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 #9: I've never seen sufficient precinct level data to do proper analysis of fraud... [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
Sancho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-31-09 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. I've never seen sufficient precinct level data to do proper analysis of fraud...
what I mean is non-parametric regression (SEM or HLM) where one would have to see exit poll and voter responses on all races and demographics. I've never seen anything like that...

One way to detect manipulation requires that much of the polling data would have to be available instantly before the machines were moved from the station or rebooted!

Also, item response models would clearly show misfit by machine, precinct, race, or items on the exit polls including "reluctant responders" or survey errors. Only item level data aligned with each precinct's results could do I could (and HAVE) identified an individual machine or precinct. In one case here in Pinellas county, when I observed a machine misbehaving and reported it, the poll worker (who worked for the DRE manufacturer) removed that machine, rebooted it and put it back. They also forced me to leave the observation area! In another case in Sarasota, machines that were used in early voting behaved statistically differently when the exact same machines were used in the same district for a regular election (undervotes, etc.). There is NO explanation for that other than a programming change!

In another case, I received a threatening email from the Election Supervior in Pinellas County (Clearwater, St. Pete) when I challenged her machine security (DRE's left unattended in pubic libraries and churches) and the counting of mailed votes. We've had documented reports here of the post office "losing" thousands of mailed ballots. Hillsborough County (Tampa) had a Jeb appointed crook who has now been tossed, but clearly manipulated access. Since we are on to the DRE manipulation here, the new strategy is to use as many mail in ballots as possible and manipulate the validity of the ballots. At least they know we are watching and it is tougher to manipulate if you wanted to down here.

In other cases post facto evidence of machine error was not allowed to be investigated by the courts (Sarasota) because the software was "proprietary". There IS evidence on some local levels of more than "error" because the results are systematic, but there are many legal and political challenges to getting quick and useful access to the data before the machines are reprogrammed or locations misidentified.

Good exit pollsters would ask questions that could be quickly compared to results during the election that would trigger immediate investigations. Also, the best way to do a criminal check of hacking the elections is a voluntary "parallel" election in random or suspicious precincts.

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