<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; = charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: = #ffffff" bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV>Larry,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>>>Sarah, the only thing you've "proven" is that someone was = playing fast and loose with the numbers from the exit polls. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"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.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Now, let's formalize this, in semi-lay terms ('cuz I don't want = y'all to fall asleep on me):</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>PINKO COMMIE THEORY:  Bush didn't really win.  The = election was "won" only through hacking of the non-paper vote.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>HYPOTHESIS: The vote count will differ from exit polling in states = where non-paper balloting is utilized.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>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.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>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.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>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.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>POSSIBLE PROBLEMS:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>(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.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>(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.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>FACTORS THAT ARE *NOT* PROBLEMATIC:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>(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.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>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.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>LARRY'S ISSUES:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>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?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>LARRY'S PROPOSED CONSPIRACY??:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>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.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Well, like most theories, this is potentially testable.  What hypotheses do you propose, Larry?  What is your evidence?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>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."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV>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!</DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Peace,</DIV> <DIV>Sarah</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>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.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>