error).

And how does one explain 30% poll deviations in the Ohio 2005 election?

Well I think there are a number of possible explanations, but I thought we were talking about 2004? Possible there was fraud, although the finding by Klinkner that the discrepancy was not greater in DRE counties doesn't suggest DRE fraud particularly. But as I keep saying, until Ohio gets cleaned up, no-one will know the answer.

How much evidence is necessary to prove the DRE fix?

How much? Well, I'd like to see something more convincing that we've got. But I agree they are a terrible idea, on many, many, counts, and quite absurdly insecure, as the GAO report points out.

Were the pre-election polls biased, as well?

Oh, I thought we'd done this bit. Probably they were, but clearly not all in one direction. I think TIA eliminated the polls he thought were biased for Bush. I am sure they had non-sampling error, and tracking polls suggested some polls tended to track higher than others. This suggests that bias was a problem, and that certain pollsters tended to have a particular bias. This is highly likely, as bias is a function of methodology. One of the reasons I dispute TIA's lumping of polls together is that it ignores between-poll error (what is sometimes called "random effects" variance. It seems fairly clear that each poll had a characteristic "bias". It's the same in the UK. The one I like is ICM (for the Guardian) as it allows for "shy Tories" - it therefore tends to track Labour lower than the others - and generally gets closer to the result.

Naysayers can't blame it on "cluster effect".
Or bad weather.
Or shy Bush voters.
Or Gore voter Faulty Recall.
Or untrained pollsters.

This is pure rhetoric, not argument. See above.

For naysayers to say that they wanted a Kerry win is a canard.
They claim to be Democrats or Indies searching for the truth.
To prevent fraud in the NEXT election.
As if THAT gives them credibility.

They want to have it both ways.
Deny that Kerry won and that the polls were right.
Yet at the same time claim that they wanted him to win.
Naysayer allegiance to Mitofsky is obvious.

Again, this is pure rhetoric. I will leave well alone.

They say the math is correct.
No argument there.
But they don't agree with the assumptions.
What assumptions?

1. Random sampling
2. Random sampling
3. Random sampling

That pre-election polls favored Kerry?
I can prove it. Go to

See mine (and others', including OTOH's, responses on this thread.

That undecided voters went for Kerry by almost 2-1?
That new voters went to Kerry by 3-2?
That Nader voters went to Kerry by 4-1?
See the National Exit Poll time lines.

Don't understand this. See my comment re time-line. We also can't distinguish "new voters" from "rare voters". New voters will tend to be young and might be expected to favour Kerry. Rare voters - who knows?

That the 43/37% Bush/Gore voter share of the 2004 vote was impossible?
It took a long time for the naysayers to agree.
After all, even they would not claim Bush voter immortality.

Oh dear, round, and round, and round we go. No, I agree, that it is unlikely that Bush voters are immortal. False recall seems much more likely as an explanation - we actually know this is a phenomenon. The only immortal I know personally is a Kerry voter (or I assume he is...)

That the Final Exit Poll must be wrong?
Well, to match the vote, it applied fictitious weightings.
That's a no-brainer.

That all other Final demographics/vote shares must be wrong, as well?
Well, that's just simple logic.
and A = B
then B = FALSE
Do I hear heads exploding?
Or is it just another terror alert?

That Kerry's Gender share was manipulated?
It went from 54% at 12:22am to 51% at 1:25pm.
Was it a massive sex change in 12 hours?
Christine Jorgensen never owned a computer back in 1952.

That the Party ID split was manipulated?
From 38 Dem/35 Rep to 37/37.
Was it Massive Fundie conversions in those 12 hours.

OK, this is getting silly. You seem to have forgotten that the projections were continuously reweighted (and that they actually had some glitch with the gender thing - it's in the E-M report, look it up).

That the Census 2004 Vote Survey was wrong?
According to the Census, 125.7 million voted in 2004.
That's 3.4mm more than the recorded 122.3 million.
The Census Gender demographic MoE is 0.30%.
Should we believe the 122.3mm recorded vote?

