The Republicans cheated again--and still lost!

[PerryLogan]

Check it out--the Republicans cheated in the 2006 election...and they still lost!

Reported Results Skewed Toward Republicans by 4 percent, 3 million votes

Election Defense Alliance, a national election integrity organization, issued an urgent call for further investigation into the 2006 election results and a moratorium on deployment of all electronic election equipment, after analysis of national exit polling data indicated a major undercount of Democratic votes and an overcount of Republican votes in U.S. House and Senate races across the country. "These findings raise urgent questions about the electoral machinery and vote counting systems used in the United States," according to Sally Castleman, National Chair of EDA. "This is a national indictment of the vote counting process in the United States!"http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/major_miscount_of_vote_in_2006_election

[The Painter]

That Exit Poll showed Democratic House candidates had out-polled Republicans by 55.0 percent to 43.5 percent – an 11.5 percent margin – in the total vote for the U.S. House, sometimes referred to as the “generic” vote.
By contrast, the election results showed Democratic House candidates won 52.7 percent of the vote to 45.1 percent for Republican candidates, producing a 7.6 percent margin in the total vote for the U.S. House — 3.9 percent less than the Edison-Mitofsky poll. This discrepancy, far beyond the poll’s +/- 1 percent margin of error, has less than a one in 10,000 likelihood of occurring by chance.


Yeah, we all know how reliable exit polls are. :rolleyes:

[Dr Adequate]

Talking to exit pollsters is not compulsory. Perhaps people are more reluctant to admit to voting Republican than Democrat. It is fairly easy to believe that people who, in spite of the last six years, still voted Republican, might by now be somewhat less convinced that they were doing the right thing that the Democrat voters, and less willing to confess it to a stranger.

The poll's "margin of error" is calculated only from the sample size, it can't take into account the possibility of a self-biasing sample.

[Cylinder]

It is fairly easy to believe that people who, in spite of the last six years, still voted Republican, might by now be somewhat less convinced that they were doing the right thing that the Democrat voters, and less willing to confess it to a stranger.

Of course, that would be easy to measure by the size of the margin between the most recent national elections. You guys do know how poll workers are hired, right?

[Cleon]

Of course, that would be easy to measure by the size of the margin between the most recent national elections. You guys do know how poll workers are hired, right?

They look for fired baggers from the local grocery store.

[Dr Adequate]

Of course, that would be easy to measure by the size of the margin between the most recent national elections. No, it would be easy to measure by the size of the margin between how people voted and what they told exit pollsters, am I missing something?

You guys do know how poll workers are hired, right? They get interviewed by some guy from the HR department of the polling company?

Is this relevant?

[WildCat]

The Republicans cheated again--and still lost! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2241605#post2241605)
Again? Was the first time drawn from the same laughably ridiculous methodology as the one your posting now?

AFAIK, the only actual verified vote fraud in 2004 was by Democrats in Wiosconsin, who slashed the tires of busses that were to be used by Republicans to take voters to the polls.

[Skeptic]

So the "evidence" of Republican cheating here is the same "evidence" there was of Republicans cheating in 2004--namely, disagreement between exit polls and real results.

Of course, it's significantly more likely that--instead of this being some sort of massive Republican conspiracy (and an inefficient one at that)--the exit polls are simply inaccurate and tend to be skewed towards the democrats.

[Skeptic]

AFAIK, the only actual verified vote fraud in 2004 was by Democrats in Wiosconsin, who slashed the tires of busses that were to be used by Republicans to take voters to the polls.

Yes, but it was for A GOOD CAUSE, so it wasn't REALLY election fraud.

[SezMe]

Yeah, we all know how reliable exit polls are. :rolleyes:
Actually, I think one of the major tools that international vote monitoring teams use to ascertain whether an election outcome is valid is to compare exit polls with election results. But I have not been able to verify this tonight with a quick google.

That said, your comment suggests that exit polls are unreliable. Got evidence? Not in a specific race or election, but that exit polls are not, ingeneral, a valid test of the validity of election results?

[Cylinder]

That said, your comment suggests that exit polls are unreliable. Got evidence? Not in a specific race or election, but that exit polls are not, ingeneral, a valid test of the validity of election results?

US exit polls have consistently over-stated Democratic votes in every national election since 1990 (http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/have_the_exit_p.html).

[SezMe]

At first scan, that looks like a good cite. Gimme time to read it and come back.

[Cylinder]

Just to be clear, I'm not claiming a grand conspiracy here (and you did not accuse me of that claim) - just a simple observation bias.

[Dr Adequate]

Just to be clear, I'm not claiming a grand conspiracy here (and you did not accuse me of that claim) - just a simple observation bias. But your link does not support claims of "observation bias", but rather my explanation: the "self-biasing sample":

"The most likely source of this error is differential non-response rates for Democrats and Republicans..."

It gives no evidence --- nor even mere opinion --- that the discrepancy is caused by the pollsters.

---

The effect also exists in the UK, BTW. People are (comparatively) reluctant to admit that they voted Conservative.

[Dr Adequate]

Yes, but it was for A GOOD CAUSE, so it wasn't REALLY election fraud. You appear to be channelling the voices in your head again.

At least they've momentarily shut up about Jews.

[Cylinder]

But your link does not support claims of "observation bias", but rather my explanation: the "self-biasing sample"

"The most likely source of this error is differential non-response rates for Democrats and Republicans..."

It's been a while since I took Stats, but I think that would be the correct term. It's close to selection bias as well, but I think the former fits better here since the pool from which the sample is taken is representative. Mitofsky et al claim that Republicans were less likely to be sampled than Democrats - that's observation bias. At any rate - in case I've gotten my nomenclature fubbed - I meant to say it was sampled in a way that affected the outcome.

It gives no evidence --- nor even mere opinion --- that the discrepancy is caused by the pollsters.

---

The effect also exists in the UK, BTW. People are (comparatively) reluctant to admit that they voted Conservative.

"Reluctant to admit" is a qualitative judgment and is really not the conclusion. Republicans were less likely to have been included in the sample. The link was provided as evidence that US exit polls are not historically accurate and that inaccuracy has been skewed to the Democrats for nearly two decades. Once again, I'm not claiming any conspiracy on the part of the pollsters - I am suggesting (with evidence from the polling organization itself) that the skew is probably in the design. For instance, in their 2004 after action, NEP found that 35% of poll workers were between 18-24 - a demographic that leans heavily Democratic (54-45 in 2004). One of their recommendations was to change recruiting in a way that reduces the number of students and young adults.

[Dr Adequate]

"Reluctant to admit" is a qualitative judgment and is really not the conclusion. Er ... yes it is.

A smaller proportion of Republicans reveal their voting preference than Democrats. This is what the figures show, and what the article you cited actually said.

[Rob Lister]

Perhaps the demographics of republicans suggests not that they are reluctant to admit, but rather are reluctant to be engaged.

[Cylinder]

Perhaps the demographics of republicans suggests not that they are reluctant to admit, but rather are reluctant to be engaged.

..or that they were as likely as Democratic voters to speak to someone in their own demographic, but the pool of poll workers was skewed to a demographic that votes Democrat. I'm not saying that's the only explanation (I suspect a variety of factors in play) but rather that it is incorrect to ascribe an untested motive.

In other words, a non-response isn't someone who shows reluctance to admit their voting habits - it also includes all chosen persons (they chose every Nth person to exit the exclusion zone) with whom the poll worker did not or could not make contact.

[Rob Lister]

Just as possible. I usually vote conservative and avoid engaging anyone on my way to or from the booth.

I might ask, how do the telephone pre-exit polls compare to the exit-polls? To the actual election? IIRC, they consistently match better, but I don't pay much attention.

[Skeptic]

But your link does not support claims of "observation bias", but rather my explanation: the "self-biasing sample":

"The most likely source of this error is differential non-response rates for Democrats and Republicans..."

It gives no evidence --- nor even mere opinion --- that the discrepancy is caused by the pollsters.

"Observation bias" doesn't mean the observers are biased. It simply means that sometimes, the very act of making an observation biases the results. The pollsters caused the discrepancy simply because they asked people who they voted for, which is a question that democrats are more likely to answer.

[Darth Rotor]

Er ... yes it is.

A smaller proportion of Republicans reveal their voting preference than Democrats. This is what the figures show, and what the article you cited actually said.

There are a lot of people in America who vote, but who are not registered as Republicans or Democrats. (People like me) So categorizing people as voters by "Republican" and "Democrat" is not as accurate as categorizing the folks being voted for in those terms.

Kinky For Governor in 2006
Ended with Friedman on a ranch in the styx
Kinky for President in 2008
For VP Willie Nelson -- now that would be great.

DR

[senorpogo]

So the Republicans rigged the election, but were only smart enough to give themselves enough votes to both lose the election and get caught cheating? :confused:

[Dr Adequate]

There are a lot of people in America who vote, but who are not registered as Republicans or Democrats. (People like me) So categorizing people as voters by "Republican" and "Democrat" is not as accurate as categorizing the folks being voted for in those terms. For the purposes of this discussion, which is about the 2006 elections, could we agree that by "Republican voter" I mean someone who voted Republican in the 2006 elections?

Or do I have to come over there?

[Dr Adequate]

..or that they were as likely as Democratic voters to speak to someone in their own demographic, but the pool of poll workers was skewed to a demographic that votes Democrat. A good point.

I'm not saying that's the only explanation (I suspect a variety of factors in play) but rather that it is incorrect to ascribe an untested motive. Thus far, you have speculated about their motives, and I have not.

[Dr Adequate]

"Observation bias" doesn't mean the observers are biased.No? OK.

Personally, I think it is useful to use two different phrases for two completely different things, but have it your way.

However, even if we agree to make a gray soggy amorphous mess of the English language, I was talking about the pollees, while Cylinder was talking about the pollsters.

He may well have a point, but we are in fact referring to different phenomena.

[Skeptic]

No? OK.

No, it doesn't. Obervation bias simply means that the observed mean (or variance, etc.) might sometimes be different than the actual mean (or variance, etc.) because the sampling from the population isn't random (in a statistically well-defined sense of "random").

There's nothing in this definition, either in theory or in practice, that implies that the reason the sampling is not random is because the observers are psychologically biased toward some result. Observation bias can occur (and often does) even when the "observer" is an inanimate object, such as a camera.

However, even if we agree to make a gray soggy amorphous mess of the English language,

We're not. "Observation bias" is a technical term which has a well-defined meaning, which I outlined above.

[Dr Adequate]

Encore.

Personally, I think it is useful to use two different phrases for two completely different things, but have it your way.

However, even if we agree to make a gray soggy amorphous mess of the English language, I was talking about the pollees, while Cylinder was talking about the pollsters.

He may well have a point, but we are in fact referring to different phenomena.

You are right in saying that the term "observation bias", as a technical term, covers both what he was talking about, and what I was talking about, but they are still two different things.

[Ziggurat]

Can't we just agree that the original poster is an idiot who doesn't even have the guts to come back and defend his post or concede his mistake?

I'm trying to be a uniter here ;)

[Dr Adequate]

It would be a bit of a broad brush to call PL an idiot, but yes, the OP is idiotic, I think we all agree.

Let's all ****!

---

What, none of you is female?

Okay, you all make love and I'll just sit here and, er, actually, now I think about it, not watch.

I have a book and a sandwich. I'm happy.

[Darth Rotor]

For the purposes of this discussion, which is about the 2006 elections, could we agree that by "Republican voter" I mean someone who voted Republican in the 2006 elections?

Or do I have to come over there?
You could, if you could show me that voters confine their vote by party affiliation. Come on over in any case, I'll cook you up some chili, get out beer (Shiner Bock) and regale you with stories of LBJ and dead men's ballot boxes. :)

I see your point, but a lot of us vote the person, not the party.

