Reply #118: Answers first

[kenfrequed]

I presumed that since most election monitoring organizations use some polling that they must have done a bit of it as well. Not an unreasonable assumption considering how often they are used. I will concede that finding percise methodology on what techniques were used by field observers seems to be a bit more daunting that I assumed it would be. For the sake of putting it aside I will admit that I cannot find the information you have requested. But I would add that I cannot find ANY of the methadology the other organizations used to ascertain the accuracy of the vote.

I would again point out that the organization that did the exit poll against Chavez was actually part of a funded operation to delegitimize him internationally. http://www.borev.net/2006/12/dont_cry_for_me_venezuela_disg.html Of course this is beside the point, just wanting to clear the air with regard to that.


Now with that aside...

Apart from wrangling over the definition of validity and accusing me of asking a bad question you seem to suggest you do not think that exit polls are as accurate as people seem to think.

A follow up question then: "Are exit polls more or less accurate than other forms of polling?"


Apart from that you seem to admit that they are used but, and (*sigh* again)I really can't ascertain you motive, but you seem to refute that they are used as an indicator as to how legitimate an election is. Again you toss in a question about my "moving goalposts" or whatever.

I thought I stated very clearly that I was putting these out questions aside from the original argument in an attempt to refine your positions but as you like it.


Having read the Conyers report and countless articles about the topic I just cannot agree with you on the idea that Bush legitimately won Ohio in 2004. Since you seem obsessed with the idea that he did win it despite tons of testimony to the contrary I come the conclusion that there really isn't a lot of common ground here.