Reply #6: Liddle here [View All]

[Febble]

Cite, please for "shoddy and inadequate analysis".

NO-WHERE has either Mitofsky or Liddle to my knowledge claimed that "linear correlation...is sufficient to support the E/M hypothesis) and Liddle was not responsible for 56%-50% response bias which WAS the hypothesis, not offered in support of it.

What Liddle and Mitofsky did was to demonstrate that there was no linear correlation between the magnitude of the discrepancy at precinct level and Bush's share of the counted vote. This neither refutes nor supports non-response bias as an explanation for the discrepancy. It does, however, infirm a specific claim made by NEDA/USCV that the discrepancy was greater where Bush's share of the vote was greater ("Bush Strongholds have more Vote-Count Corruption) see USCV March 31st paper.

The lack of a linear correlation between bias and Bush's vote share at precinct level suggest that this is not a significant or generalizable trend.

Also: my understanding from two of the authors of this paper is that they were not aware that it had been "published" and have not read the whole paper. Publishing what purports to be an academic, multi-author work without endorsement of the final version from at least two of the authors strikes me, frankly, as "shoddy".