Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

That vote percentage swap is crazy! It's certainly indicative that something is amiss, although I'm not sure how indicative it is of fraud, simply because it's hard to imagine why a fraudster would do it that way. (Much more sensible to simply swap the individual votes in the Diebold districts, not bothering to calculate percentages or create a suspicious coincidence.) But what other explanation is there?

I get most of my news analysis from Counterpunch (not because it's the best but because I'm not motivated to spend the time looking for something better); here are a couple of interesting articles from there:

  • an article by David Lindorff on the possibility of fraud; interesting points:
    • even some people who doubt fraud in this case would like vote counting to be audited;
    • dark-horse candidates are important, since the direct victims of fraud don't want to look like sore losers by demanding a recount;
    • on the basis of demographics, you would expect Hillary to do worse and Obama to do better in the Diebold-counted precincts.
  • an article by Bob Wing and Marqueece Harris-Dawson on the Bradley effect; this is (IMO) the obvious alternative explanation that one would want to test against as a null hypothesis (although obviously one should also try whatever other explanations are seriously proposed).
by Toby Bartels (toby+8190809933@ugcs.caltech.edu) on Sun Jan 13th, 2008 at 12:23:21 AM EST

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series