None of the graphs have sources, except the (arguably refuted interpretation of the) response rate on slide 31. Some of the tables are sourced, but not the blow-up of the E-M report with MSPaint circles drawn about the "absurd" parts. The
accompanying text explains that he's the farthest thing from a statistician, and that's why we should trust his judgment on these matters (TIA made a
remarkably similar pronouncement, but it doesn't prove that TIA is Steve Freeman).
But a 50-50 split would mean enough fraud to swing the election -- see my post 44.I agree. But that isn't what Freeman is arguing:
Not much power there. Agreed.
2004 is the year that we have the biggest ever red shift. It is also the year that we apparently have the biggest ever opportunity for fraud, in that a good portion of our votes were counted in secret, by convicted felons who just happen to have strong ties to the Republican Party.And yet the polls were far closer in blackbox Florida than papertrail Vermont and NH. Why not use the
Washington Redskins as a predictor of rigged machines? Fraud is fraud, exit polls are exit polls.
Therefore, any lack of evidence for exit poll bias has to be seen as a plus for fraud. There's no lack of evidence for poll bias (Berinsky, Adam J. 1999. "The Two Faces of Public Opinion." American Journal of Political Science 43(4):1209–30.
online; Curtice, John, and Nick Sparrow. 1997. "How Accurate Are Traditional Quota Opinion Polls?" Journal of the Market Research Society 39:433–48
abstract), just lack of Mitofsky's ability to explain it to lay persons convincingly. Perhaps he's tried:
http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/citation/62/2/230What I mostly meant by my comment on this was that it would be nice to know what kind of voter complaints were involved. Found it:
http://www.philly1.com/CARTER-BAKER-PROB-STATE.xlshttp://www.philly1.com/MYVOTE1-STATE-REPORTS.pdf
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore