Why in the name of Gwad do we have a Scottish Cognitive Psychologist ...

[autorank]

...telling us how to analyze our fucking election? I'm sick of this Febble fixation. What's the matter with our press and our users looking to AMERICAN analysts and statisticians.

I for one say in the analysis of election fraud, AMERICAN'S FIRST.

Febble, we're happy you have time to do all this. Now go back to what you were doing. As for the dilettantes and obscurants fixated on her work, give it up or admit you're afraid to look at the ugly truth head on. THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN, WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE?

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::rant::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

This really pisses me off to now end...this is total bull shit

[On the Road]

1. I Thought Her WPE Analysis Was Brilliant

One of those things that once you explain it, becomes obvious. But up to that point, nobody had ever raised the issue. Sometimes it takes someone from outside the field.

[autorank]

4. We obviously share the same motive...

...but enough already. We don't need anybody from outside. The facts are abundantly clear. It's like election fraud is some sort of BBC series and Febble is one of those eccentric British character actors. Thanks for the contribution Febble but we're way ahead of you. We have to kick in the door of our media and party to make them look at the truth. This is just like Galileo trying to get the Cardinals to look through his telescope...they know what it means, and they're frightened to look.
:hi:

[On the Road]

6. Actually, I Think the Shoe's on the Other Foot

Febble is not an apologist for the US Republican party. Even if she were, it's not relevant to her arguments.

What she was able to show was that within-precinct error would vary by how heavily partisan each precinct was -- independently of any other factor. From a purely mathematical point of view, 50-50 precincts will always have greater within-precinct error than 90-10 precincts on a fairly predictable curve. That idea didn't seem to occur to anyone until she came along. And that curve fits the Ohio data pretty well.

It doesn't mean nothing else went on, but it is the best explanation for that particular oddity.

It's very important to argue this on the basis of math. And Febble has made a big contribution.

[TruthIsAll]

7. USCV has already debunked it. Read Kathy Dopp:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x365014

[kster]

9. That good news.n/t

[On the Road]

26. Their Debunking Didn't Make Sense to Me

particularly this part:

Lizzie's model requires -greater- exit poll participation in High-Kerry precincts than in High-Bush precincts. E/M's data shows quite the contrary.

The question Febble was addressing is whether the statistical data is evidence of fraud. One of the oddities of the data that has been used to argue for fraud is that within-precinct error varied by the partisanship of the precinct. That looks wrong on the face of it. What she showed was that a consistent bias of any type will produce the pattern shown in the data. (Overall level of participation is not a factor.) In other words, when that pattern is seen, it is not prima facie evidence of fraud. That's all she showed.

The USCV debunking you linked doesn't deal with any of that in detail. Her main statistical argument, which as far as I can see, still seems is incontestable.

In fact, the more I read from USCV, the more frustrated I am with them:

-- Their statistical arguments are not laid out in enough detail for others to replicate them. It's absolutely essential in the skew by partisanship, since their methodology claims to show impossible rates of participation. (Liddle does this, even though she's not a professional statistician.)

-- They pull out the "16 million to 1" argument in the Abstract without actually supporting it. This suggests they know it can't be supported but are presenting it for shock value. That's not a good method.

-- They put way too much emphasis on credentials and argue way too much from authority. This may be persuasive to laymen but has no place in an academic controversy.

-- They diminish their critic by calling her "Lizzie." This is bad form. It does not help their case.

USCV made an arresting argument on the changes in WPE by partisanship. As far as I can see from their website, they have not adequately responded to the first detailed criticism. Their method of argument suggests that they are playing to the crowd and trolling for donations rather than joining a serious academic controversy.

To continue to argue that the statistical data is evidence of fraud, USCV's next step should be to show that the data is still anomalous even after taking Febble's effect into account. I don't see where they've done that yet.

[Febble]

29. To be fair

USCV did do some re-analysis (and kindly acknowledge me for the tip-off) that in theory takes my effect into account (see Appendix B in their report). I at first thought their fix would work, and in fact, initially I thought it reinforced their case. However, what my modelling exercise showed was that my formula only corrects the WPE problem if it is applied at precinct level, not to the mean data.

What I hope may happen next is that Edison-Mitofsky will apply the correction to the precinct-level data and tell us the answer. It may well be that the USCV inference turns out to be correct. My point is simply that we cannot know this from the data currently available - it is also consistent with a degree of bias that does not systematically vary with vote-margin.

That is why I say the null is retained. However, the null could as easily be widespread fraud as widespread sampling bias. I just don't think we can yet conclude that it whatever it was was more concentrated in high-Bush precincts.

Anyway, thanks for your support. I appreciate it. The attacks on my work here have been alarmingly vicious at times.

[On the Road]

30. Thanks for Responding, Febble!

And until now, I hadn't realized you even posted here. A lot of the statistical detail leaves me behind -- I only have a little hands-on statistics from some undergraduate behavioral experiments. And I think I may have misrepresented one of your arguments on another post on this thread. But a lot of your major points can be understood on a common-sense basis if people take the time to think it through.

One thing that wasn't completely clear to me: Did USCV provide enough detail to reconstruct the analysis showing absurdly high levels of partisan participation in some precincts? Did the "Febble curve" reduce those levels to a more normal range, or was there not enough detail to be able to tell one way or another?

[autorank]

31. OUTSOURCING inspires OUTRAGE

"The attacks on my work here have been alarmingly vicious at times."

Imagine you are in the opposition to Hitler in 1936 Germany doing everything you can to stop the tyrant. And then imagine that someone from, oh let's say Great Britain shows up and gets some press with the argument that maybe the Nazis did not set the Reichstag Fire...could be some questions there. Then imagine that that someone shows up at resistance forums and makes the same argument. Voila, you have the essence of my reaction to you and the reactions of others. We live this, we bear the burden and shame of George W. Bush. AND anyone who has looked at the whole picture knows that the election was stolen, probably through a combination of fraudulent means.

It's not up to EM to "apply the correction" to anything. It's up to us to demand that the entire election, from top to bottom, be examined under the harsh light of open and public scrutiny.

Your comment, "That is why I say the null is retained," is ridiculous in the larger picture. We've wiped out "the null set" long ago. You simply lack the knowledge in addition to lacking the standing to participate in this movement. The debate is over. You are a distraction to the larger process, a minor one but irritating since you are at the epicenter of the Bush opposition. Of course we're outraged. As for "vicious," if you come here from GB and muck up our election fraud resistance, prepare for a spirited and angry response. Get a clue.

[Land Shark]

34. the definition of 'evidence' of fraud is..

anything that tends to make a proposition of importance either more or less likely. (paraphrased legal definition of evidence)

so, OF COURSE the exit polls are evidence of fraud!! Regardless of who's right!! and how much weight the evidence has or should have in the overall scheme.

the debate here is only as to the weight and significance of the evidence. Ambiguous evidence (if we grant the points of both sides) is still evidence. a jury is entitled to believe truthisall and reject febble entirely, or vice versa.

The MOST MORONIC Legal POINT Ever Made in the Exit Poll Debate:

"exit polls are not evidence of fraud because they were never intended or designed to reveal fraud"

God Damn! If only criminal defense attorneys had thought to argue that their client's fingerprints were not evidence of a crime becaues they were NOT INTENDED as evidence of a crime!! Brilliant, Sherlock Mitofsky!

[On the Road]

37. It's Not Evidence Yet -- At Least Not in This Context

You are absolutely right to dismiss the argument that "exit polls were never intended to reveal fraud," so they can't be used that way. That is a moronic argument.

But the USCV vs Elizabeth Liddle debate is different. It is an academic controversy in a statistical subject, not a courtroom procedure. The rules are:

1) You assume a null hypothesis, in this case that the exit polls are a random sample of the official votes with an across-the-board bias towards Kerry of x%.

2) You try to disprove the null hypothesis. In this case, that would mean showing that a random and accurate exit poll would not yield the actual results. This is what USCV claimed to have done when they said that a pro-Kerry bias would result in unnaturally high participation levels in certain types of precincts.

3) You share your methodology and results among peers and defend them against criticism. Elizabeth Liddle has made an important criticism of the USCV method. So far, USCV has denied its validity but to my knowledge has not refuted it transparently enough, although they may not have the data in enough detail from the Mitofsky people to do so.

4) The null hypothesis holds until it is disproven one way or another.

5) Disproving the null hypothesis in this case would only prove that the exit polls were not a random sample of the official votes. To show fraud, you have to dismiss other sources of difference including sampling and response bias.

That's what constitutes evidence in the social sciences. That's what Liddle and USCV are doing.

[Bill Bored]

18. 50-50 precincts will always have greater within-precinct error?

"50-50 precincts will always have greater within-precinct error than 90-10 precincts on a fairly predictable curve"

I thought it was the other way around. Otherwise how can they say there was higher WPE in Bush-heavy precincts?

Could you explain how she differs from E-M and/or USCV on this?

Is she saying Kerry-heavy precincts had the same WPE as Bush-heavy ones?

Looking at how to actually steal the election with existing e-votin' machine software, there are several methods:

a) weaken one candidate further in areas where he is already weak by switching votes to the leader;

b) reverse the outcome in areas where it's e.g., 51-49 and a reversal to 49-51 would not be overly suspicious;

c) generate undervotes for either candidate in a precinct where it's too close to call. This keeps it closer than outright switching of votes, so as not to arouse suspicion, but still moves the outcome in the desired direction.

So I'd say you'd expect to see LARGER WPEs in 90-10 precincts than 50/50 ones, because large shifts in a close race would arouse more suspicion than if they were "buried" in a landslide so to speak. Is this what Febble found or what?

Sorry I don't have time to read all the original exit poll work. I'm more concerned with HOW the fraud was done. Ultimately the two areas should agree though.

[On the Road]

24. Here's Her Curve and Some of Her Explanation

Her first insight...is that the value of WPE "is a function of the actual proportion of votes cast." ...Kerry voters participated in the exit poll at a slightly higher rate (hypothetically 56%) than Bush voters (50%). If there were 100 Kerry voters and 100 Bush voters in a precinct, an accurate count would show a 50-50% tie in that precinct, but the exit poll would sample 56 Kerry voters, and 50 Bush voters showing Kerry ahead 53% to 47%. This would yield a WPE of -6.0. But consider another hypothetical precinct with 200 Bush voters and 0 Kerry voters. Bush will get 100% in the poll regardless of the response rate. Thus response error is impossible and WPE will be zero. Do the same math assuming different levels of Bush and Kerry support in between and you will see that if you assume constant response rates for Bush and Kerry voters across the board, the WPE values get smaller...as the vote for the leading candidate gets larger...



http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2005/04/the_liddle_mode.html#more

One of the oddities of the data was that the WPE varied by partisanship of the precinct. This would seem to suggest fraud. What Liddle's paper proved is that a consistent bias from any source will disappear at the extremes of partisanship and be magnified in the middle. This accounts for what seemed to be an unusual and suspicious pattern. It does not disprove fraud in any way, but it shows that this particular statistical pattern is not evidence of fraud.

What USCV needs to do in order to keep arguing convincingly for fraud is to account for the effect that Liddle showed and demonstrate that there are still anomalies in the remaining statistical pattern.

[Bill Bored]

27. I see. Thanks for the summary.

Here's what I find interesting:

According to my "how" theory, in order to hide the fraud, it would be larger in more partisan precincts and smaller in less partisan ones. But you're saying this is the opposite of the natural tendency of the WPE which Liddle points out is smaller in the more partisan precincts and larger in the less partisan ones. So if there were fraud, you'd expect the above curve to be somewhat flatter than the natural distribution, because the WPE on the ends (or at least on the left which are the Bush strongholds where his vote was padded) would be larger due to the fraud.

I suppose this could be seen using her "bias index" too.

Oh well, another hour on the exit polls down the drain! :)

[pgh_dem]

2. Unfair characterization of Febble's work and motives

Check out this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x365014#365154

I think Febble acquits herself well and is *more* than open to the possibility of fraud.

While I also think the rBr theory is crap, Febble distinctly is not attempting to *prove* rBr (the only current explanation for reweighting the exit polls), and is just pointing out that USCV's current methodology hasn't refuted it. TIA and USCV disagree...that's where it stands until E-M ever releases the rest of the info it is sitting on.

Especially given the steaming pile that calls itself American Media, and the general 'huh-Whu?' attitude of the DNC, I'm glad ANYONE's looking at this election with an open mind (meaning she acknowledges fraud as a valid possibility).

[TruthIsAll]

3. She acknowledges fraud as a possibility? BFD.

Sorry. I'm with autorank all the way on this.

Febble had the opportunity to respond to questions directly.

- She never acknowledged the NEP timeline which had Kerry leading from 8349 to 11027 to 13047 respondents - right up to the last 613.

She repeated the worn out talking points:
- 99% Confidence level?
Pollsters use 95%

- Cluster effect?
E-M said nothing about a C.F.
Their own MOE table shows the MoE is 1% (rounded) for over 8000 respondents.

She kept referring to the polls as being "off" or "wrong". Poor choice of words. I would have preferred "vote count deviations from the exit polls".

No, Febble, as an analyst you should assume nothing - and listen to the silent scream of the numbers.

True, she acknowledges the possibility of fraud, but feels the RbR was more likely? More smoke. Totally without foundation in fact.
She dismisses the actual data in her model assumptions (see Kathy Dopp and Bruce O'Dell at USCV)).

All we heard about was noise.
This is not an engineering problem.

UCSD has already rebutted the assumptions in her model which are at variance with the facts. I believe Kathy Dopp and Bruce O'Dell.
I believe the PHD's at USCV.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x365014

Febble is a sophisticated version of the naysayers who have come before us in droves these last six months. She would like us to believe that minor fraud took plav, but the bulk of the "polling error" was due to RbR.

Her "analysis" will turn out to have been just more aysayer "noise". Nothing more, nothing less.

It means we are getting very close.
We may in fact already be there.

[pgh_dem]

8. heh, dude, I'm so far over my head

Numbers...making me...dizzy...blacking out...

never meant to be defending rBr or even Febble's conclusions

two things:
1) RE: last 613 people, I understood a previous post of hers to answer that in agreement with you. That it was mathematically impossible to swing the numbers to the end result. Therefore, the weighting of the whole sample was changed. So the 613 didn't change the totals, E-M changed the multipliers.

2) Don't think Febble said rBr was 'more likely'. In my layman's terms (which is about 4 orders of magnitude away from 'knowing what i'm talking about'), I thought she said that the rBr theory just couldn't be counted out, yet. Not that it was true, or likely, or more likely than fraud.

I agree you (don't wanna presume a 'we' here) *are* getting close, just don't agree that Febble is working against you, is all.

[TruthIsAll]

10. But she said she that she BELIEVED RBR to be true. That 's bothered me.

It is one thing to analyze the problem.
USCV has already rebutted her "model" assumptions for being 180 degrees from reality.

So what is the basis for her belief?

The BBV Anomalies? She agrees.
Blackwell's corruption? She agrees.
The Exit Poll discrepancies/probabilities? She agrees.

But she persists.

What is her core agenda?
Is it the truth?
Or is she just a media creation to blow more fog on a done deal?

There was fraud.
There is no question.
Plenty of it.
Documented.
In spades.

She should be focusing like those at DU and USCV who are analyzing the REAL data - precinct, state and national.

Hypotheticals are a sham.

[autorank]

5. Neither of us know her motives! "*more* than open" ..."possibility"..

..."fraud." THERE WAS FRAUD. Remember, the same statistical processes that PROVE FRAUD are the basis for science and how we get things done in the real world. They work. Exceptions to these laws should cause grave alarm. This isn't a matter of "possibility"...it's PROBABILITY, VERY HIGH PROBABILITIES.

Why won't they open up the ME data for a critical analysis?
Why was OH shrouded in secrecy and why don't they open that up?
Why did NM (our putrid Dem Gov Richardson) demand $1.5 million for a recount?
Why won't the voting machine manufacturers open up the source code and allow periodic and surprise inspections of the machines?

There are no good answers to these questions even existing. For someone to come along and give us the privilege of their time for 'speculation' when the data has been analyzed pointing to FRAUD clearly ALREADY and when no fraud-doubter will answer my fucking four questions adequately, or even try, then I way enough already...WE HAVE THE PROOF.

IF THE UKRAINIANS HAD ACTED LIKE US, THEY'D STILL BE UNDER THAT STOOGE!

[bleever]

11. autorank: take a deep breath, find your center, and

tell us how you really feel.

LOL.

Thanks for putting this into the big context.

Not to dis febble, but we're really not trying to figure out whether or not the election was stolen.

What we're trying to figure out is how to make that evident to everyone else.

Thanks for putting out a little "Raider Nation" energy on this.

:)

[autorank]

12. bleevery, Do I need to pay you $150 for that session. Breathe in, breathe

out, take yourself to a safe place.....feeling much better...nah, I'm still pissed but centered and serene (momentary "restraint of pen and tongue"). Gracias! :hi:

[bleever]

13. First session is free, bud.

And I'm still laughing at how well you put the whole thing into perspective.

:hi:

[autorank]

14. Get ready for lots of referrals!

[Melissa G]

15. LOL! Bleev and Autorank, you guys are tooo funny!

You are both welcome in my yoga class but it might be hard to breathe deep because of all the chuckling you two would incite.
;)

[autorank]

20. We're the Martin & Lewis of this thread...free green tea, I'll go anywhere

:hi:

[Bill Bored]

16. Easy there big fella.

Wasn't she one of the first to confirm Dopp's work on the Op Scan anomalies in FL, by taking county size into account?

I think she's probably calling it as she sees it.

[davidgmills]

17. Do the blind get to referee now?

Just asking.

[autorank]

19. Biggie here...big enough to admit I'm wrong...but in this case I'm not.

It's simply time to move on from the academic debates and wranglings to the demand for an investigation, for preemptive methods of preventing election fraud in 2005 and 2006 elections, and to expect that our timid national Democratic leaders pick up the standard and lead! I am tired of the distractions and diversions. Seize the time. I swear to God, the first national Democratic leader to lead on this will be our candidate in 2008.

With regard to a 'hood policy, TIA is our guy (a) because he's right in excruciating detail and (b) because he's here with us. I truly appreciate all the work he does as I am profoundly grateful for the heart rending struggle of American voting rights activists. This is in the proud tradition of Dr. King and all the other heroes. This is a case where we need to take care of our own and our own business.

Call me Xenophobic, or better yet, Xylephonic, ... Biggie doesn't care...election fraud is the baseline issue for democracy in the USA. WE need to fix it ourselves.

[bleever]

21. ..."Election fraud is the baseline issue for democracy..."

Word to your mother.

Word to all our mothers.

Shoot, I just talked to my mother cuz it's her birthday; I'll email her the word tomorrow.

(But I did bring it up in conversation.)

:thumbsup:

[Bill Bored]

22. OK, but the Canadians are understandably concerned too.

And I think some of what you are suggesting is actually going on under the RADAR. Will it be enough? Hard to say.

[rdmccur]

23. Of like mind

but I'm prejudiced toward mathematicians and statisticians vs social scientists being an applied mathematician myself.

[autorank]

25. Coming from the social sciences I agree.

There are first rate statisticians in the social sciences. They have to jump through hoops to get things done. BUT if I'm going to rely on a discipline or disciplines to analyze NUMBERS I want the balance of the analysis to come from statisticians or those with extensive skills in applied mathematics.
:hi:

[Verve]

39. Autorank, Cognitive Psychologists are statisticians!

Unknown to most, there are 2 different types of "psychologists". There are of course,therapists, which is the stereotypical psychologist, and there are academic psychologists who are essentially scientists.

Therapist psychologists and academic psychologists are like night and day. Academic Psychologists, such as cognitive psychologists, have probably never spent an hour in a therapy session (unless they're the one on the couch). Their field is strictly applying scientific theory to the laws of human behavior. They need to know statistics like the back of their hand!

Please don't belittle someone's profession that you don't know anything about. A Cognitive psychologist is well equipped to look at this election data and come up with information that other statisticians may have overlooked.

