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 #22: Well, it's a bit complex, [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 Fri Jan-20-06 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Well, it's a bit complex,
and I laid it out (and various posters made useful comments) here:

but in short:

Bush's swing (change in vote relative to 2000, a year in which, ironically, the exit polls were fairly close to the counted result) is not significantly correlated with "redshift" in the poll. In other words, if vote-switching were responsible for both a greater boost to Bush in the poll and with redshift in the poll, the two effects should be correlated, and they aren't, not even close. If fraud was absolutely uniform across all precincts, then that would be compatible with the non-correlation finding, but that is hard to envisage. Alternatively, if an algorithm that only lifted Bush off the bottom of precincts where he was doing worse than predicted on the basis of 2000 (or generally worse than expected) but left well alone where he was managing fine on propaganda and gay marriage iniatives, and voter suppression, and, I suppose, incumbency benefits, then that might escape detection by such a correlation. But on my reckoning, only if it was pretty widespread. If there were a substantial proportion of precincts with no fraud, it would tend to show up. And if you didn't get it right, OTOH has demonstrated that you might get a correlation in the "wrong" direction,

One of the things I have been doing, as an exit poll geek, is trying to figure out forms of massive fraud that are compatible with the exit poll, which IMO, actually presents problems for the hypothesis of widespread fraud, although I know this sounds crazy to many. I actually don't think massive fraud IS compatible with that non-correlation, but I am perfectly prepared to concede that where electronic theft was easy, opportunistic theft occurred.

Can I ask you: what is your prior? Do you believe that the election was hacked:

a) because it could have been
b) because of the exit polls
c) because America couldn't have voted for Bush

And do you think that the popular vote was stolen, or just swing states?

(none of these are trick questions, but I am a declared exit-poll skeptic, and thus a declared massive hack skeptic).
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