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

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:

Display:

Occasional Series