Turn Off Ads?
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Don't shoot the messenger?

  1. #1
    CELEBRATION TIME RBA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    San Marcos, CA
    Posts
    13,988

    Don't shoot the messenger?

    Looks like a different opinion between the "experts". So someone else suggested in another thread, you can't just except certain experts who agree with you and automatically rule out a group of experts who don't support your case.

    http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalys...n-Mitofsky.pdf


    March 31, 2005
    Authors and Endorsers:

    Josh Mitteldorf
    , Ph.D. Temple University Statistics Department

    Kathy Dopp
    , MS mathematics, USCountVotes, President

    Steven F. Freeman
    , Ph.D. Visiting Scholar & Affiliated Faculty, Center for Organizational Dynamics,

    University of Pennsylvania

    Brian Joiner
    , Ph.D. Professor of Statistics and Director of Statistical Consulting (ret), University of

    Wisconsin

    Frank Stenger
    , Ph.D. Professor of Numerical Analysis, School of Computing, University of Utah

    Richard G. Sheehan
    , Ph.D. Professor, Department of Finance, University of Notre Dame

    Paul F. Velleman
    , Ph.D. Associate Professor, Department of Statistical Sciences, Cornell University

    Victoria Lovegren
    , Ph.D. Lecturer, Department of Mathematics, Case Western Reserve University

    Campbell B. Read
    , Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Department of Statistical Science, Southern Methodist

    University

    Jonathan Simon
    , J.D. Alliance for Democracy

    Ron Baiman,
    Ph.D. Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois at Chicago

    Bruce O'Dell
    , USCountVotes, Vice President
    Abstract
    What is the Main Cause of the Discrepancies between the Official Election Results and

    the Exit Polls?
    The exit pollster of record for the 2004 election was the Edison/Mitofsky
    1 consortium. Their

    national poll results projected a Kerry victory by 3.0%, whereas the official count had Bush

    winning by 2.5%.
    2 The probability that the national exit poll results would be as different as they

    were from the national popular vote by random chance is less than 1 in 959,000
    3 and cannot be

    attributed to chance.

    Edison/Mitofsky disavowed the results of their own poll, saying that the data cannot be construed

    as evidence that the official vote count was corrupted, and hypothesized that Kerry voters were

    more amenable to completing the poll questionnaire than Bush voters.

    However, Edison/Mitofsky's own exit poll data does not support their theory that a higher exit

    poll response rate by Kerry voters accounted for the discrepancies between the exit polls and the

    presidential election results. Using Edison/Mitofsky’s data tables we demonstrate that the

    “reluctant Bush responder” hypothesis is implausible because it is inconsistent with the

    combination of high response rates and high discrepancy rates among the precincts with the

    highest percentage for Bush.

    There are Three Primary Explanations for the Discrepancies:
    1.
    Statistical Sampling Error – or Chance

    We agree with Edison/Mitofsky that the first possible cause, random statistical sampling error,

    can be ruled out.
    2. Inaccurate Exit Polls
    This is the theory that Edison/Mitofsky put forth. They hypothesize that the reason the exit polls

    were so biased towards Kerry was because Bush voters were more reluctant to respond to exit

    polls than Kerry voters. Edison/Mitofsky did not come close to justifying this position, however,

    even though they have access to the raw, unadjusted, precinct-specific data set. The data that

    Edison/Mitofsky did offer in their report show how implausible this theory is.
    3. Inaccurate Election Results
    Edison/Mitofsky did not even consider this hypothesis, and thus made no effort to contradict it.

    Some of Edison/Mitofsky's exit poll data may be construed as affirmative evidence for

    inaccurate election results. We conclude that the hypothesis that the voters’ intent was not

    accurately recorded or counted cannot be ruled out and needs further investigation.

    more at link above


  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #2
    CELEBRATION TIME RBA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    San Marcos, CA
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Don't shoot the messenger?

    Please stay on topic. There is doubt in my mind. If you want to flame me for that, go right ahead. But I have to err on the official count. I really can't believe that one party would go to this certain extremes to steal an election.

  4. #3
    Team Puffy Leadoff Hitter CbusRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Bexley OH
    Posts
    1,252

    Re: Don't shoot the messenger?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedBloodedAmerican
    Please stay on topic. There is doubt in my mind. If you want to flame me for that, go right ahead. But I have to err on the official count. I really can't believe that one party would go to this certain extremes to steal an election.
    stop replying to your own posts.

  5. #4
    Team Puffy Leadoff Hitter CbusRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Bexley OH
    Posts
    1,252

    Re: Don't shoot the messenger?

    and also, stop telling us what to do! :thumbdown

  6. #5
    Unsolicited Opinions traderumor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Right Down Broadway
    Posts
    18,713

    Re: Don't shoot the messenger?

    Can't win with 'em

    Can't win without 'em

  7. #6
    For a Level Playing Field RedFanAlways1966's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Oakwood, OH
    Posts
    11,771

    Re: Don't shoot the messenger?

    Poll (definition): A survey of the public or of a sample of public opinion to acquire information

    * Polls do not ask everyone who votes. Everyone who votes may be asked, but do not have to answer. Therefore, polls will never be 100% accurate.
    * Seeing as there is no way they can be 100% accurate, a close election may cause the person they deem to be the winner to be wrong.

    I am the type that would tell a pollster, "No thanks." Voting is a private thing and I choose not to tell an unknown person any of this information. I vote on my way to work and I do not have the time to answer quetsions from a total stranger nor would I if I had time. NOYB... none of your business. If 10% of voters feel the same as me, then how accurate can a poll really be? Could 10% of this nation's voters have changed the election one way or another? I think so. A take the results of polls with a grain of salt.

    Soemthing that does not seem to need a bunch of stat-head college profs to determine IMO. But I hate to use logic!
    Small market fan... always hoping, but never expecting.

  8. #7
    CELEBRATION TIME RBA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    San Marcos, CA
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Don't shoot the messenger?

    Did someone say something? This ignore function is great.

  9. #8
    Team Puffy Leadoff Hitter CbusRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Bexley OH
    Posts
    1,252

    Re: Don't shoot the messenger?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedBloodedAmerican
    Did someone say something? This ignore function is great.
    how did you assume something was said?
    Last edited by macro; 04-01-2005 at 12:28 AM.

  10. #9
    Member 919191's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    the corner bar
    Posts
    3,793

    Re: Don't shoot the messenger?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedBloodedAmerican
    Please stay on topic. There is doubt in my mind. If you want to flame me for that, go right ahead. But I have to err on the official count. I really can't believe that one party would go to this certain extremes to steal an election.
    Not only do I think one party would, I think there are 2 that would.

  11. #10
    CELEBRATION TIME RBA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    San Marcos, CA
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Don't shoot the messenger?

    Quote Originally Posted by 919191
    Not only do I think one party would, I think there are 2 that would.
    Well, maybe. But the party as a whole wouldn't do it. Do you think that a small number of key people could throw an election. I guess with no uniform standards of voting machine, anything is possible.

  12. #11
    Member 919191's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    the corner bar
    Posts
    3,793

    Re: Don't shoot the messenger?

    Scary how a national election could be hijacked, or just plain in error. Either way.

  13. #12
    Member Red Heeler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Cookeville, TN
    Posts
    1,659

    Re: Don't shoot the messenger?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966
    Poll (definition): A survey of the public or of a sample of public opinion to acquire information

    * Polls do not ask everyone who votes. Everyone who votes may be asked, but do not have to answer. Therefore, polls will never be 100% accurate.
    * Seeing as there is no way they can be 100% accurate, a close election may cause the person they deem to be the winner to be wrong.

    Soemthing that does not seem to need a bunch of stat-head college profs to determine IMO. But I hate to use logic!
    Scientific testing is based on random sampling, not testing an entire population. Statistical analysis of a random sampling is not 100% accurate, but it is darn close when done properly.

    What this article points out is that the polls were more inaccurate than would be predicted by random chance. Of course, there are a lot of variables which could have caused the polls to be inaccurate.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25