Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Prob (86 of 88 screens switch K to B): 1 in 79,010,724,999,066,700,000,000

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
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 08:32 AM
Original message
Prob (86 of 88 screens switch K to B): 1 in 79,010,724,999,066,700,000,000
Edited on Sun May-15-05 09:23 AM by TruthIsAll
Not proof of FRAUD?
It's DOCUMENTED in the Election 2004 Incident Database!

The probability P that at least 86 votes would switch to Bush is
P = Prob(86)+ Prob (87)+ Prob(88).

Prob(86)= 1.23689E-23 = BINOMDIST(86,88,0.5,FALSE)
Prob(87)= 2.84343E-25 = BINOMDIST(87,88,0.5,FALSE)
Prob(88)= 3.23117E-27 = BINOMDIST(88,88,0.5,FALSE)

P = Prob (86 or 87 or 88)= 0.00000000000000000000001266
or 1 in 79,010,724,999,066,700,000,000

That is ONE IN SEVENTY-NINE BILLION TRILLION.

How do you express a number that large?
Is there anything comparable, anywhere?
Are there that many stars in the universe?
Are there that many grains of sand on the Earth?
If you lined up that many atoms next to a ruler, how wide?

How long would it take to flip that many coins?

If you flip 1 coin a second, you would do
3600 in an hour,
86,400 in a day,
31,536,000 in a year.

It would take 2,505,413,654,206,830 (2505 trillion) years.

The earth is "only" 14 billion years old.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
1. So many ways of expressing fraud.
Great stuff TIA...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
26. LINK TO EIRS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Botany Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
2. Hey back off!
Edited on Sun May-15-05 09:52 AM by Botany
Their still is that one chance.

BTW did you see the Maryland vote yesterday.
Somebody from MD posted it?

bush picked 291,060 votes more than registered republican voters who
voted.

Kerry picked up about 4,000 more votes than registered democratic voters
who voted.

Even though Kerry won the state it goes to show an unexplainable migration
of votes from Kerry to bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. Same as the unexplicable migration of votes, Kerry to Bush, in Snohomish..
Edited on Sun May-15-05 05:03 PM by understandinglife
... county, WA.

All extensively documented in numerous previous DU threads.

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us - Be it MNA Day 3 or 8 or 15 or .... the day will come when 10s of millions of Americans and others stop their typical activities for 24 hours and urge 10 times that many to join should another MNA Day be required. On that glorious day America will have begun truly to be "America," again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Melissa G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #2
59. Link please! Hi Botany! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chomp Donating Member (602 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
3. With respect,
...I think this is a far better route to go down than anything involving exit polls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Yes, but the exit polls provide overwhelming prima facie evidence...
Edited on Sun May-15-05 09:30 AM by TruthIsAll
of fraud.

Next, invetsigate and analyze election incidents (as I did here), anomalies, "glitches" and actual state/precinct votes and registration statistics.

Other DUers and USCV are doing just that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
5. nominated
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. ditto!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
6.  BIG BANG Correction: The UNIVERSE is 14 BILLION years old
Suprised no one caught it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
7. From the National Election Incident Database
From the National Election Incident database:

State County Incident
Florida Palm Beach
Couple voted for Kerry -- when confirmed vote, came out Bush. Called in eleciton poll supervisor, who got same result. Continued to use machine.

Florida Miami-Dade
Andrea called to pass on anecdotal information that this happened; she has no first-hand information...voter machines would select wrong candidate when voter selected J. Kerry - G. Bush would be selected.

Florida Miami-Dade
When voter pushed button for Kerry, Bush came up on the screen.

Florida Miami-Dade
In precinct 249 we are getting reports that voters are pushing Kerry button, but Bush keep's coming up.

Florida Miami-Dade
Voter attempted to vote for Kerry and ballot showed vote for Bush instead; she left poll; she tried to clear it and it wouldn't clear; so she cast vote with Bush instead showing.

New Mexico Bernalillo
Reported that voters tried to vote for Kerry and Peroutka's name was recorded.

Texas Travis
Machines are confusing, if you straight Dem, then go back to review or change, a vote for Kerry is changed to a vote for Bush. But there is no paper receipt to verify the problem or if the vote was actually cast for Bush. Voter just received a warning from her precinct chair to that effect.

Florida Palm Beach County
Woman went to vote and used electronic voting machine. The two presidential candidates' names came up on the screen, Bush was first and Kerry second. She said she carefully clicked on Kerry but the check mark appeared next to Bush's name. She called someone over to help her and that woman told her to check on the mistaken check mark and it would remove the check mark. Then she could try again and check on Kerry's name. She did and it worked the second time. She was concerned that it took her two times to get her vote right.

Texas Bear County
Checked Kerry and it showed Bush as the person she voted for. Calling for her Aunt.

Washington Snohomish
caller calling for sister. contact information is for sister who experienced problem. polling place uses automated voting machine. voter selected kerry on ballot and reviewed results; showed a vote for bush. repeated at least 3 times before reults reflected kerry vote. told poll worker who responded that it had been a common occurrence already that morning.

Florida MIami-Dade
Voters selected Kerry and machine recorded Bush

Florida Miami-Dade Says brother told him he voted for Kerry on electronic machine and machine recorded vote for Bush.

Virginia Fairfax County
Voter went to vote early (Sat.) at county office in Reston. Filled out absentee ballot application and then voted on-site. First time he received a summary report the machine said he voted for Bush. He had not. He voted for Kerry. States pretty anal guy and the buttons are not that close together. Told workers on-site of problem, but they were convinced it was his fault. He was able to correct the problem, but in doing so had to push the Kerry button several times. The new/final summary report showed he voted for Kerry and not Bush, but his concern is that there is a problem with the machine and is concerned about tabulation. Voter reports it was a 10th District machine. ]

Florida Dade
caller, a volunteer poll watcher, reported that three people complained that their vote for Kerry, had shown as a vote for Bush, after they reviewed their ballots.

Pennsylvania Philadelphia
One machine malfunctioning; could not vote for libraterian or constitutional party candidate, voted for kerry; machine taken out of service

New Mexico Bernalillo
Voter pressed name box for Kerry/Edwards, Libertarian light came on. Reproducible problem, persistence by voter allowed correct vote; probably ballot misalignment. Machine Serial No. 010154

Florida Palm Beach
Caller voted for a presidential candidate, but when recap showed up it showed the incorrect presidential vote (she voted for Kerry and it showed up as Bush). She got a volunteer to help her, but wanted to file a comlaint.

Texas Florida
calling about woman in FL who was on CNN who says she voted for Kerry and other democrats but when she went to vote her ballot, votes had all switched to republican. She called in poll worker who told her to clear machine, which she refused to do. Attorney at poll called in and he suggested she be allowed to vote at another machine. He believes serial # of that machine should be recorded and that machine and all others like it need to be sequestered. Critical that machines be guarded.

New York Erie
kerry/edwards name partially covered - can only see Edwards name. heard on raio WBLK similiar problem reported (93.7 fm) didn't complain at site. becuase didn't think it was a problem until he heard on radio.

Ohio Mahoney
Poland-- Review pages from Kerry to Bush and people may not notice.Person heard it on radio talk show. Also in PA. Mercer County, Shenago township heard thatv if I wanted to vote party ticket, machine would lock up.ran out of paper ballots, told people to go home and come back later.

Florida Palm Beach
Person is reporting that someone he knows voted for Kerry using touch schrren machine but the summary of the vote showed that he voted for Bush.

Florida Brower
Voter voted for Kerry; when she reviewed the ballot it showed that she voted for Bush. Poll worker said that has been happening to many others.

New York Queens
Lever on machine for Kerry/Edwards does not work

Ohio Mahoning
Mother woting on electronic machine-pressed Kerry then next page of ballot notices vote recorded for Bush. Has a pollworker reset machine and them voted again for Kerry.

Florida
Lake Caller is concerned that voting machines are illegitimately discarding votes for Kerry. Believes electronic voting machines are rigged. Believes some initiatives are displayed along partisan favoritism. Entire development is pro-Kerry, landloards are all Bush supporters.

Ohio Mahoning
Caller's father voted on touch screen cmahine - for kerry edwards - when he went to check his vote - the vote had recorded Bush cheney ... he had to try 3 times to get the vote to kerry edwards. He told teh poll worker whose response was simply that the machine was tempermental.

Florida Pinellas
Voter selected Kerry and the voting machine showed that they had selected Bush - it took her many tried to correct.

Florida Broward
- machines switching are switching vote kerry to bush -- this ahappens prior to confirmation screen. - other voters complaining about the same thing

Virginia Fairfax
Kerry/Democratic vote became Republican. Tried to make it work all day; Mom & Dad went reopened; heard them say broken all day. Machines left to right - 1st machine on left - machine # 1175.

Texas Harris
Caller said when she voted a straight democratic ticket, the vote did not register for the presidential (Kerry) vote

South Carolina
Charleston Voted today, when pressed 1 party democratic choice Kerry did not light up, but others did on ticket. Did not report to anyone at polling place, but heard on radio that people were having problem.

South Carolina Richland
Micro voting machine: hit independent; blinking lights started flashing; he could not change the vote; he ended up voting for Nader, but wanted to vote for Kerry.

Texas Tarrant
Voted early around 10/14 electronically, had trouble with voting machine. First screen chose Democrat party, 2nd screen "Bush Edwards State Sen, John Kerry couldn't change or remove vote, then went to proposition, wants to know if her vote was accurately recorded.

Texas Harris
Not sure she voted for Kerry, voted straight party ticket

Texas Harris
Voter voted on the first early day to vote in Houston (october 18th) by electronic machine. Vother chose Kerry and when she checked her ballot she found that bush was selected. This happened one or two more times. By the third or fourth attempt kerry showed up as selected and voter submitted her vote.

New Jersey Unknown.
Report of machine problems in San Antonio and Austin TX. Voters who voted for Kerry noticed that the machine reported a vote for Bush. When this problem was addressed by the pollworkers, the change toa vote for Kerry locked in a vot for the entire democratic ticket.

New Jersey Bergen
Touch screen machine. When caller pressed screen for Kerry nothing happened. It was only after several attempts and after pressing screen for candidates in other races that pressing the Kerry section worked. After voting, the caller discussed with his wife and she had the same problem.

Illinois Cook
Punched Kerry Edwards, things chad for Bush-Cheney was punched on the actual card. Punched Obama, and Obama was punched out.

Illinois Cook
Voter went to vote (Punch Ballot) with wife. John Kerry is first punhc; GWB is second option. When looked at ticket, second was already pressed, tried to vote for JK. Wife had same experience (used a different machine)

Pennsylvania Philadelphia
the light for Kerry did not light up whatsoever. Pressed #1 for all Democratic candidates and no light for Kerry went on, the lights underneath Kerry which may have been the rest of the Democratic candidates were blinking. The light by Kerry was not blinking. Then hit vote. Most voters did not speak English. Most Haitian Americans who only speak Creole. Did report problem to polling official.

Pennsylvania Philadelphia
Machine was off when entered poll. The light for Kerry did not light up whatsoever. Pressed #1 for all Democratic candidates and no light for Kerry went on, the lights underneath Kerry which may have been the rest of the Democratic candidates were blinking. The light by Kerry was not blinking. Then hit vote. Most voters did not speak English. Most Haitian Americans who only speak Creole. Did report problem to polling official.

Pennsylvania Philadelphia
The vote button was placed too low and difficult to see. All the instructions are at eye level, but the vote button is at the lowest right hand corner of the machine. The candidate button for Kerry/Edwards-->the button to press is besides Edwards name not Kerry's name, so it's confusing.

California Sacramento
Voter at polling place: Benvenito's Restaurant in Boynton Beach, FL, reported that electronic ballot erred in selecting Bush when she clicked Kerry. Advise election official who addressed issue. Evidently fixed.

Washington Snohomish
Both caller and her husband said when they pulled up their electronic ballots, Bush was already checked. When they tried to switch it to vote for Kerry, had very difficult time unchecking the Bush box. Ultimately were successful.

Washington Snohomish
Machine would enter incorrect candidates repeatedly. Kerry votes changed to Bush and others. Other voters reported similar problem.

Colorado Weld
Caller voted on thursday at the Del Camino Center, Fredrick. Firestone CO. Voting was with touch screen Diebold machines. when voting for Kerry-Edwards, the electronic button did not light up and did not appear to register the vote. Caller's votes for other things did light up. Has called the newspapaers and TV stations about the problem. He has hired a lawyer but has not heard anything back from them about this. He demanded (and was given) a paper ballot. He is very upset about this and is alerting everyone he possibly can. I called this caller back and let him know that we are having EFF attys look into the problem. He informed me that an attorney in Greeley CO is going to go to the polling place to take al ook at the machines, but he did not get her name. He also informed me that the machines did not give a summary screen at what was supposed to be the end of the voting process.

