Don't shoot the messenger? - RedsZone.com - Cincinnati Reds Fans' Home for Baseball Discussion

RBA · 03-31-2005, 07:42 AM

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 959,0003 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

RBA · 03-31-2005, 07:53 AM

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.

CbusRed · 03-31-2005, 07:54 AM

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.

CbusRed · 03-31-2005, 07:55 AM

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

traderumor · 03-31-2005, 07:55 AM

RedFanAlways1966 · 03-31-2005, 07:59 AM

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!

RBA · 03-31-2005, 07:59 AM

Did someone say something? This ignore function is great.

CbusRed · 03-31-2005, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedBloodedAmerican

Did someone say something? This ignore function is great.

how did you assume something was said?

919191 · 03-31-2005, 08:12 AM

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.

RBA · 03-31-2005, 08:54 AM

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.

919191 · 03-31-2005, 08:57 AM

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

Red Heeler · 03-31-2005, 04:26 PM

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.

03-31-2005, 07:42 AM	#1
RBA CELEBRATION TIME Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: San Marcos, CA Posts: 13,952	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 959,0003 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

03-31-2005, 07:53 AM	#2
RBA CELEBRATION TIME Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: San Marcos, CA Posts: 13,952	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.

03-31-2005, 07:55 AM	#4
CbusRed Team Puffy Leadoff Hitter 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

03-31-2005, 07:55 AM	#5
traderumor Unsolicited Opinions Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Right Down Broadway Posts: 17,732	Re: Don't shoot the messenger? __________________ Can't win with 'em Can't win without 'em

03-31-2005, 07:59 AM	#6
RedFanAlways1966 For a Level Playing Field Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Oakwood, OH Posts: 11,297	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.

03-31-2005, 07:59 AM	#7
RBA CELEBRATION TIME Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: San Marcos, CA Posts: 13,952	Re: Don't shoot the messenger? Did someone say something? This ignore function is great.

03-31-2005, 08:57 AM	#11
919191 Member Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: the corner bar Posts: 3,751	Re: Don't shoot the messenger? Scary how a national election could be hijacked, or just plain in error. Either way.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode