Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Please be patient with the slower amongst us...

I read the above two charts as saying in chart 1) that clinton's lead is positively correlated both with ward size and count method (machine).

Flipping count method virtually eliminates any correlation between Clinton's lead and ward size.

Ergo - Clinton's lead is actually correlated with ward size, but because that also correlates with count method, it has been confused with the correlation with count method.

Therefore there is no count method fraud.

But why is there such a strong correlation between ward size and clintons's lead?  Can it be explained by demographics, or is it easier to stuff (and hide the stuffing) of a ballot box with extra ballots in a larger ward?

However, for the correlation between Clinton's lead and count size to be so "smooth", the amount of stuffing would also have to be proportionate to ward size.  Do we really think that a fraudster would be that resourceful and clever?

I vote demographic factors...as the more likely explanation, but which ones?  Gender, education, income, race, class.....???  Do we have enough demographic data to come to a conclusion?

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Jan 17th, 2008 at 08:09:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It appears just about every democraphic factor that has been tried, including the size of the precinct both as a continuous variable and as a large vs. small categorical variable, has failed to remove the Diebold effect. I am not sure gender has been tried, though. I am also not sure that the regressions involving both size and method have been carried out properly.
However, for the correlation between Clinton's lead and count size to be so "smooth", the amount of stuffing would also have to be proportionate to ward size.  Do we really think that a fraudster would be that resourceful and clever?
No, in this case the suggestion is a simple reversal of the vote counts between Clinton and Obama.

Flipping count method virtually eliminates any correlation between Clinton's lead and ward size.

Ergo - Clinton's lead is actually correlated with ward size, but because that also correlates with count method, it has been confused with the correlation with count method.

No, this is not "flipping count method". It is flipping the sign of the lead between Clinton and Obama for one of the two methods.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jan 17th, 2008 at 11:19:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

VDL: You Will Be Inoculated!

by Oui - Jun 11
2 comments

The Sciences of the Artificial

by Cat - May 30
19 comments

City Agriculture - May 23, 2024

by gmoke - May 23
3 comments

Occasional Series