Florida Palm Beach
Caller said when he went to vote, the ballot was repeatedly pre-selected for Kerry.

Georgia Clayton
Upon filling out her ballot (on touch-screen system), voter selected "Kerry" as part of a straight-Democrat ticket, but it displayed "Bush" instead. She called poll worker over to look at it, who reset her ballot and had her re-do it entirely. This was successful. Upon hearing her make a commotion in line about it, another voter ahead of her reported the same problem.

Georgia Douglas
Every time hit "John Kerry" name "x" would jump to "George Bush" happened two times

Georgia Douglas
Pushed Kerry Edwards, the x went to Bush/Cheney, she tried this three times, went to next page, went back to Kerry page, then re-entered Kerry and the X went to Kerry. Also, message says need picture ID.

Georgia Liberty
Voted Kerry -- pushed that button, jumped to Bush. Called for help; was able to remedy 2nd time also went to option above, not the one voter selected, but she was able to vote as she wanted in the end.

Kansas Johnson County
pushed Kerry/Edwards and it selected Bush/Cheney

New York new york
Jenny wanted to vote for Kerry under the working families party, not the democratic party, however row e of the voting machine (for working families party) was jammed. Instead of offering a paper ballot, the poll workers instructed Jenny to vote for Kerry under the democratic party, which she didn't want to do. Eventually, she was able to unjam the machine so that she could vote according to her preference, but her sister voted on the same machine and had the same problem, so she's afraid that it's going to jam again. Jenny said that a lot of the rows for the smaller parties seemed jammed or "tight."

New York queens
The John Kerry chad was hard to punch. None of the other chads for the democratic party candidates were hard to punch.

New York New York County
Volunteer for Kerry-Edwards was working
outside handing out flyers and voters were leaving from this polling site complaining that the machines were not working. They are now having voters use paper ballots. Voters are leaving frustrated without voting.

Georgia Fulton
He thinks that someone at church told his wife that voting machine entered vote for wrong candidate (tried to vote for Kerry, the machine registered a vote for Bush). He does not know any of the details or where the polling place is located.

Florida Broward
Machine changed candidate he was voting for (3rd machine from right, precinct 17M) Kerry highlighted, on review saw Brown(?) for president. Asked poll worker for help and poll worker had him start over. Voted successfully 2nd time.

Florida Broward
Voted for Kerry but machine showed Bush.

Florida Broward
After voter voted for Kerry, and when they tried to move to the next screen, if heel of hand brushed against screen, which was apaprently happening, vote switched to Nader and got cast for Nader. Kerry Poll Watcher said some had been caught and corrected, but who knows about all. Poll worker not helpful to EP mobile attorney. Was iVotronic machine

Florida Palm Beach Co.
Two voters, voting early, used electronic voting machine. They chose John Kerry for president but when they reviewed their choices before submitting their ballots, they found that George Bush was selected instead and they couldn't change the choice.

Florida Broward Co
Two unrelated people (taxi driver & store clerk told our volunteer they had voted on touch screens this week and screen showed they had voted for Bush when they know they voted for Kerry -- they got someone to change it before their vote was filed.

Florida Broward
At review screen, selection changed from Kerry to Bush "before my eyes" as voter pushed red button just before. Voter filed complaint with Kerry lawyer in polling place and told poll worker of problem, who said, "nothing could be done."

Florida Broward
3 or more women told person they voted "down the street" (precinct 39V) from the post office at 4429 Hollywood Blvd. They voted for Kerry but the name Bush came up on the sceen at the end, when they voted, when vote was processed

Florida Broward
Voter pressed "Kerry" on machine, but another name was indicated on the summary page. Voter was able to review & change the vote satisfactorily.

Florida Broward
I voted for Kerry and after the screen ask me to write in my vote. I ask a poll worker to assist me. The pollworker ask the repairman and I was allow to vote.

Florida Broward
Upon reviewing her ballot before casting her vote, the voter noticed that "Bush/Cheney" appeared even though she had chosen "Kerry/Edwards".

Florida Palm Beach
Caller has difficulty reading, so she invited me to accompanyher into the voting booth. Three times she touched the Kerry/Edwards frame on her screen and the machine did not highlight her selection. She was only able to correct this on the final screen that listed her selections. "change" directions were very small and easy to miss at the top of the screen. Caller was able to vote for Kerry/Edwards usiing this screen. Which directed her back to the original screen presidential vote screen. This time the machine accepted her selection.



Florida Palm Beach
Went to vote for Kerry and Bush popped up immediately. I called for help. Woman/precinct worker told him to touch screen for Bush and it popped up again for Kerry. Successfully voted for Kerry on second time trying.

Florida Palm Beach
Selected John Kerry/ green check came up in George Bush's name. Called over poll worker and they got creen to read John Kerry. She stated "it made me wonder if the machines are rigged."

Florida Palm Beach
While voting for Presidential candidate Kerry - had problems with accessing his name. Bush's name kept popping and taking "priority". On the review however it showed Kerry so voter completed vote.

Florida Palm Beach
Voter touched "Kerry" and Bush's name registered. I called poll worker and she told me how to erase Bush's name. We know of three today - maybe more!

Florida Palm Beach
Went to vote for Kerry and Bush popped up. Immediately called for help. Woman/precinct worker told him to touch screen on Bush and it popped up again for Kerry. Sucessfully voted for Kerry on second time.

Florida W. Palm Beach
Some people vote Bush instead of Kerry - concept of callabration - okay understand - works on second time. Democratic poll watcher inside aware of the prolbem.

Florida Broward
Unknown name came up on review screen, Walter F. Browne - after Kerry selected. Asked for help from election's worker, who suggested he do it over. He retried, got same result, and finalized vote without accurate screen.

Ohio franklin
machine not working for kerry monitors whispering
New Mexico Bernalillo When water hit one button another light came on. Was able to corect. Hit for Kerry and other candidate lit up (Green)

New Mexico Bernalillo
I assisted William Jones who lives in asssisted living; he pressed the "Kerry" button and the red light lit up "Libertarian," several names down the screen

New Mexico Bernalillo
Voter selection does not light up, other selections do. typically preside3ntial candidaTES from Kerry to 3rd party. Voter persistence seems to help

New Mexico Bernalillo
Voting Kerry, Perotka (sp?) comes up. 2 reports made through moveon to hotline

Ohio Mahoning
Pressed Kerry button, another candidate came up (not Bush)! Second try, it worked.