Well the Census people think that it overstates the # voted. But it seems clear that spoilage will contribute to the discrepancy.
The Final Exit Poll has a 1.0% MoE, according to Mitofsky.

That millions of votes are spoiled in every election?
Intentional or innocent spoilage?
Does it matter?

Dunno about millions, but yes it matters. It matters desperately, whether it is intentional or structural discrimination. It is a serious Civil Rights issue, and virtually certainly resulted in the Wrong Man being inaugurated in January 2001.

Yay, we agree on something! :)

That the trend in Kerry/Bush response (alpha) disproves rBr?
The ratio declines from 1.50 in High Bush precincts to 1.0 in High Kerry.

Well, as the coiner of "alpha" (actually it was my husband's term, as he couldn't read my "x"s, but I suggested the measure, and gave it that name) yes, I vigorously dispute this. Mitofsky tested precisely this, and no, it does not decline. The line is statistically flat.

USCV proved rBr was a myth using simulation.

Correction: some members of USCV claimed their simulation indicated that rBr was unlikely. Another member claimed his simulation indicated it was perfectly possible. The first lot then accused the second lot of accusing them of claiming that they'd proved rBr was a myth. Then there was a big fight. I think the ones that claimed that alpha was higher in high Bush precincts got it wrong.

I confirmed the USCV using the Exit Poll Response Optimizer.

Well, I think "you" did too, for the same reasons as USCV did. I wrote an entire geeky paper about it. But more to the point, Mitofsky actually did the calculation, using the whole dataset, and it isn't.

That Bush job approval on election day 2004 was not 48.5%?
That's an 11-poll average.
I can prove it.
You can look it up at
The combined MoE (11000 sample) is approx. 1.0%.

Well, prove it then. But remember that MoE assumes random sampling.

That there is no way Bush could overcome 48.5% approval?
Oh, well there is one.
He could steal it.

Well, I seriously wondered if he could. My conclusion is probably didn't.

That the Ohio exit poll showed Kerry the 52-48 winner?
Of the 49 exit poll precincts:
36 deviated from Kerry to Bush,
10 from Bush to Kerry,
3 were unchanged.

Yup, something was biased. Was it the poll? Was it the count? That is the question.

That if Kerry won Ohio, he must have done better nationally?
Check the record books.
Ohio always LAGS the national Democratic vote.
Naysayers agree there was fraud in Ohio

Cite please. And remember, as they say in the investment prospectuses, past performance is no guide to future performance. Social science isn't physics. Also there is an IF in there.

But what about the other states?
NM, NV, FL, NC, NY, MN, etc..

That the 12:22am state and national exit polls each
confirming a Kerry victory is not believable?
Well, forty-two of 50 states deviated to Bush.
That's 1 in 2 million odds.

Oh boy, round and round and round and round. Yes, the poll, or the count, or both, seem to have been systematically. It certainly wasn't chance.

That 50 state exit polls mirror 49 Ohio exit poll precincts?
Just a coincidence?

It certainly wasn't chance. It certainly wasn't chance. It certainly wasn't chance. It certainly wazzzzzzzzzz.......

Move along. Nothing to see here.
Take a trip to Brazile, Donna.


That the 9% disparity between the voting shares of Florida optiscans and DREs is virtually impossible?

Dem/Rep registrations were essentially equal in Optiscan and DRE counties.

Ah! Now I did some of this stuff.... What do you mean? Do you mean Hout's finding that DRE's had greater discrepancies? Or Liddle/Dopp's/Mitteldorf's finding that Optiscans did? Actually I think both analyses are invalid, as there were huge demographic confounds - No DREs were used in very rural counties, and no optiscans in the very large urban counties. Florida smells, to me, but the machine thing is completely inconclusive.

That sixteen of 50 states deviated beyond the MoE for Bush, none for Kerry?
The probability of that is 1 in 19 trillion.

....round and round and round and round......

That ALL 22 Eastern Time Zone states deviated from Kerry to Bush?
1 in 4 million.

Hey! I thought it was the swing states? Oh no, it was the Republican precincts - Oh no, it was the Democratic states....What is the point here exactly?

That eighty-six of 88 documented touch screens switched Kerry votes to Bush?
See the EIRS database.
Do the math.
1 in 79,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

The math here is truly bosh. Do we know how many machines these 88 incidents represent? Do we know whether the EIRS number was equally well publicised in Dem as in Rep areas? If not, then we can't do that math. I'll give you, it does look as though some machines may have defaulted to Bush. It requires serious investigation (and abolition of those dratted machines. It does not require idiotic probability calculations.


Ha! The bits that aren't pure rhetoric (including purely rhetorical questions) are not facts at all! They are inferences based on assumptions - every single one. You can't DO inferential statistics without making assumptions, and the biggest one is RANDOM SAMPLING. In not a single case cited can we assume anything like random sampling. What the probabilities therefore tell us is that the "facts" inferred ARE NOT DUE TO CHANCE. They do not tell us whether the non-chance cause was fraud or not. For answers to that question we have to do further investigation. I've done quite a bit of that myself, in terms of math, and many others have done quite a bit of on the ground investigation. And having looked at the accumulating evidence, some things are supported, some look shaky (like the exit poll story, which I now believe does NOT support the case for large-scale fraud).

But to assert that these are FACTS is quite misleading, and to imply that the astromical (im)probability estimates are prima facie evidence of fraud is to seriously misunderstand the nature of inferential statistics. And, frankly, to mislead.

Take a look at the graph below.
It shows a time line of pre-election and post election polls.

I'll pass on this, as the graph doesn't seem to have channelled properly.

Naysayers claim the "evidence" shows that Bush won the popular vote.
I ask, what evidence?

Well, I say that the only real evidence that Bush won the popular vote was the exit poll discrepancy (I certainly don't count the pre-election polls), and that if this was due to fraud, then fraud should have been correlated with "swing" (change in Bush's vote since 2000). It wasn't, and I think this makes the fraud explanation difficult to sustain. I certainly do not claim that the "evidence" shohws that Bush won the popular vote. I merely say that I do not believe that the exit poll provide any evidence at all that he did not. And absent that evidence, I think it is unlikely that Kerry did.

If Kerry won the popular vote, doesn't that mean the exit polls (state and national (12:22am) were therefore close to the truth?

Except, that is, for the 1:25pm Final National Poll
We know this one is pure, unadulterated BS. Why?
Look at the How Voted in 2000 demographic.
Focus on the 43%/37% Bush/Gore weights.
They are mathematically IMPOSSIBLE.

Here's the PROOF:
Bush got 50.45 million votes in 2000.
That's 41.25% of the 122.3mm who voted in 2004.
But 3.5% of them died, according to annual U.S. mortality rates (0.87%).
Therefore, AT MOST, 48.7mm of Bush 2000 voters came to the polls in 2004.
That's 39.8% of the 122.3mm total.

....round and round and round and round....

Assuming REALISTIC, PLAUSIBLE, EQUAL weightings for Bush and Gore voters,

As I said, if it makes you happy.

Once again, I challenge the naysayers to a real-time debate using the Interactive Election model.

Let's begin where the DU "Game" thread abruptly ended: ...

In the "Game", the naysayers claimed that Bush won 15% of Gore voters.
And that Kerry won only 52% of those who did not vote in 2000.

Can they ever come up with a plausible Bush win scenario?
I doubt it.

....random sampling random sampling random sampling....

Note to Land Shark:
The TOTALITY of pre-election and exit poll data provide SOLID CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE that the election was stolen.
The NUMBERS have been silently screaming for a year.

The fact that ONE YEAR LATER, there's strong DOUBT about who really won,
should be sufficient to convince the public that something must be done ASAP to restore our democracy.

And again, I whole-heartedly agree! :) The fact that this conversation is even happening is evidence of the degree to which your democracy has been sabotaged!

And of course, I am encouraged, from a purely mathematical point of view, that you accept that there is DOUBT about who won (although I would much prefer it if Kerry was in the White House right now). Yes, indeed, there is doubt.


Beyond that, we will have to agree to differ.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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