Controlled for demographics, the voting anomaly continues to be present

[solarbird]

People at ScienceBlog and a variety of other statistics-literate sources have been doing demographic analysis on the unpredicted/unpolled Clinton/Obama vote swings in machine-counted vs. hand-counted balloting in Vermont. Controlling for a large number of demographic variables - including such outliers as geography - the variation against polling and against hand-counted ballot remains pretty constant. The calculated statistical probability of this being a random effect is p<.001, which is to say, around 1000:1 against. Further analysis is ongoing.

I would like to see similar analysis applied to the Romney surge, which appears to be comparable at the top level.

ETA: I was in a hurry before and forgot to credit cafiorello for the link. Thanks!

Comments

[risu.livejournal.com]

What's *important* is that Diebold machines *not* be giving different results than hand-counting in the bloody *Democratic primary*. Or, if they do, that that *be* looked into, as a matter of course. What's important is that there be some part of the political process where procedural integrity and trustable outcomes is there. And I'd been kind of stupid to think that it *would* be, in the Democratic primary, but, you know, I had.

What's important is that it be responsible to assume a legitimate result---

*Not* because questioning the result is bad, but because the methodology *supports* that assumption, *supports* being held to a high standard.

What's important is not the legitimacy of adherence to some indeterminable "truth on the ground," but that the *system be structurally legitimate* and *practiced with integrity*.

You can't ever defend perfectly against fraud. You can't ever protect yourself against that deep and murky conspiracy that is indistinguishable from unknown facts.

But you can do things proper.

And it makes me want to *cry* to think that this isn't.

I kept wanting to shout, when Banner was around and talking about how the people in Guantanamo were terrorists,

"No. If you don't hold a trial, you *must* assume that they are *innocent*. If you don't accept 'their captors refuse to try them fairly' as a *proof of their innocence,* you invalidate the basis of the law."

But I didn't, because he is Banner.

It's the same thing. If we don't have *reason* to trust in these machines, then . . .

Right now the primaries, along with all the rest of the system, are corrupt, befouled, *until* the recount. The damage is *here*, not speculative. It *cannot* be the responsible thing to do to assume that things are fine, because that assumption facilitates things *not* being fine. The responsible thing *has* to be vigilance.

*This discrepancy*, the *fact that it is out there and not explained*, has to be seen as an inherently bad thing that must be addressed. Ideally by an investigation that finds that all is okay.

And it terrified me, to swing around the blogs later that night, looking for reactions, looking for insight into what was going on, to only find some guy on DailyKos using argument from authority to say: "Because I am smart and cool and know what I'm doing, these allegations are ridiculous nonsense. I don't even need to prove it."

To find that echoed so many places. Not just from Hillary supporters, where at least I could understand it, but from people who were worried about the cost to New Hampshire and the way that a recount might take food from the plates of starving children there. (And I am certain there *are* starving children in New Hampshire, and if New Hampshire winds up deciding not to help them because it spent all this money on a primary recount, then I'll feel pretty bad, but Jesus God, if the state isn't going to pay for procedural validity of elections, then what the hell is it doing in the business of stating things?)

And when Kucinich stepped forward---

Well, one step back towards being able to stay in this country, as long as there are philanthropic multimillionaire primary candidates with a concern about election integrity and no hope of winning, I guess.

May all the bright and good powers of the universe bless him, and I hope that nothing bad turns up.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

I think every election should be, at the very least, audited against a paper trail. Ideally, every election should be hand-counted for the official results. That's how it's done in most Canadian elections and in the UK, and those countries are pretty much the gold standard for proper election procedure.

Like you, I admire Kucinich's willingness to stand up for principles. I might end up voting for him, even though I'm currently an Edwards supporter (mainly because he's the guy--to use your example--who's actually thinking about children starving in New Hampshire, who might actually have a chance of winning).