IMO, the more theories about the data, the better. Yes, it means more work refuting bad theories. Yet, isn't that how science works? Everyone needs to feel comfortable to throw things out there. If it gets disproved, than you move on to another theory until the proof is found. (Or until Rove or an accomplice spill the beans about what happened last November.)

[autorank]

40. No offense meant to you. See below.

"There are first rate statisticians in the social sciences. They have to jump through hoops to get things done." I believe this. In fact, I think that the entire cause of child welfare and protection has advanced considerably because of researchers like Murray Strauss at UNH who tackle extremely difficult research projects with considerable skill including the application of statistics. These statistical products then give credence to the point of the research which impacts public policy! I am aware of the differences between clinical, cognitive, and social psychologists. I will gladly agree to rhetorical flourish but the response you are responding to has that sentence clarifying my respect, etc. etc. Nevertheless, sorry if I offended you. With regard to the overall issue, I'll paraphrase Nixon in the Stone movie, "The presidency won't protect us, Verve. We're beyond theory now." The case has been made by any legal standard (including that endorsed by our country in the Ukraine). It's time to move forward.

[Verve]

42. No offense taken!

Keep up your good work!

[autorank]

44. You keep up your good work too!

This being an anonymous forum, who knows, we may both benefit from each other's work.

:hi:

[Stevepol]

28. Remember if it's the central tabulators doing the deed, then the WPE

is going to be more or less irrelevant. That is, if it's the central tabulators that are giving the tilt toward Bush, which seems probable, then the particular district or precinct where the discrepancies show up would not matter, whether the particular precinct used paper, touchscreens, or scanners or lever or whatnot. So some of these statistical calisthenics are not going to lead anywhere. It's the big picture that is out of whack.

[autorank]

32. The central tabulators are the most elegant means of fraud!

I agree with you very strongly and this is why a full investigation is required. TIA and the other math heroes have alerted us to the chicanery through an examination of the numbers. The next link is the actual changing of votes. Maybe the Ohio special prosecutor will come up with something or someone will spill the beans.
:hi:

[Melissa G]

38. Exactly! n/t

[progressivejazz]

33. Please look up...

the logical fallacy called "ad hominem". Then decide whether your post fits it. I think it does.

[autorank]

35. I know the definition of that term. If you're in a union and someone

comes in from outside and starts trying to dictate union policy, is it an ad hominem attack to insist that the person stand down because they are not a member? That's one of the point's I'm making. It's our election, not anyone else's. One reason American's are so disliked world-wide stems from us going elsewhere (e.g., Iraq) and telling people, making people do what we think is right. Simply referencing the DU rules is another way of showing this is not an ad hominem attack: "Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office." If Febble fits this criteria, fine, but I don't think that is the case, hence my significant irritation. Look at any of my other posts on this forum and you will be hard pressed to find me attacking the person (rather than the idea).

My other point, of greater importance, is that the election fraud debate does not need to take three step back and one forward on a consistent basis. There is a panoply of evidence suggesting fraud. It's time to stop the debate and move on to action. Febble is a distraction.

[mgr]

36. Really? n/t

[Febble]

41. For your information

I am a member of the UK Labour Party and committed to progressive ideals which is why I care about your elections.

You may be right that I should not have poked my nose into your business. But reason your elections matter to those of us in the rest of the world is that the US president has enormous world-wide power, as you so rightly state. The least we in the rest of the world can ask of the most powerful democracy of the world is that it is truly democratic. The world has a similar right, IMO to check up on the elections we are holding tomorrow.

I was devastated by Kerry's loss, shocked at the evidence of voter suppression, and deeply disturbed by the blatant partisanship of those who provided unauditable voting machines to so much of America. I hoped, in fact, that the result would be overturned, as the degree of illegality in Ohio seemed overwhelming. I sent analyses of voter suppression data to John Conyers, to Cliff Arnebeck, and to the Kerry-Edwards Counsel in Ohio in an attempt to help with the legal case for a recount, and for an appeal against the recount.

There was no recount in Ohio. It was a sham.

