QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ May 23 2005, 10:53 AM)
But, I'm skeptical, so I go to
this analysis of the polling data and response to the Mitosky-Edison report, and I see that the exit poll data approximates a "normal" distribution curve, but shifted one standard deviation to Kerry. I see some of the analysis and gymnastics applied, and how some of the "odds" of this to occur were calculated, and they contradict each other.
Then
show me where they contradict each other. Don't just make the claim -- present your evidence.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ May 23 2005, 10:53 AM)
I note that the links from this site, like your sources for election fraud allegations, lead me to a litanny of leftist organizations, and I am skeptical.
If you want to make a claim that the analysis is wrong, by all means do so. Don't waste electrons arguing about the people doing the analysis.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ May 23 2005, 10:53 AM)
To color my view, even though anecdotal, I note that I live in a big, democrat-dominated city. My wife, a (republican) election judge in November 2004, cited dozens and dozens of attempts to subvert the law and allow non-registered-voters to vote (democrat). This is one person in one precinct in one city, and I multiply this out to Philly, Detroit, Cleveland, etc. I also note that Democrats have been actually convicted (not just accused) of election fraud and abuse in Milwaukee and other cities, and my skepticism elevates.
These anecdotes are fraught. There are thousands of them on both sides. They are trees in the forest. We can't draw any conclusions from them because they are the tip of the iceberg and we have no idea how many such incidents went unreported. So we need a way of seeing the forest, not the trees. That's what the exit polling data provides.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ May 23 2005, 10:53 AM)
And when I read the conclusions of the original report you cited, I find it incredible. As in not believeable. Because this exit poll data was apparently skewed, and the vaunted statisticians cannot explain the discrepancy (based on admittedly incomplete data), "The US electoral system is vulnerable to massive vote fraud in the future." They made about 3 logocal and rhetorical leaps too many based on their study. The statisticians appear to have forgotten that there are people in between the theory and practice.
OK, so you don't believe it. Is that because you have a logical reason for not believing it or because you don't like the conclusion it points to? What 3 logical and rhetorical leaps are made by the study? Tell me what is wrong with the analysis.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ May 23 2005, 10:53 AM)
As for Washington, I think that this election bears re-visiting, which is happening in the current trial. Today's Seattle Times:
QUOTE
Election Day ended with Gregoire leading by 7,000 votes. But Rossi won the full count by 261 votes and then a machine recount by 42 votes. Gregoire won the hand recount by 129 votes and took office in January.
Also, just to defend LordHelmet's note on "dead people and felons" this has been verified - from the Seattle P-I
link QUOTE
At least eight people who died well before the November general election were credited with voting in King County, raising new questions about the integrity of the vote total in the narrow governor's race, a Seattle Post-Intelligencer review has found.
<snip>
Other voting problems may also be raised. Timothy Harris, general counsel for the Building Industry Association of Washington, which is preparing a court challenge of the governor's race, said his group has documented about 50 felons who did not have their voting rights restored but voted in Pierce County.
I agree completely that any electoral irregularities in Washington state should be fully investigated. Unlike you, my position here is principled, not partisan. I can happily accept any result, so long as it is arrived by fair and proper methods.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ May 23 2005, 10:53 AM)
edit 2 - found the 5% figure you were quoting, having re-read the Mitofsky data. But I still question the "uscountsvotes" report and note that the most wacko of conspiracy nuts are quite capable of hiring "completely sober, quite competent statisticians."
Where do you question the report?
What do you question in it? The results, or the methods?
QUOTE(DaytonRocker)
As usual, Republicans gained more seats. So the presidential results would be in line with the rest of the election. And this analysis avoids that issue.
Yes, that point is worthy of consideration. But there are also lots of specifics that show wide discrepancies between votes for president and votes for senator on the same ballots. This particular issue needs to be addressed at some point, but for now we need to focus on the main issue: the discrepancies between the exit polls and the vote counts.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker)
But where is all the variable data and assignable causes in that report? Weather, truthfullness, red/blue quotient, male/female, press in the vicinity, age, and the 1000 other variables that could cause projections to be wrong.
The methodologies take into account a great many factors. You can find details on the methodologies at some of the links I posted earlier.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker)
The democrats have been getting their hats handed to them for over 10 years and need to figure out a way to win instead of crying foul everytime something doesn't go their way.
Let's address the issue here: does that USCV report justify a subpoena of the Edison-Mitofsky raw data, and should there be further investigation?
QUOTE(Amlord)
No. We have two data sets here: projected votes (exit poll data) and actual votes (ballots cast). Only one set of data are relevant to the election outcome. That would be actual votes cast.
"Relevant" is an awfully broad term here, and in this context your use of it is incorrect. What you mean to say, I believe, is that the actual vote count is all that legally matters, and that statement is correct. However, there remains the unanswered hypothesis of electoral fraud, and the discrepancy between the vote count and the exit polls supports that hypothesis.
QUOTE(Amlord)
What purpose does the subpoena of data which has no relevance to the outcome serve? While the exit poll data collection methods probably need to be improved, that is not the purview of the government, since the government does not rely on exit polls. It relies on hard data.
The raw data is relevant to the analysis of the exit polls, which in turn cast a shadow of doubt on the vote count. That's relevant.
QUOTE(Amlord)
Again, the fact that two data sets do not match up is not cause for election fraud inquiries. Carlitoswhey has posted that similar discrepancies have occurred in the past. Your "24 pound cat" example is way off base, since the data set of Presidential elections is more on the order of 10 than the 1000 you posit. Two sets out of 10 (the number is more like 8-10 if the 1970s is your starting point) makes the presence of similar circumstances significant.
You are relying on the assumption that only presidential races need be considered in evaluating the performance of exit polls. To justify that assumption, you must show that there is a substantial difference between an exit poll of any other race and an exit poll of a presidential race, and that the difference produces statistically signficant results. Your task is made particularly difficult by the fact that often exit polls are combined: the exit poll for the senate race is the exact same exit poll for the presidential race. So, how do you justify your assumption?
Hugo, the exit poll results that you report are the massaged results. The exit polls showed Kerry winning by 2 points right up into about midnight Eastern Time, then they were suddenly taken down. They reappeared two hours later with Bush winning by 3 points, even though the actual votes that had been added to the sums had changed by less than 1%. What happened was that the pollsters went back and re-weighted their values to obtain results that matched the reported vote counts. That's why the raw data is so important -- it will show what really happened.