Ohio Mahoning
Selected Kerry and Bush's name came up. Selected Kerry a second time and only then did it remain Kerry. Her sister also had the same problem, and once she selected Kerry the second time it stayed.

Ohio Mahoning
Attempted vote for Kerry, responed as Bush/Cheney. Upon verification, went back and changed to Kerry/Edwards. Verified as OK, submitted.

Ohio Mahoning
Voted Kerry and Bush came up.
Florida broward
voter hit kerry button and check mark appeared next to bush. voter contacted poll worker to correct problem but the same thing happened whe she vote the rest of the ballot. she had help and was able to fix ballot before she left, but was concerned.

Florida Broward
One machine; told by Kerry monitor that when people voting for Kerry push "summarize". Another candidate's name shows up. Poll workers said, "didn't push hard enough." Said tech repairman has been dispatched.

Florida Broward
A person informed me of a friend who voted. The completed screen (precinct unknown) on the "review ballot" page wrongly stated that the voter had voted for Bush when the voter had selected Kerry. The voter reported this to an election official who responded, "Yes, that machine has been doing that all day."

Florida Broward
She had to select presidential choice 2x before correct choice was reflected. Got help from poll worker; successfully voted. Voted Bush, Kerry got highlighted. Can't remember which machine, maybe 2nd/3rd from right.

Pennsylvania philadelphia
Part of 1 of 2 machines wasn't lighting up -- wasn't able to vote for Liberatarian or Constitutional party; election judge said voter complained but just voted for Kerry & left.....

Florida Broward
Voter touched Kerry on screen, got Bush.(secondhand report from observer, no contact info for voter)

Florida Broward
Tried repeatedly to vote for kerry, got candidate underneath. Was able to vote for Kerry by touching more toward the Bush button. Machine against back wall, somewhere around the 4th or 5th from the right

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vince3 Donating Member (224 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Thanks, TIA n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
8. 79 billion trillion = ONE in 79 SEXTILLION = 79*10^21
Edited on Sun May-15-05 04:07 PM by TruthIsAll
Thanks, Stella..

Here is the full set of probabilties, from 0 to 88 vote switches:

N Prob (N)
0 3.23E-27
1 2.84E-25
2 1.24E-23
3 3.55E-22
4 7.53E-21
5 1.27E-19
6 1.75E-18
7 2.05E-17
8 2.08E-16
9 1.85E-15
10 1.46E-14
11 1.03E-13
12 6.64E-13
13 3.88E-12
14 2.08E-11
15 1.03E-10
16 4.68E-10
17 1.98E-09
18 7.81E-09
19 2.88E-08
20 9.93E-08
21 3.22E-07
22 9.80E-07
23 2.81E-06
24 7.61E-06
25 1.95E-05
26 4.72E-05
27 1.08E-04
28 2.36E-04
29 4.89E-04
30 9.61E-04
31 1.80E-03
32 3.20E-03
33 5.44E-03
34 8.79E-03
35 0.01357
36 0.01997
37 0.02807
38 0.03768
39 0.04830
40 0.05917
41 0.06927
42 0.07752
43 0.08293
44 0.08481 <<< what you would expect: 44 Bush/44 Kerry, but no, its 86/2...
45 0.08293
46 0.07752
47 0.06927
48 0.05917
49 0.04830
50 0.03768
51 0.02807
52 0.01997
53 0.01357
54 0.00879
55 0.00544
56 0.00320
57 0.00180
58 0.00096
59 0.00048
60 0.00023
61 0.00010
62 0.00004
63 0.00001
64 0.000008
65 2.81E-06
66 9.80E-07
67 3.22E-07
68 9.93E-08
69 2.88E-08
70 7.81E-09
71 1.98E-09
72 4.68E-10
73 1.03E-10
74 2.08E-11
75 3.88E-12
76 6.64E-13
77 1.03E-13
78 1.46E-14
79 1.85E-15
80 2.08E-16
81 2.05E-17
82 1.75E-18
83 1.27E-19
84 7.53E-21
85 3.55E-22

..............
86 1.24E-23
87 2.84E-25
88 3.23E-27

P(86,87,88)=1.27E-23

= 1 in 79.0E+21
= 1 in 79 Sextillion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stellanoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. But. . .but . . .but. . .
TIA, you didn't reference my freeper joke.

In an earlier thread TIA posted that upwards of 79 sextillion figure. I wondered in layman's terms whether I was recalling the term for that figure properly or not. He said (paraphrasing) probably but he was hesitant to use it fearing freepish reactions.

So I, amazingly enough opened a couple dictionaries.

I just looked it up. . .

sextillion-n. 1. in the U.S. and France, the number represented by 1 followed by 21 zeros 2. in Great Britain and Germany, the number represented by 1 followed by 36 zeros- adj. amounting to one sextillion in number

from Webster's New World Dictionary

That's kind of a huge descrepancy don't ya think? Could create some serious confusion at the World Bank. . .eh?

sextillion-six simultaneous cotillions held at six different locales wherein liberals exchange great passions with same sex partners and box turtles.

from Freeper's New World Dictionary

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPoet64 Donating Member (897 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
12. Probability & Statistics should be a high school requirement. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ROH Donating Member (521 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
13. That's an interesting comparison to illustrate the probability. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alittlelark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
14. Your posts are always a breath of fresh air...
Thank You!!! I'm sending this one to my Dad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
16. *Obviously you haven't considered the rBrei theory.
(Reluctant Bush Reporter of Election Incidents.)

They're shy, you know. And, gazing upon a Touchscreen changing their vote for Jesus W. Bush to a vote for John ("the spawn of Salem witches") Kerry, would have merely fallen to their knees and silently prayed to be delivered from the Devil in the machine. They most certainly would not have reported it to the Bush "pod people" in Congress, nor screamed bloody murder about the demonic liberal plot to steal the election from the Redeemer. Not them.

So, it's sample bias, you see. Shy, retiring, meditative types, who wouldn't do anything like throw all the Democrats out of their church, or arrest teenagers for wearing Kerry T-shirts.

The quiet guy at your family gathering, who wouldn't dream of disrupting Thanksgiving dinner with Rush Limbaugh talking points.

The meek little woman on the school board who wants to dis-inter Charles Darwin's remains, ship them over here to the FBI Lab, and subject them to drug testing.

(I made that one up.)

So, re-weighting this raw number--86 out of 88--for shy Republican voters for Bush, who, because they don't believe in government, would not have been likely to have reported incidents of machines that may have changed Kerry votes to Bush votes, and therefore indicating that these 2 out of 88 reported incidents carried a higher motivational weight than the other 86, according to the rBrei motivational index (see Table 2); and, in addition, presuming the Touchscreens to have been sufficiently tested by company personnel, as certified by state election officials who had no idea how the damn things worked, as to be able to presume any errors to have been random, and not intentional or malicious, and presuming that Republicans always vote and Democrats never do, the only conclusion that can be reached is that the 2 real incidents of a Touchscreen changing an intended vote, both involving a vote intended for Bush that was changed to Kerry, were anomalous random events, and even if hundreds of such incidents may well have occurred, as indicated by the high motivational index for the 2 real reports, there is a 99.9% probability that it was the Devil who did it, and not liberals, and 100% probablity that neither this nor any other conceivable factor could have altered the final, official, certified, slam dunk, forgone conclusion that Bush would win. Not since the beginning of time, 4,000 years ago, has there ever been anything as certain as this.

In summary: 86 = 0. 2 = D. Nothing to see here. Move along.

-----

*Footnote 1: Yours is too big a number for the Universe to have been created in. God does not think that big.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. rBrei - that's coming, no doubt. Or eDr -exuberant Dem recorders
They have excuses for everything.

I showed it to Febble. She said she couldn't argue with the math.
That was the extent of her comment.

She had no Fancy Febble Function to explain it, I guess.

Let's keep this HARD EVIDENCE kicked permanently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
18. Kick. (Warning: caps lock about to be turned on.)
WHEN THE HELL IS SOMEONE IN THE CORPORATE MEDIA GOING TO ASK WHY THE "GLITCHES" AVALANCHED TOWARDS *????


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. there are actually more rumblings about election fraud then in November
Bill Maher, Lampley and Koehler come to mind.
I feel that all the hard work by TIA is only coming to us in the choir - but I have been stunned (literally) by all the validation trickling out lately.

But then again, maybe I am so desperate, with the '06 elections coming up fast, that I happily scramble for crumbs and pretend it's a smorgasbord!

TIA deserves some kind of DU medal or honor or special star by his name, in my humble opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kimchi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-05 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. I second the medal for TIA!
And thanks to everyone else who isn't giving up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zann725 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-26-05 02:37 AM
Response to Reply #19
67. Ditto! I'm constantly amazed by his endless energy, and PROOF of E.F.
Thanks T.I.A...for keeping the issue (and calculations) alive!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
21. 2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
Edited on Wed May-18-05 09:33 AM by TruthIsAll
Remember 1-2-3-4, we don't want your stinking war?

Bush 86
Kerry 2

2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT

2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT

2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT

2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT

2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT

2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT

2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT

2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT

2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT
2-4-6-8; EIGHTY-SIX OF EIGHTY-EIGHT

2-4-6-8; eighty-six of eighty-eight
2-4-6-8; eighty-six of eighty-eight
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
22. I Worked Early Vote And Personally Observed The ES&S
Touchscreen machines change a straight Democratic party vote to straight Republican vote.

This flummoxed several senior citizens that called me over for assistance.

We could not find any obvious reason for the occurrences.

Shades of Clint Curtis? (www.bradblog.com )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LightningFlash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Most likely it was the central tabulator...
Central tabulator using curtis programs, doing the switch after each straight-ticket came up. With proper analysis and a full precinct study it can be proven just how many and at what level.

This would confirm the exit poll discrepancy, ending the debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #24
31. wrong connection
Central tabulators are argued as the link to which punch card tallies may be hacked, not touch screens. The touch screens are the GEMS in microsoft access that may be hacked, or in the case here, preprogrammed.

Mike
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #31
43. Central tabulators and precinct tabulators the culprits in OPTISCAN
which everyone and his brother is touting as the cure-all--

NOT UNLESS THE SECURITY BREACHES ARE FIXED
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #43
54. May want to look at this recent thread
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. And you might want to watch Chuck Herrin's presentation
Edited on Wed Jun-15-05 05:10 PM by Carolab
He is one of the real experts in this area.

www.chuckherrin.com

http://www.chuckherrin.com/ComputersVoteTabulation.pdf


Really, this is all you need.

Read the whole thing.

Chuck says it's IMPOSSIBLE to secure our votes WHENEVER "machines" are used.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. Already had several months ago
Edited on Wed Jun-15-05 07:11 PM by mgr
The point with the thread is that much of what we have been told about hacking the vote appears to have been more plausible rather than possible. I won't go into Bev Harris's motives or what, that is something for you to decide. But it does <put, delete> start to put away my fears that a remote hack was feasible.

It has always been impossible to secure your vote no matter what technology you choose, unless you choose to live in a condition close to solipsism. Only through vigilence can you assure yourself that it is likely that your vote counted. It is that way with any process that relies upon trusting others.

Don't take my position as nothing needs to be done, but one's expectations should be reasonable.

Mike
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. Bev was talking about remote hacks. There are other means.
That's the problem. Everyone just focuses on some small piece of the puzzle, when there are loopholes throughout the process, as Herrin points out.

The problem is, that we have introduced machines where people ought to be, people who can do far greater damage via those machines than they could do individually. People say "paper ballots and hand counts led to corruption historically", but as Chuck says, corruption can now occur MUCH more easily and MUCH less transparently now that those paper ballots are being recorded, counted and reported VIA MACHINES.

Ever "break into" a database you weren't supposed to at work? I did. I worked for the government and got into databases that only supervisors were supposed to access. It's not difficult. And, all it takes is for someone to share a password, or for someone to simply guess it or find it in a "hidden" file somewhere.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #57
64. Texas, California, Illinois in 1960
Those people, instead of machines, did a helluva lot of damage. Be careful what you wish for.

I think that we are in general agreement, it is just that you are convinced that such actions are feasible without any specific evidence (yet); and I am taking modest comfort in that one piece of evidence suggests not (albeit from a location highly suspect of it having occurred).

The key issue with hacking the vote in this election was that it did not require large numbers to do so--that is what, IMO is what makes the fraud argument seductive and plausible to many. However, (you are talking to a civil servant) inside access is a different avenue--but without remote access it becomes arguable why no one in this vast conspiracy has not come forward, and that is where your example leads--a less plausible explanation, and out of the realm of feasible.

Once inside, the challenge also is knowing were to look. Access to a file that you do not have share rights to, is not the same as access to the file that you do not have share rights to.

