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 #177: Alright, just one... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 05:18 AM
Response to Reply #176
177. Alright, just one...
Edited on Fri Nov-30-07 05:40 AM by tiptoe
3+ years since the 2K4 and numbers still need correction??? From the same people that questioned corrections issued on the day of the election???
The corrections were to the latest update of the FAQ, to which Edison-Mitofsky WPE data had been miscopied. This is recent, new info...having nothing to with anything done three years ago.

Would these corrections include figures statisticians were mocked for questioning?
I wouldn't think so: The corrections respond to E-M data originally misprinted. (I should have noticed the original problematic table before posting it. My bad.)

But at this point, the whining does more harm than good.

Huh? "Whining"?? Nobody's whining, just new information is being provided...results of research and analysis. Are you simply wanting to instruct that ongoing research and analysis of exit poll material is pointless "at this point"...should be TOTALLY set aside...and focus directed on anything but exit poll research (as, e.g., audits...researched by others, e.g. Dopp)? If so, fine. Your opinion. For me, it's not exit polls per se, but election fraud, which is an ongoing, ever-developing story.

And it seems large numbers of DUers are interested in TIA's ongoing contributions (as per bleever's periodically-updated "Up-to-date Compendium...").

Perhaps TIA would lend his statistical talents to advocating audits that are effective. THAT would be purposeful and perhaps even effective.
Perhaps. Ask him. Developing the kinds of exit polls Sancho advocates below might also prove "purposeful and effective." Are audits always available given variations in precincts' voting methods? Voters are always available.

The Exit Poll Q U A G M I R E is not .

The Exit Poll analysis is not a quagmire. The exit polls provided the impetus to researchers that the election was not kosher. And ongoing comprehensive polling analysis by TIA only serves to enlighten those who still are unfamiliar with or not convinced by the evidence. (The MSM -- other than, perhaps, Lou Dobbs and Catherine Crier -- hasn't exactly "jumped all over" election fraud issues.)

As for relevancy of exit polling to "now what?" see
Vote flipping, compilers, undervotes: How do we catch them?: A thread by DU-er Sancho seeking ideas for catching election fraud suggests Exit Polls at the precinct level as a key means for doing so:
I still contend that the hacking of DRE's, compilers, and faulty source code is virtually impossible to detect.
I think that comprehensive exit polls at the PRECINCT level are still the best route to provide the overwhelming evidence to expose the hackers. In Florida, so many people are fed up with this after the last decade that a "fraud poll" that allowed people to revote and compare the results would likely result in a large exit poll participation percentage.

The exit poll that I envision would have to be convenient for voters, target early EIRS complaints, and clearly announce the intent to verify election integrity.

The thread includes comments from OTOH, Bill Bored, et al (including yourself). Autorank writes:
A hearty K*R. I agree with [the OP]. The politics of exit polls, defending them, attacking them, are [sic] should be set apart from their utility as instruments to detect and stop fraud.

In order to do this, we need some objective, competent, and disinterested parties to administer and oversee the conduct of the polls. Clearly, having a MSM network consortium employ and then control the data is not acceptable.

We also need to stay current up on the overseas exit poll history. I say "we" meaning me too! I should have looked at the use of U.S. based overseas polling before. This history is instructive for your suggestion. Mark Penn, the guy so close to Hillary, worked overseas and produced some interesting and bogus results in Venezuela and Italy. But of more interest, one of my "sacred cows," the Ukranian movement is a mixed bag and not a totem of exit polling utility (e.g., Republican operative Frank Luntz was involved). This might provide an excluded provider list ;)

Great suggestion. Thanks!!!

The point is the utility of Exit Poll analysis has and will remain highly relevant and far from "pointless at this point." And it's just one aspect of the Election Fraud issue. It's just phenomena to study and understand. The point is (paraphrasing) "follow the numbers...follow the clues".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | 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