NEWS: Unexplained boost linked to e-voting; some not so sure

[AmyCrat]

Berkeley study scrutinizes Florida tally for Bush
Unexplained boost linked to e-voting; some not so sure
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/11/19/VOTERFRAUD.TMP
<snip>---
Researchers at UC Berkeley released a statistical analysis Thursday that shows, they say, that President Bush may have received at least 130,000 extra and unexplained votes in Florida counties that used electronic voting machines.

A professor and three graduate students from the university's Survey Research Center conducted the study and said they have been able "to explain away all other factors" that might have increased Bush's support.

But some political scientists dismissed the analysis, pointing out that researchers did not and probably could not account for massive Republican get-out-the-vote efforts, differences in money spent or differences in amount of advertising by candidates, as well as other political intricacies.

"(E-voting) is not the only factor left because the model is so incomplete. How do you control for the fact that churches and gun groups were out there pumping out people; how would you measure that?" asked Bruce Cain, a political science professor and director of UC Berkeley's Institute of Governmental studies.
---<snip>

Read entire article

[Imperialism Inc.]

1. Unless there are no churches and gun groups in non-e-voting

counties, then this statement is embarrassingly stupid,

"(E-voting) is not the only factor left because the model is so incomplete. How do you control for the fact that churches and gun groups were out there pumping out people; how would you measure that?"

[Melodybe]

2. I thought that it was illegal for churches to play in politics

Oh well.

[AmyCrat]

3. YES! (churches)

How is THIS in-and-of-itself not being questioned???

[Imperialism Inc.]

4. Good point.

That aside, his statement is still incredibly foolish. The way you account for it is that it is happening in both e-vote and non-e-vote counties. Therefore, the results should be the same in both types of counties.

Edit: And this guy is a professor? Of government studies? I find it hard to believe such a person would say something so stupid. He must be a big time partisan and that got in the way of normal brain functions.

[Oak2004]

8. Gee I wonder what party that guy might belong to. n/t

[Imperialism Inc.]

9. Dunno, but I may find out.

I wrote the guy, Bruce Cain, and asked him what on earth he was talking about ;-)

[regularjoe]

11. Post his reply when you get it!

[regularjoe]

12. Good point!

I didn't even notice that while I was reading but in hindsight it is pretty obvious. Notice he is a political science professor and not an expert in statistical analysis.

regularjoe

[smartvoter]

17. You are exaclty right.

This doesn't make any sense at all. The point of isolating the argument to the technology is it wipes away those arguments. How can the surge be limited only to one machine type?

[Straight Shooter]

5. I wish they'd STFU. First, polls are wrong. Now they had better GOTV?

Are there desperate men out there clutching at straws?

This is their latest rationale for bush's boost, that they really really were so much damned better at getting out the vote.

Well, they can't prove it, can they? Maybe they got a lot of horses to water but the horses didn't drink. Maybe many of their registrations were drunks on skid row, like the people they hired to be "challengers." Maybe a lot of people registered and then started paying attention and realized how INCOMPETENT bush is and refused to vote for him or refused to vote altogether.

Yeah, lob another softball at us, you dimwits.

[masshole1979]

6. churches and gun groups....pumping out people

...funny, when I first read that, I thought it said "pimping out"...

and funny how churches and gun groups just kind of roll off the tongue together like that

peas and carrots

love and marriage

churches and gun groups

[AmyCrat]

7. God, Gays and Guns -- rolls off the tongue quite nice -- AKA: G³

[anamandujano]

10. The reseachers know how to make a model.

That's probably 99% of the work. They can most likely do one for churches and gun groups, which I suspect have already been voting at a huge percentage.

But, we can't underestimate the ease of obfuscation. We'll see it for any evidence we find, any study. With the bought and paid for media, that's just the way it goes.

[regularjoe]

13. More rebuttal. And info for letters to the editor.

"In a statement released Thursday, they called the Berkeley analysis a "hypothetical statistical study" and said ES&S officials had not yet reviewed the results."

Huh? What is that supposed to mean?

"Even 130,000 fewer votes simply would have trimmed Bush's margin of victory in Florida, and the study only shows that something went wrong, but not what that the problem may have been, the researchers said."

Hello! 130,000 votes gone awry is a big deal. And of course the study doesn't show what the problem is. They were simply working with the numbers. This does not invalidate the study.

My suggestion: Letters to the editor. Here is the info

Chronicle Submissions Guidelines

The Chronicle invites a variety of contributions:

# Letters to the Editor
# Images to the Editor
# Op-Ed pieces for Open Forum
# Commentary pieces for Insight
# Chronicle Datebook Calendar Listings

Letters to the Editor:

To comment on news stories in the main section of the newspaper or to opine on views expressed on the Opinion pages, contact Letters to the Editor.

Please limit your letters to 200 or fewer words ... shorter letters have a better chance of being selected for publication.

The editor prefers e-mail. The address is [email protected]

(Please paste the text into the e-mail; do not send attachments. Our virus-detecting software will delete e-mail with attachments.)




regularjoe

[BR_Parkway]

15. Anyone know a county in FL with around 130,000 total votes?

Might bring it home to people that their vote didn't count if things were phrased "that's more than all the votes in Such & Such county (or counties)combined"

[Imperialism Inc.]

16. Exactly right about the numbers.

That was the thrust of my letter to Mr. Cain. That regardless of the explanation, even if it were to turn out , for example, that God and guns was more effective in e-vote counties (for some strange reason), it doesn't invalidate the correlation they found. He has not written me back.

[The Backlash Cometh]

14. "Massive Republican get-out-the-vote"

That translate to: Strong drives to get them to vote by Absentee Ballot, and strong telemarketing to get them to come down to vote on election day. And I wouldn't be surprised if that massive get-out-the-vote efforts resulted in a lot of people double voting.

You add that, and potential electronic ballot tampering and it's a wonder Bush won by so few.

[intelle]

18. Someone on the Techs Unite mailing list

said that the GOTV efforts were concentrated in the same areas as the battleground areas in the study.

Is there any proof of this? I would like to provide a rebuttal, but I don't have the facts.



:shrug:

[regularjoe]

19. I think the burden of proof to invalidate the study is on the

people claiming that get out the vote efforts were more intense in those counties. Are there records of extensive advertising or door-to-door work specifically in those counties? If not, then they are just talking.

regularjoe

[distantearlywarning]

21. So the Dems had no GOTV effort either?

You would have to show that the Repub GOTV was higher in ETouch counties and that Dems didn't put forth a corresponding effort (seems VERY unlikely in this particular election). They are grasping at straws.

[distantearlywarning]

20. That "churches and guns" statement is so foolish

when applied to this study, it actually makes me wonder if they made the statement up. Seriously! No professor who knew anything about statistics would ever ever make a comment like that. I'm actually a little embarrassed for the guy. His comment reminds me of the kind of statements my undergraduates make when they are first trying to get their minds around the logic of scientific research.

And it sounds exactly like the kind of thing an uneducated newspaper reporter would say when they hadn't actually read the study but wanted to dismiss it.

Is there actually a Bruce Cain out there? Maybe he got his diploma from a mill. He needs to take the research methods course I teach!