I also don't know when you worked for the gummernet--but I have found that people now are far more protective of their proprietary access--some go so far as to keep others from seeing their electronic calendars. It plays hell having to discuss why we are up to asses in litigation over worker exposure to hazardous waste, and the principal decision makers choose to maintain their privacy--may be we can schedule a meeting in four months. By then it's cost taxpayers millions in fines, and we have not fixed whatever the problem is.

Mike
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smartvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
23. TIA, for what it's worth, I think focusing more on issues like this
Edited on Wed May-18-05 12:19 PM by smartvoter
is prudent at this time. This kind of analysis demonstrates corruption and is less subject to the perceived problems with polls that keep reporters and the public from waking up. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-18-05 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Right, but we need more than a 1/(79*10^21) probability...
Edited on Wed May-18-05 07:16 PM by TruthIsAll
to convince the naysays.

I'll look for more cases of documented fraud.

If we can show them that the probability is 1/10^30, maybe then they'll believe it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-19-05 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
27. kick.nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
28. Kick it : Time for Change
Edited on Fri May-20-05 11:04 AM by TruthIsAll
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #28
33. 12:1 does not compute to 86:88. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 04:12 AM
Response to Original message
29. Remember this?
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-05 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
30. Go ahead, reconcile it.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
32. I thought the numbers were
88 out of 95, according to TFC. This better not be another factoid.

Mike
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. I believe my numbers are correct. But if it's 87 of 94, the probability is
Edited on Tue Jun-14-05 02:00 PM by TruthIsAll
N Prob
87 5.16779E-19
88 4.11074E-20
89 2.77129E-21
90 1.5396E-22
91 6.76749E-24
92 2.20679E-25
93 4.74579E-27
94 5.04871E-29

Total 5.60819E-19

1 in 1,783,106,652,071,710,000

How do you say 1783 trillion?

mgr, do you feel better now?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. mgr, I amend my previous reply (87-94); Mea culpa. You said 88 of 95...
Edited on Tue Jun-14-05 03:58 PM by TruthIsAll
You caught me again.
So I have recalculated the probability.
Unfortunately, it is even MORE unlikely than (87-94).

Its 1 in 3,306,557,748,557,220,000


88 2.78943E-19
89 2.19394E-20
90 1.46262E-21
91 8.0364E-23
92 3.49409E-24
93 1.12712E-25
94 2.39814E-27
95 2.52435E-29

Total 3.02429E-19
1 in 3,306,557,748,557,220,000

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Not interested in the odds, just the numbers be right. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Of course you're not interested in the odds. Because you can't refute them
Edited on Tue Jun-14-05 09:53 PM by TruthIsAll
And because they are absolutely astounding.

Of course you say are not interested.

Even though you have stated that you believe that Kerry won, are we to believe that you are not interested in astronomical odds which augment that belief?

Or are you still holding on to a sliver of denial?

Has your head exploded yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. I can refute them
The binomial distribution describes the behavior of a count variable X if the following conditions apply:

1: The number of observations n is fixed.
2: Each observation is independent.
3: Each observation represents one of two outcomes ("success" or "failure").
4: The probability of "success" p is the same for each outcome.

http://www.stat.yale.edu/Courses/1997-98/101/binom.htm

The trials must meet the following requirements:

the total number of trials is fixed in advance;
there are just two outcomes of each trial; success and failure;
the outcomes of all the trials are statistically independent;
all the trials have the same probability of success.

http://www.stats.gla.ac.uk/steps/glossary/probability_d...

Your calculation fails three of the four conditions.

1) The number sampled N wasn't fixed in advance; they typed them in as fast as they came.
2) The outcomes aren't dichotomous; some of the "88" don't even describe one vote-switch, but series of vote-switches of indeterminate size, or rumors of vote-switches.
3) Unless the anecdotes were conducted with utter secrecy (and secrecy with respect to other volunteers), they can't be statistically independent. See: bandwagon effect, grapevine effect, halo effect.

Here's a fun webpage that explains it in terms of Hershey's Kisses:

5. Ask the students to argue that X is a binomial random variable:
a. The number sampled, n = 10, is fixed in advance.
b. There are two outcomes: approve or disapprove.
c. p = P(a Kiss approves) is unknown, but assumed to be 0.90, under the null hypothesis. If we sample with replacement, we have independent trials and p is constant. (Here, you can take an 'aside' to address "real" polls. The population is typically much larger, U.S. population is N=260,000,000, say, a typical sample is around n=1000, and sampling is without replacement. Hence, p=P(approve) changes, but is small enough to be ignorable.)
d. We let X = the number in the sample who approve of Clinton.

http://www.stat.psu.edu/~resources/InLarge/ljs_02.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Internut Donating Member (436 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. I don't think you're allowed to mention elementary
probability theory definitions on this forum - otherwise most "mathematical" posts will just go "poof".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #40
42. if you can't discuss statistics 101 without ad hominem attacks
Edited on Wed Jun-15-05 12:17 AM by foo_bar
it means that you can't discuss statistics 101.

Let's see if you can prove these were NOT independent events.

Examples of Burden of Proof

Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"

Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."


fallacy of the burden of proof.

(edited for specificity)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #42
44. When will you respond specifically to my three points?
Anything else you say is irrelevant.

DUers have no reason to believe anything you say unless you respond to each of them directly.

Are you capable of that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. sorry for the flip response
I lost the appeal to authority, so I'll simply opt not to respond to personal attacks in kind. You're free to do likewise, and you're free not to (evidently).

If I tell you to flip a coin every 10 seconds and to stop when you get tired, and you end up flipping X coins, does that mean I can't calculate the probability?

The "fixed in advance" constraint isn't a technicality, it's the basis of binomial distribution (as opposed to a nonparametric binomial test (which still requires a dichotomous outcome) or chi squares (which don't)). Otherwise, I could move the finish line to n=10000 and conclude that 9912 out of 10000 anecdotes didn't switch votes to Bush, using the same definition of dichotomy (switches to Bush versus ~(switches to Bush)). You could argue that the true dichotomy is Bush->Kerry versus Kerry->Bush, but those aren't the two outcomes you find if you pick EIRS incidents out of the hat at random (picking at random is the essence of any legitimate binomdist, not to mention the coin toss analogy)

The EIRS data is full of clues, but examining the distribution of pre-screened anecdotes versus pre-screened anecdotes minus 2 can't be favorably compared to a coin toss.

