Oh -- and you can read more about the "dead battery" here.
The same Triad tech, I am told, was caught stealing tires from a Dodge Ram in the parking lot. When asked to explain what he was up to, he muttered something about a "burnt-out headlamp."
Well, that's what I heard.
John Conyers, incidentally, has brought the matter to the attention of the FBI.
Truthout also has a very good personal report from the Conyers hearing.
Exit polls. Many of you have been looking for a one-stop-shopping resource for exit poll information. This page tries to give you just that, although I would prefer polling data from throughout the day. Most of these numbers were apparently conformed to the incoming "actuals." Even so, note how the declare result for Kerry was less than the expected in every case (except Wisconsin, where the prediction was dead on). I've been saying it since November 3: Error should skew in both directions, or something funny is up.
Sailing, sailing the high hypocri-seas... Check out this un-freaking-believable quote from Congressman Feeney -- yes, the very same Feeney fingered by Clinton Curtis as the "onlie begettor" of a vote theft program. This comes from yesterday's The Hill:
Some Republicans are itching for conflict.Words fail.
"We have people in our conference who want to go after Nancy Pelosi, who has violated federal election law and has been fined," said Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.), who was a critic of the ethics committee and a strong defender of DeLay during the ethics controversy that embroiled him before the election.
"To the extent that she's violated federal law, she's brought into question the integrity of the House," Feeney said. "We have members who would love to see us retaliate by going after Nancy Pelosi." Feeney declined to name members who want to target Pelosi.
No match. In both Fairfield County and Monroe county, the 3% hand recounts (it is reported) did not match the machine recounts. The problem, we are told, was a faulty machine. In Fairfield county, the board suspended the count in order to wait for new machinery. This, in order to avoid the state-law mandated hand recount for the whole county. (When you get to the link, scroll down to post 55.)
I say impound the machines -- all of them -- and have experts pore through every wire and every line of the software. And by god, why NOT hand recount everything that can possibly be counted in the entire damned state?
Blast the media. Usually, I'm cynical about email blasters, petitions, and similar devices. But let's face it -- the mainstream media has become more respectful in recent days. Maybe this email blaster has had something to do with the improvement.
5 comments:
Sorry, but you cannot possibly know if "the declare result for Kerry was less than the expected in every case" unless you know what the geographic sample design was. And we don't, because we haven't been told. A measured 2% lead for Kerry in the sample areas which were chosen could well indicate a victory for Bush. In the same way, if you discover that among your acquaintances, 30% voted for Bush, while you had been expecting 25%, you may well think a Bush win is indicated, even though, in your sample, Kerry was miles in the lead.
You rightly say that "error should skew in both directions", and it very well might. We don't know yet. The fact that most states' exit polls show a lead for Kerry is probably because the company used the same sampling methods in each state. Their remit was to provide a rough prediction, and to discover voter issues, and they had to do this inside a budget. To do this, they probably took a sample of predominantly urban precincts, so as to be able to cover the greatest number of voters with the fewest number of people. They can't afford to have a lot of workers spread out over the countryside twiddling their thumbs.
These urban areas would probably have a greater number of democratic voters. This would show up in the raw data, and a prediction would be made based on whether the observed Democrat lead is greater or less than some expected figure. There would be a much greater margin of error than would be the case with random sampling, but it probably suits the commercial purposes. This is the way that most polling companies work.
Remember that the aim of this exit poll was NOT to verify the election. If it were, it would be designed differently, and would have a smaller margin of error.
.
.
.
<<< UPDATE >>>
<<<< Newsclip Autopsy >>>>
FOCUS: VOTERGATE
TRUTH LEFT OUT: Ohio Hand Recount Suspended After Exposing Tabulator Malfunction
2 witnesses from the Ohio Green Party have given further detailed accounts about the tabulator malfunction in Fairfield County. Newsclip Autopsy has a merged version of the two reports. The MMLP Clock is on!
http://newsclipautopsy.blogspot.com/2004/12/truth-left-out-ohio-hand-recount.html
.
.
.
All Dr Freeman has proved is that IF the sampling procedures were random, then the results are highly unlikely to have occurred without manipulation. This sort of thing could be proved by a first year Statistics student.
However, his assumptions of randomness are completely unjustified. That is, the most likely explanation right now for the exit poll figures which skew towards Kerry is that the samples in each state skewed towards Kerry, because they chose urban areas as they are cheaper to survey than country areas.
And why do you believe that Dr Freeman has any skill in this? He has no background in statistics. Show me a statistician with a reputation to defend, and I'll take notice.
(For the record, you are right: the skew towards Kerry has nothing to do with the margin of error. Of course it hasn't. Who on earth said it was? The margin of error only tells us if we can legitimately make a prediction from the figures we have)
Aw, isn't it cute? The right-wing propagandists are using Cannonfire -- small, unassuming Cannonfire -- as a venue to try out their attacks. Sort of the way a well-known band might try out a few originals in a local bar, just to see how they go over.
In reply to 'Stop George'. You ask for a qualified statistician to refute Dr Cornwell's stuff.
Well, when we have all the information from the exit poll company as regards the sample design, I will be perfectly happy to join the queue to refute him. However, I would imagine that his paper will be quietly withdrawn, having suited his purposes.
Until that time, it is up to him to justify the assumptions he has made in the absence of any information. Until he does that, his paper is just nonsense, and really not worth anybody's time. He is just stringing you along.
As for your assertions as to the margin of error, I repeat that this has nothing to do with the apparent skewing towards Kerry in the original exit polls. That is due to the particular attributes of the precincts which they decided to measure. It does indeed have a bearing on the predictive strength of the discovered figures, but that is not what I am discussing. Indeed, we could not calculate any margin of error until we know the design of the research.
I have a feeling that you do not know what the margin of error means.
Post a Comment