I voted for a Democratic judge in one district, two Democrats for county jobs (I know one personally) Kinky for governor (Independent), against Hutchinson for Senator(R) (so for a Libertarian), a Republican for state rep, and Republican for my district rep to US Congress. (He lost, his last name isn't Hispanic enough to win.)

So, what am I, Doc: Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Texan? :D

DR

[brodski]

You could, if you could show me taht voters confince their vote by party. I see your point, but a lot of us vote the person, not the party.

which is a major difference between the US and the UK, here people almost exclusively vote party and not personality, which may be why Dr A has chosen to couch things in the terms he has.

[Cleon]

Perhaps the demographics of republicans suggests not that they are reluctant to admit, but rather are reluctant to be engaged.

And you'd think with all the talking points about how important the family is, "defending" marriage against teh gay, etc., you'd think Republicans would be more interested in getting engaged.

[Bill Thompson]

As for the first time they "cheated": a supreme court decision is not cheating.

[Dr Adequate]

You could, if you could show me that voters confine their vote by party affiliation. Come on over in any case, I'll cook you up some chili, get out beer (Shiner Bock) and regale you with stories of LBJ and dead men's ballot boxes. :)

I see your point, but a lot of us vote the person, not the party.

I voted for a Democratic judge in one district, two Democrats for county jobs (I know one personally) Kinky for governor (Independent), against Hutchinson for Senator(R) (so for a Libertarian), a Republican for state rep, and Republican for my district rep to US Congress. (He lost, his last name isn't Hispanic enough to win.)

So, what am I, Doc: Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Texan? :D

DR Okay. For the purposes of this discussion, could we agree that by "Republican voter", we mean someone who voted Republican in the 2006 Congressional elections? Since that is what we're talking about?

Or do I have to come over there with a huge enormous gun and a squadron of killer paragliding weasels?

You know what I mean, dammit. I mean what the exit pollsters meant when they asked the question discussed in the OP. This is what we're talking about.

Oh, WTF. Unleash the paragliding weasels!

[ref]

So the Republicans rigged the election, but were only smart enough to give themselves enough votes to both lose the election and get caught cheating? :confused:

Here is a hypothesis what could explain that claim.

It would be even more obvious rigging to give a landslide win for the Republicans, given all the polls favoring the Democrats before the election.

The more convinient way to do it without getting caught would be exactly that. Rig the election by the minimum expected amount of votes needed to win, not to cause some very strange surprise result that contradicts all the polls.

What I'm saying is, 'Hacking Democracy' clearly showed that the voting machines and their results can easily be hacked by one single person. Which of course gives any malicious vote counter in the right place of hierarchy all the power in the world. So in theory it can be done. There are machines that are made by different manufacturers, so if the hacking is done with only one manufacturers' machines, you would have to predict the results from the other manufacturers' vote machines to give you the amount of rigged votes needed to win. Bad prediction, bad result. You lose the election.

I guess that is what is meant, when talking about the rigging of 2006 :)

[Skeptic]

Here is a hypothesis what could explain that claim.

It would be even more obvious rigging to give a landslide win for the Republicans, given all the polls favoring the Democrats before the election.

The more convinient way to do it without getting caught would be exactly that. Rig the election by the minimum expected amount of votes needed to win, not to cause some very strange surprise result that contradicts all the polls.

So if the Republicans win, they fact that the elections' results contradict the polls prove they cheated. But if the Republicans lose, the fact that the election results did not contradict the polls merely prove the Republican cheated in a secret, easy-to-hide manner.

In other words, regardless of who wins, viola! : we have "proof" Republicans cheated.

[ref]

So if the Republicans win, they fact that the elections' results contradict the polls prove they cheated. But if the Republicans lose, the fact that the election results did not contradict the polls merely prove the Republican cheated in a secret, easy-to-hide manner.

In other words, regardless of who wins, viola! : we have "proof" Republicans cheated.

It was a hypothesis. If you would do something like that you would probably be doing it that way.

The given results did not contradict the polls before elections. But some argue the exit polls still contradicted the given results.

There is no proof wrongdoing. Only those exit polls some are talking about.