Please list every one of the 88 incidents. Let DUers draw their own conclusions. I listed all the incidents. Let's see you refute them one by one.

I've listed the ones I found so far on this thread. Whether it's 88 or 88000 anecdotes, you can't derive a meaningful =BINOMDIST from it just because Excel lets you, unless you can demonstrate statistical independence (which you can't, by the anecdotal nature of anecdotes), and only if the sample was fixed in advance (which it isn't), and only if the potential outcomes are binary (which they aren't, unless you cherrypick the binary-sounding anecdotes in violation of condition #1). Doing a true binomdist on these anecdotes would start something like this:

Pick n=1000 out of the 46000 at random.
See how many of the 1000 favored Bush or favored Kerry (if they were the only two outcomes, which they aren't).

But we can't even make it to step 3 for lack of binomial variables.

How many distinct polling locations were there? Let's see if you can prove these were NOT independent events.

Again, the burden of proof is on the person making the unproven claim. In that spirit, I could propose that Bigfoot stole the election, and place the burden of proof on you to disprove it (which you couldn't, given Bigfoot's ephemeral nature).

So far, you have showed us nothing, a week after claiming that you were embarking on your self-proclaimed research project.

Not quite five days, but who's counting? :)

If you can do it faster, then by all means. If you can't, I ask for the benefit of the doubt; I would've given a two-week estimate if it weren't pro bono.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. That is a helluva lot of doubletalk.
You have no clue what you are talking about.
And neither does anyone else.

anecdotes?
sample fixed in advance?
lack of binomial variables?
Bigfoot?

FLIP A COIN, BUDDY.

AND KEEP FLIPPING.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #46
50. a brief glossary
binomial variable:

Example 1
If 6 patients are treated with a newcream, interest may be in the number cured rather than the order in which they were cured. We use a variable X to represent the count. X can take the values 0,1,2,3,4,5,6, and we represent the probability of 2 cures by P(X = 2) or p2.

Example 2
If items on the shelf are inspected until a defective item is discovered, we might use a variable X to represent the number of good items we had to inspect. X can take the values 0,1,2,3,, with different probabilities.

Example 3
If X counts the number of prescriptions for a rarely prescribed drug over a week, X can take the values 0,1,2,3,, with different probabilities.

Example 1 is a particular case of the Binomial variable (under certain conditions) . . . . Examples 2 and 3 are not binomial.
an elementary stats course

anecdotes:

As the name suggests, anecdotal evidence is evidence for a claim which is based on remembered anecdotes either first hand from the speaker or second hand from others. Such evidence is often used to justify empirically verifiable claims. This is fine and even appropriate in the case that the claim is of little importance or in the case that it is reasonable to believe that few observations with little precision are needed as basis for a claim. Often, however, anecdotal evidence is used as backing for sweeping claims about a wide class of things, like natural phenomena or the behavior of people, which are the sort of claims usually examined by science (natural science, life science, or social science).
some guy (anecdotal)

sample fixed in advance

should read: sample size fixed in advance. My bad.

If the box contains tickets labeled with numbers other than 0 and 1, the sample sum does not have a binomial distribution. If the number n of draws is not fixed in advance, the sample sum does not have a binomial distribution. If the draws are not independent, the sample sum does not have a binomial distribution. If the chance of drawing a ticket labeled "1" is not the same value p in each draw, the sample sum does not have a binomial distribution.
berkeley

This time the number of trials is not fixed in advance so X is not Binomial.
Stat 201 exam


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. but... but... what about Bigfoot? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. I saw him last month
Up in Crescent City. Running among the redwoods.

Mike
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #40
48. Seventeen from Mahoning County
How is that for being independent?

Mike
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #40
49. Ten From Palm Beach
Do I need to continue?

Mike
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-05 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. But keep kicking the thread....we like that
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #41
51. Didn't know you were royalty. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #41
58. OK I think I will.............Kick.nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-05 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #37
47. I'm not interested in the less than meaningful analysis
The number tells you it is likely, but not overwhelming.

The odds require a bit more finagling before they will impress me. Since, for the binomial distribution (or any statistical analysis) to be applied requires the samples be independent of each other, both in time and space. They cluster (especially spatially and possibly temporally) therefore the reports are only indicative of select precincts and select times where the switches occurred, they cannot be extrapolated to apply to all precincts with touchscreens, or to have occurred throughout the day. When you map the reports the geographic tendency you see that most (if not all) incidents occurred in battleground states, and interestingly correlate to BOEs that also reported long lines. I see a link between the two, do you?

Now if you can show me where I am wrong on the spatial distribution of these events, and show that it does have a bearing on stealing the popular vote, then you are on to something. Otherwise it further cements the position I have staked out since December, that the fraud was specific to battleground states, and its full intent was voter suppression that did not require computers. Evidence that we have had for months.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me in what time zone the CNN screen shots were saved? Was it 2400 GMT? That spatio-temporal problem bites, doesn't it?

Did you catch the thread where it appears that it's rather difficult to hack the central tabulators--that they may just be stand alones?

Mike
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 06:37 AM
Response to Reply #47
60. You have just proven to DU why this "reconciliation" project is bogus
Edited on Thu Jun-16-05 06:38 AM by TruthIsAll
You say:
Now if you can show me where I am wrong on the spatial distribution of these events, and show that it does have a bearing on stealing the popular vote, then you are on to something. Otherwise it further cements the position I have staked out since December, that the fraud was specific to battleground states, and its full intent was voter suppression that did not require computers. Evidence that we have had for months.

I say:
"The full intent was voter suppression that did not require computers"? That's bunk. Pure and simple.

Plus, the fraud was NOT limited to battleground states.
And vote switching WAS done by computers.

mgr, you speak in tongues. On the one hand, you now claim to believe fraud cost Kerry the election. This is after you and your partner, the data "re-conciliator", have maligned my analysis with ad hominems all these months.

Now you implicitly confirm the analysis was correct - by saying the election was stolen..

Now you and foo-bar decide to join in with analysis of real data. Forgive me if I am suspicious of your intentions. The impetus for this was the 86 of 88 voting machine switches probability thread, which foo-bar obviously felt he had to respond to - under the guise of further analysis. I can't wait to see the result of this "reconciliation" project.

A prediction: It will NOT come to the obvious conclusion that the voting machines were programmed to switch votes. On the contrary, it will attempt to fog that evidence as well. The proof: You have already stated your intent in the first paragraph of this thread.