However, I remain a scientist, and although my interest in the exit polls was simply because I hoped they were evidence of massive fraud, I weigh up evidence as dispassionately as I can, and the more I have come to understand about the polls, the less convinced I am that they hold the key to Kerry's loss of the election. Sadly, I think they have served to distract attention from the real and massive voter suppression in Ohio that may have cost Kerry the electoral vote, and whether it did so or not, is an afront to the Democratic communities in Cuyahoga and Franklin counties.

[autorank]

43. ...and yours as well.

I am a member of the UK Labour Party and committed to progressive ideals which is why I care about your elections. Good. Please be sure to vote for the Liberal Democrats as a vote for Labour is a vote for what we like to call the "war criminal bLiar" (DU invention). I harbor a special hostility for bLiar since he was immeasurably helpful to Bush in selling the war to the American people. Many here mistake a British accent like his with intelligence and eloquence. He was the essential element, not the poodle, who swung American popular opinion around. Please note, I don't go over to British blogs and make these statements.

You may be right that I should not have poked my nose into your business. Agreed But reason your elections matter to those of us in the rest of the world is that the US president has enormous world-wide power, as you so rightly state. The least we in the rest of the world can ask of the most powerful democracy of the world is that it is truly democratic. Remember when The Guardian gave Ohio email addresses to British citizens to help with their "education." It was a disaster and created a mini-backlash. We need to handle this problem from the stand point of action and there are many, TIA in particular, who are forging ahead daily proving again and again that the election was a fraud...from different perspectives. What we don't need is a distraction from that process, pecking around the margins.

I sent analyses of voter suppression data to John Conyers, to Cliff Arnebeck, and to the Kerry-Edwards Counsel in Ohio in an attempt to help with the legal case for a recount, and for an appeal against the recount. Was it a public or private communication to start? We can use any useful analysis that's out there. This is the core of my complaint about your actions here. You should have contacted TIA person to person, hashed this out, and determined what you could contribute. Instead your model and analysis has been used as fodder against TIA and others who do the grinding and thankless work of fighting the liars in government and the press. I understand the Washington Post wrote something about you. Why on earth do you think they did that story but not one in TIA or Freeman or the others? Because it's a back door to say, "hey, we covered it but the American analysts are bozo's." In DC it's called "plausible deny-ability." Helping is defined as collaboration not debate on a marginal issue rather than creating a diversion that takes time away from the main purpose and casts incorrect doubt on our statisticians.

There was no recount in Ohio. It was a sham. Agreed

However, I remain a scientist, and although my interest in the exit polls was simply because I hoped they were evidence of massive fraud, I weigh up evidence as dispassionately as I can, and the more I have come to understand about the polls, the less convinced I am that they hold the key to Kerry's loss of the election.TIA's responses answer these assertions in his favor. Sadly, I think they have served to distract attention from the real and massive voter suppression in Ohio that may have cost Kerry the electoral vote... Pardonez moi! There can be no claim at all that the TIA focus and that of others on RBR and exit polling is at all a distraction since there is no public attention from which to distract! There has been NO attention to election fraud PERIOD. None except by Conyers and Co., DU/blogs, a few brave university professors, and in the alternative media...NONE. I seriously doubt any positive effect from your public stance since your intrusion is a distraction to a movement that is very small and beleaguered with outside attacks, derision, and immense amounts of work.

Let's hope that GB has a pro-peace PM at the end of the day tomorrow and Bush is "resigned" very soon.

[autorank]

45. febble, Where are you?

I am awaiting your response to my message. I am particularly interested in you explaining the second to last paragraph where I comment on your reasons for discrediting Exit Polls and your stated concern about statistical work distracting from publicity on election fraud. Since there was no publicity at all to distract from, what on earth were you talking about?

Thanks for your reply.

[kster]

46. To febble and Mitofsky and

all the voting machine manufactures, some song lyrics for you http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/twistedsister/bighitsnastycuts.html#1

[autorank]

47. I'm speechless, you are way too smart! Perfect song!

Perfect band for that song.

kster:yourock:

:rofl: I'm literally laughing out loud after reading the lyrics. I remember that one.

[kster]

48. Why Thank you, hanging

with the people at the DU, must be rubbing off on me.