Reply #50: To me you reflect as biased a view as the critics....

[Sancho]

I suspect you've never really done a human subjects review for major research for a medical experiment...AFAICT is a profession of crapheads if they can't have neutral people look at data without revealing identity. Take my freshman course!

Meanwhile, "feeble" sent me a link to the data, but it's clear already that anyone who doesn't think a geographic interest is important is also out of touch with reality. After all, haven't you seen the voting district case in front of the SC now? Don't know about the electoral college? You're defending a silly assertion. This is a case of power to detect if there was or was not evidence of manipulation - and by all accounts manipulation would have occured between the precinct or tabulator level...what's so hard about that? The ASA (I've presented and published with them - if you know what that is..) clearly has a large number of specialists for spacial/geographical analyses....E-M avoids that issue.

As a reviewer of journal articles for 20 years, I often see that what's "not addressed" is the issue that needs focus. Why, except for a lame reasoning that has easy solutions, doesn't E-M release data - even to the critics in "private" - for debate?

Finally, it's the ONLY level of data that's useful which E-M won't release. Meanwhile, I'm not a politician, but it's been fairly easy to see local and state polls (usually by precinct) of any number of local elections - even if you use observed instead of expected results - for example a hypothetical:

IF a given local precinct in Florida:
Was 40% Hispanic, 30% Black, and ....
Voted 80% for the democratic senate candidate...
Voted 75% for the teacher pay raise...
Was 80% BUSH for president after....
14 people reported that the machines were not counting right...
Then that poll was HACKED....finding the level of manipulation; IF it exists is critical to the issue. I'm surprised that is not obvious to you.

We already have "weird" results by several reports at the state level. So why not provide more evidence of the TRUTH from E-M? The ONLY explanation you offer is "privacy" - of a vote that people have already agreed to be polled AND is 2 years ago? You can't think of a way to deal with that?....why attack the obvious questions or the multiple ways to look for an answer. You asked for a NULL and I have given you a few. If you want to make a dissertation out of it, get all the data (including all identifiers) and come to Florida. We'd be glad to approve the human subjects design officially and give you a Ph.D. if you can produce a QUALITY analysis. I don't care if the evidence goes one way or the other. I do care that you seem to offer critique without "appearing" to see the obvious conclusions: E-M should figure out a way to answer the questions if the data is there.

BTW, "lying" is a simple term for beginners...I'd prefer to look for "respondent effects".