That makes the foo-bar "study" irrelevant from the get-go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #60
61. would you like to audit the project?
If anyone would try to keep me honest, it'd be you. I can provide the source code (import scripts, SQL creates/updates, and the web cgi) and raw data (in .xls format, if that helps).

It looks like another DU thread attempted to broach this problem, but you couldn't be reached for comment ;)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. Do Foo Bar a favor
And don't combine his concerns with how the election was stolen with mine. I think that our interactions only extend to a few linked posts. Our interests may intersect, but we have never PM'ed each other.

You are arguing by exhortation. Explain how my position is bunk, refute me; don't consider it an argument by adumbrating to all the specious work you have done.

Take a look at the database, where did I get the numbers for Palm Beach, Mahoning? What are the total machine malfunction records for these places? Is it that they were intentionally set to flip votes, or did they malfunction due to incompetence on the part of the programmer or design engineer, but that since the BOE was unable to address widespread failures or slowdowns, lines grew and people walked away without voting? That constitutes suppression, and if these problems were known and not remedied, approximates fraud. In Ohio and Florida it appears where the dems are, and is more than sufficient an explanation for how Kerry won but did not--it might even capture the precious popular vote frame that you hunger after.

As a software designer you seem unwilling to make the simple assumption that those in charge of maintaining the touchscreen equipment may have been incompetent. Why is that (I am not insinuating anything that you may have been a programmer for Diebold or ESS--but am asking in the broader context of what may be your own bias as you are a practitioner in the profession)?

I have already stated before that working as a computer operator and part time programmer, that many programmers that I worked around would make collossal coding errors, that I would spend hours patching. Its the same in all professional fields, the competence is malleable.

Mike

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mgr Donating Member (616 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #60
63. I don't believe my arguments relied on ad hominens.
lack of independence within the analytical framework is not an ad hominen;

ignoring spatial interdependency is not an ad hominen;

explaining how you got the MOE wrong is not ad hominen;

pointing out the recount in Washington State was less that the exit poll anticipated was not ad hominen;

pointing out that the claim Hout's analysis supported your work on exit polling was inflated was not ad hominen;

pointing out that you posted on TFC's thread on his paper, and not remembering his correction in this thread is also not ad hominen.

pointing out you argue teleologically for fraud is not ad hominen.

My arguments stood independent of my conclusions regarding your logic, bias, and competence. And those conclusions may only appear ad hominen, if the arguments don't support the assertion; but you have not refuted me with any argument directed to my position. At least as far as I recall, but feel free to show me.

Mike
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LightningFlash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-25-05 04:55 AM
Response to Original message
65. A gracious and wise kick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-26-05 02:30 AM
Response to Original message
66. kick.nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-26-05 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
68. KICK so the DNC can see!
:kick: Hey, DNC, open your eyes. I know that's asking a lot but come on, you can do it, just try for a change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maraya1969 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-12-05 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
69. Help me out here

"Here is the full set of probabilities, from 0 to 88 vote switches:"


OK I know I haven't been paying attention since your explanation of those 6(?) numbers that were interspersed around different voter segments but what is the 88 switch about?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-13-05 06:05 AM
Response to Reply #69
70. Hope this clears it up.
Edited on Sat Aug-13-05 06:30 AM by TruthIsAll
These are the probabilities that EXACTLY N of 88 voting machines would randomly switch Kerry votes to Bush. There are actually 89 possibilities: N can equal 0, 1, 2...88. The sum of ALL 89 probabilities is equal to 1.

A vote switch, assuming it is RANDOM, has an equal 0.5 probability of favoring either Bush or Kerry.

We need to calculate the probability P that AT LEAST 86 of 88 machines would flip to Bush. That is equivalent to the calculating the SUM of the probabilities for the three cases where N = 86,87,88.

In Excel, we use the Binomial Distribution function to determine the chance that exactly X of N events would occur, given that p is the probability of any single occurrence.

1)To determine the probability that EXACTLY X occur:
p (X) = BINOMDIST(X, N, p, FALSE)
FALSE is a flag to calculate the exact probability.

Another method:
2) To determine the probability that AT LEAST X occur:
P (>=X) = 1 - BINOMDIST(X-1, N, p, TRUE)
Note: P = 1 - probability that at MOST X-1 occur.

TRUE is a flag to calculate the cumulative probability.

Using method 1:
Solving for each of the three possibilities:
p (86) = BINOMDIST(86, 88, .5, FALSE)
p (87) = BINOMDIST(87, 88, .5, FALSE)
p (88) = BINOMDIST(88, 88, .5, FALSE)

The probability is:
P = p(86)+ p(87) + p(88) or 1 in 79 sextillion

Using method 2 (cumulative):
P (>=X) = 1 - BINOMDIST(85, 88, 0.5, TRUE)

Unfortunately, Excel cannot calculate the probability using the cumulative option. It's too small.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maraya1969 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-13-05 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. Ok you are talking Ohio when you speak of the 88 voting machines?
And your conclusion is basically 0% probability that any random Kerry vote would switch to Bush. So then are you saying the switches have been made "by hand" by someone behind the scenes?

And if this based on the exit polls that concluded Kerry won and the probability of the machines just kicking them by mistake to Bush is a gazillion to 1?

What's my name? :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-13-05 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. You are totally missing it..
Edited on Sat Aug-13-05 02:34 PM by TruthIsAll
I have said nothing here about exit polls or Ohio. You are making something very simple very complicated.

It's not just Ohio. The 88 incidents were distributed throughout the nation and documented by EIRS. The bulk of the 88 incidents were in FL and OH. Surprised?

The probability that 86 of 88 machines incidents would randomly switch Kerry votes to Bush is 1 in 79 sextillion.
It's that simple.

Let me illustrate with a simple coin-toss analogy:
The probability of coming up heads in a single toss is 50%.
If you flip a coin 88 times, the odds that you would get 86 or more heads is 1 in 79,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

The probability of a RANDOM machine error favoring Bush is 50%.
The probability that 86 of 88 machines would RANDOMLY switch Kerry votes to Bush is also 1 in 79,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

The bottom line is this:

IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RANDOM.

Keep repeating.

IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RANDOM.
IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RANDOM.
IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RANDOM.
IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RANDOM.
IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RANDOM.
IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RANDOM.
IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RANDOM.
IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RANDOM.
IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RANDOM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tommcintyre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-25-05 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
73. kick - In tribute to his tremendous contributions - WHY??? :( n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-25-05 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
74. Kicking for truth, justice, and TIA's invaluable work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul 28th 2017, 03:26 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
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