Election fraud? ( OT -- was Who REALLY won...)

[Sarah Fox]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Larry,

>>Sarah, the only thing you've "proven" is that someone was playing fast =
and loose with the numbers from the exit polls.=20

"Proving" is done by attorneys and folks like you.  Scientists would =
never be so arrogant as to presume to have "proven" anything.  They =
formulate and test theories, and the modern scientist does this with =
heavy use of mathematical principles of probability, a.k.a. statistics.

Now, let's formalize this, in semi-lay terms ('cuz I don't want y'all to =
fall asleep on me):

PINKO COMMIE THEORY:  Bush didn't really win.  The election was "won" =
only through hacking of the non-paper vote.

HYPOTHESIS: The vote count will differ from exit polling in states where =
non-paper balloting is utilized.

DESIGN:  Randomly sample states with non-paper balloting and states with =
paper balloting.  Record the differential between Kerry's margins in the =
final vote tally and in the exit polls.  Translate the data to actual - =
predicted margin, yielding "margin error."  Test for differences between =
paper and non-paper states.

RESULTS: As stated before in "Who REALLY won" post.  Non-paper states =
had a much greater margin error that statistically favored Bush.  =
Moreover, paper states had no statistical margin error that would favor =
either candidate.

The hypothesis is therefore supported, providing support for the pinko =
commie theory.  This does not "prove" the theory.  It is merely a =
(strong) point in favor of the theory.  Other issues and hypotheses can =
and should be examined, of course.

POSSIBLE PROBLEMS:

(1) The states might not have been randomly sampled, hence my question =
to Thump.  Since I didn't collect the data, I don't know.

(2) Exit polling may not have been done the same way in all states.  In =
particular, if there were differences in exit polling between the two =
*groups* (i.e. paper and non-paper), then the data could be screwed up.

FACTORS THAT ARE *NOT* PROBLEMATIC:

(1) Exit polls were not done at *all* polling locations (e.g. Conrad's =
point).  However, if the polling locations were randomly selected, which =
would be consistent with the goals of an exit poll, then the exit poll =
data *should* predict the actual vote count with no net bias towards =
either candidate.  The results would be +/- a certain margin for error.  =
In the long run, with infinite sampling, the error would be zero.  =
Statistical methods, such as I used, detect departures from zero bias.  =
Tests get more sensitive with more extensive sampling.  My testing =
reveals that there is a statistical departure between paper ballot and =
non-paper ballot states, assuming that the polling data were collected =
the same way in both sets of states.  The question to be answered is =
what the source of that departure is.

Now, I would enjoy hearing clarification on the possible problems with =
the data.  I suspect that these issues do not present as problems with =
the data, but again, I don't *know* that.  They aren't my data.

LARRY'S ISSUES:

Larry has suggested that "someone was playing fast and loose with the =
numbers from the exit polls."  That may be, Larry.  That's why I would =
like clarification on the above.  Please understand my conclusion, =
though, which is that this error between exit polling and vote count =
exists only in non-paper states and favors Bush.  Why is that?  Perhaps =
you are proposing a different conspiracy from the pinko leftist commie =
media?

LARRY'S PROPOSED CONSPIRACY??:

The entity conducting the exit polling wanted to produce data =
implicating that the non-paper states were guilty of election fraud that =
would favor Bush.  They were less concerned with arriving at credible =
outcome conclusions that they could utilize to correctly "call" =
electoral outcomes, and thus they were willing to sacrifice their =
reputation for reliability to the greater cause of pointing a finger of =
blame towards the Republicans.

Well, like most theories, this is potentially testable.  What hypotheses =
do you propose, Larry?  What is your evidence?

Finally, David Love wrote, "I think arguing about whether Bush won or =
not absent any real evidence is unproductive."  I agree.  However, the =
exit poll data *are* evidence.  And contrary to the suggestions of a =
few, it *does* matter what happened.  I am the first to admit that Bush =
"won" the election and that it is pointless to dispute the election =
results.  Bush will serve another 4 years, whether I like it or not.  =
However, the bigger issue is election reform.  Remember, everyone (you =
especially, Larry), the pendulum swings in two directions, not one.  =
There will probably be a huge backlash of liberalism in decades to come, =
and the Republicans will then be out of power.  Do all you Republicans =
REALLY want an election system that can be rigged by the party in power? =
 Hey, just imagine paperless balloting, with no possibility for recount, =
in a political environment such as in the latter FDR administration, =
only with more rampant corruption.  Do y'all REALLY want that?  Think =
about it!  Now is the time to nip all this paperless balloting in the =
bud, before our "Democracy" becomes a "Demockery."

Hey, all you veterans, didn't you fight wars in defense of Democracy?  =
Where's your fight now, when Democracy is arguably on the chopping block =
in our own country?!  I'm not suggesting you oppose Bush.  I'm =
suggesting you oppose paperless balloting with no accountability!

Peace,
Sarah

PS Larry:  "You wrote If you can't see that CBS blatantly attempted to =
do harm to Bush during an election, something is seriously wrong."  In =
fact CBS is owned by Viacom, which has repeatedly stated it would prefer =
Bush as president (with deregulating and such...).  Ya gots ta' cater to =
tha' boss, ya' know, and that's why CBS wore a muzzle and suppressed =
damning stories in the final stages of the election.



---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/6b/3e/33/aa/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--