TruthIsAll in PLAIN ENGLISH. Debunking the Naysayers

[autorank]

TruthIsAll:

Law of Large Numbers & Central Limit Theorem:
A Polling Simulation Debunks the Naysayers

Only AFTER you read the full post, should you
link to the Excel Polling simulation model (below).

This post should be read by the math-challenged.
Those who say: "Math was my worst subject in high school".
They should start with the coin-flip example.

It's also for those who have taken basic algebra and/or
statistics but want to know about basic polling mathematics.

It's for those who love to use Excel or some other spread sheet
for developing quantitative models.

It's for all those who have questioned the results of election:
Robert Koehler, Brad from BradBlog, John Conyers, Barbara Boxer,
Mark Miller, Fitrakis, Wasserman, USCV, Freeman, Baiman, Simon,
Scoop's althecat, Krugman, Keith Olberman, etc.

It's for all the bloggers on the Net.

Finally, it's for those various discussion groups who are
not convinced that Kerry won the election, but are willing
to consider the possibility, given the facts.

It's time to learn the basics.
And cut through the fog that's been created.
Stick with it.

Even if you don't run the model,
the discussion is instructive.
Get what you can out of it.
Don't let the math scare you.
It's not that complicated.
________________________________________________________________________

First consider an experiment:
Flip a coin 10 times.
Calculate the percentage of heads.
Write it down.

Keep going. Make it 30 flips.
Calculate the new total percentage.
Write it down.

Keep increasing the number of flips...
Go to 50. Then to 80.
Keep Writing the percentages down.
All the way to 100.
That's our coin flip sample-size.

When you're all done, check the percentages.
Are they converging to a theoretical mean (average),
and getting closer and closer to 50%?

That's the Law of Large Numbers.

The manual coin-flip is easily simulated in Excel.
Likewise, in the polling simulation which follows,
we analyze the results of various polling samples.

_____________________________________________________

Naysayers have a problem with polls.
Regardless of how many polls or how large the samples,
the results are never good enough for them.
They prefer to cite their two famous, unproven hypotheticals:
Bush non-responders (rBr) and Gore voter memory lapse ("false recall").

How do pollsters handle non-responders?
Simple.
They just... increase the sample-size!

How do pollster's handle false recall?
Simple.
They know that in a large sample, forgetfulness on the part
of Gore and Bush voters... will even out!

There's no evidence that Gore voters forget any more than Bush voters.
On the contrary.
If someone you knew robbed you in broad daylight,
would you forget who it was four years later?

They claim that polling bias favored Kerry
in both the pre-election AND exit polls.
They offer no evidence to back up these claims.
On the contrary, analysis of exit poll data shows a pro-Bush bias.

They maintain that the polls are not random-samples.
They ignore the fact that each poll has a Margin of Error (MoE).
Are we to ignore professional pollster's MoEs?
Why would pollsters include an MoE if the polls
were not designed to obtain effective random-samples?
To achieve this, pollsters use standard methodologies:
cluster and stratified sampling, etc.

This model demonstrates the Law of Large Numbers (LLN).
LLN is the basis and bedrock of statistical analysis.
The model illustrates LLN through a simulation of polling samples.

In a statistical context, LLN states that the mean (average) of a
random sample from a large population is likely to be close
to the mean of the whole population.

Start of math jargon alert...
In probability theory, several laws of large numbers say that
the mean (average) of a sequence of random variables with
a common distribution converges to their common mean as
the size of the sequence approaches infinity.

The Central Limit Theorem (CLT) is another famous result:
The sample means (averages) of an independent series of
random samples (i.e. polls) taken from the same population
will tend to be normally distributed (follow the bell curve)
as the number of samples increase. This is the case for all
practical statistical distributions.
End of math jargon alert....

It's really not all that complicated.
Naysayers never consider LLN or CLT.
They would have you believe that professional pollsters are
incapable of creating surveys (which are effectively random
samples) through systematic, clustered or stratified sampling.

LLM and CLT say nothing about bias.
Furthermore, statistical studies indicate that there is no
discernible correlation between non-response rates and survey results.
__________________________________________________________________

Random number simulation is the best way to illustrate LLN:
These are the steps:
1) Assume a true 2-party vote percentage for Kerry (i.e. 51.5%).
2) Simulate a series of 8 polls of varying sample size.
3) Calculate the sample mean vote share and win probability for each poll.
4) Confirm LLN by noting that as the poll sample size increases,
the sample mean (average) converges to the population mean ("true" vote).
5) Sum all poll samples to derive a "Combined Mean of Sample Means".

________________________________________________________________

Only AFTER reading the full post should you link to the simulation.
You need Excel. Wait one minute for the download.

http://us.share.geocities.com/electionmodel/MonteCarloPollingSimulation.xls

First look at the tables and corresponding graphs.
Press F9 again to see the numbers and graphs change.
They should NOT change significantly.

The graphs illustrate polling simulation output for:
Kerry's 2-party vote (true population mean): 51.50%
Exit Poll Cluster effect (zero for pre-election):30%
(the exit poll "cluster effect" represents an incremental adjustment
to the theoretical margin of error in order to account for physical
clustering of like-minded individuals at the polling site)

Now change Kerry's 2-party vote share from 51.5% to 50.5%.
Press F9 to run the simulation.
This time Kerry's polling vote shares and corresponding win probabilities
(and 97.5% confidence minimal vote shares) should reflect the
change in his "true vote" and DECLINE accordingly.

Note the increasing sequence of polling sample size,
from pre-election state (600) and national (1000) polls
to the state and National exit polls:
Ohio (1963), Florida (2846) and the National (13047).

Here is the National Exit Poll Timeline:
(respondents; update; vote share)
8349 ; 3:59pm ; Kerry led 51-48
11027 ; 7:33pm ; Kerry led 51-48
13047 ; 12:22am ; Kerry led 51-48
13660 ; 1:25pm ; Bush led 51-48 (final matched to the vote)

Popular vote win probabilities are an essential result of the simulation.
As one would expect, the simulation probabilities closely match those
returned by plugging vote share and Margin of Error (MoE) parameters
into the Excel Normal Distribution function.

The simulation shows that, given Kerry's 3% lead in the 2-party vote
(12:22am National Exit Poll), his popular vote win probability
was nearly 100% (assuming a 30% exit poll cluster effect).

Just like in the above coin-flipping example,
the Law of Large Numbers takes effect as poll sample-size increases.
That's why the Exit Pollsters designed the National Exit Poll
to survey at least 13000 respondents.

Assuming the same exit poll 30% cluster effect:
For a 2% lead, the win probability is 97.5%.
For a 1% lead, it's 81%.
For a 50/50 tie, it's 50%.

Confirm the probabilities yourself using two methods:
1) executing the simulation
2) calculating the Excel Normal Distribution function
Prob = NORMDIST(PollPct, 0.50, MoE/1.96, true)





______________________________________________________________________

[Cocoa]

1. as a math major myself

let me share the most important mathematical law of all: if a statistical argument begins with calling calling people names, the argument is always false.

This law is called "common sense."

[EFerrari]

5. Alternately known as, "The Law of the Thin Skinned Reader" n/t

[Cocoa]

9. seriously, there is a relevant point to be made

that statistics are very easily abused to make bogus arguemnts, and that is one of the first things you learn in any beginning statistics course, or in any statistics unit in a natural science course or especially in a social science course.

Unscrupulous people can take advantage of people's ignorance and fear of math and sell them a crappy argument.

[EFerrari]

11. Sure. And TIA isn't doing that.

In a funny way, we really do have to go counter intuitive, to counter "common sense" with the reality of this situation. As you have seen, it hasn't been easy.

"Nobody said it would be easy." Ceremony, Leslie Marmon Silko

[Cocoa]

12. this whole thing is based on a bogus premise

the argument rests on the dishonest assumption that people that reject the exit poll argument are rejecting the entire concept of polling, and so a theoretical proof that polling is valid somehow proves the election was stolen. Ridiculous. Polling is clearly a valid enterprise, and yet polls can be wrong. Duh.

[autorank]

13. Who are you talking about?

You've said so far:

"statistics are very easily abused to make bogus arguments" -- Who did this, me, TIA, Freeman, Simon?

"Unscrupulous people can take advantage of people's ignorance" -- Who is "unscrupulous"? Name one!

"the argument rests on the dishonest assumption" "dishonest assumption"...wow? == Who is being dishonest?

This thread is not about a flame war, it's in response to people who wanted a simpler version of the many statistical arguments out there and now we have all this.

Since you're a math major how about some math.

[Cocoa]

16. TIA

TIA's arguments are bogus, imo.

TIA is unscrupulous, imo.

TIA is being dishonest, imo.

None of those opinions is based on math. As much as I love math, it's pretty irrelevant to smelling what to me is obvious b.s.

[autorank]

34. Cocoa, this is a great quote, pertinent to your post, you'll love it.

"let me share the most important mathematical law of all: if a statistical argument begins with calling calling people names, the argument is always false."

DU User Cocoa
Sun Dec-11-05 05:18 PM

Good night, and good luck

[Cocoa]

36. I'm not making a statistical argument

I'm repeating my long-held view that TIA is full of crap. I didn't make use of statistics to come to that view.

[Yupster]

44. I agree with you Cocoa

I paid a lot of attention all through November and December, but there was a thread about how Kerry led most pre-election polls, and the PEW poll was used as an example.

Well I had just noticed the PEW Poll because its pre-election poll showed Bush up 51-48 % or in other words, they called it exactly on the button.

Yet, that poll was being used by TIA as evidence that Kerry led the pre-election polls.

I asked him what was up with that, and his response was that while it was true that the PEW Poll's final pre-election poll showed Bush up 51-48 %, that was with likely voters. With registered voters the PEW Poll showed Kerry up, so he used the registered voter numbers for his comparison.

Well, we all know how easy it is to manipulate statistics to show something you want, so when someone shows that they are willing to manipulate numbers to that extent, that's the last I pay attention to their work.

Also on exit polls, it turns out that they are almost always off and they are almost always off in favor of the Democratic candidate. The exit polls showed Dukakis in a flatfooted tie with Bush when Bush won y a huge 8 %. The exit poll in Alabama gave Gore a slight 1 % lead for goodness sakes and Gore actually ost the state by 15 %.

Anyway I agree with you that his work is crap.

I also understand that it doesn't make any difference. People have a need to believe in it, and they will, probably to their deaths.

[Chi]

55. My one question has always been.......

What could effectively cause this trend (Bush voters refusing to poll) to be so widely distributed across the country?

No one ever seems to come up with a plausible reason for such a trend.

[Yupster]

62. How's about

liberal people just tend to be nicer people than conservative ones?

Another reason might be that the pollsters look more in common with liberals than conservatives (younger women for instance).

Another reason might be that conservatives are more likely to listen to Rush Limbaugh ho has been telling his listeners to fear the media for a decade now.

[Chi]

63. Not buying it

With all the time spent trying to debunk the idea that the exit polls show election fraud (which still hasn't been proven)...
why is there no time spent to figure out how it is possible for this trend to be nationwide?

I find that interesting.

[autorank]

67. These types of questions you ask can be dangerous;)

But we have dangerous minds! Great point!

[EFerrari]

14. How wrong can the wrongness skew always in one direction?

I really don't want to get into a pissing contest with you, Cocoa. I'm glad we're still refining the analysis of the data at our disposal.

[Cocoa]

15. it's difficult to pinpoint precisely

from one of the pollsters:

http://exit-poll.net/election-night/EvaluationJan192005.pdf

It is difficult to pinpoint precisely the reasons that, in general, Kerry voters were more
likely to participate in the exit polls than Bush voters. There were certainly motivational
factors that are impossible to quantify, but which led to Kerry voters being less likely
than Bush voters to refuse to take the survey. In addition there are interactions between
respondents and interviewers that can contribute to differential non-response rates. We
can identify some factors that appear to have contributed, even in a small way, to the
discrepancy. These include:

• Distance restrictions imposed upon our interviewers by election officials at the
state and local level

• Weather conditions which lowered completion rates at certain polling locations

• Multiple precincts voting at the same location as the precinct in our sample

• Polling locations with a large number of total voters where a smaller portion of
voters was selected to be asked to fill out questionnaires

• Interviewer characteristics such as age, which were more often related to precinct
error this year than in past elections

We plan further analysis on the following factors:

• Interviewer training and election day procedures

• Interviewing rate calculations

• Interviewer characteristics

• Precinct characteristics

• Questionnaire length and design

We also suggest the following changes for future exit polls:

• Working to improve cooperation with state and local election officials
Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System page 5 January 19, 2005

• Improvements in interviewing training procedures

• Changes in our procedures for hiring, recruiting and monitoring interviewers
Even with these improvements, differences in response rates between Democratic and
Republican voters may still occur in future elections. However, we believe that these
steps will help to minimize the discrepancies.

[Peace Patriot]

18. You want to talk about B.S., Cocoa? Consider that which you have quoted

above from Edison-Mitofsky--a real big hunk of smelly baloney, with no data whatsoever to support any of these statements, and no explanation why all these factors that MIGHT influence polls suddenly come into play, and DO influence polls, only when Bush runs for office.

[Cocoa]

39. those factors don't just come to play in Bush elections

they came to play in at least one other election, the mayoral election Mr. Magistrate describes in the post directly below.

[The Magistrate]

30. There Is Something To That, Mr. Cocoa, It Seems To Me

One of the odder of my odd jobs in the past was a day's work as an exit poll interviewer in a mayoral election. It was a bitterly contested affair with a larger than usual field and a great deal of racial passion in play, and as matters developed, the exit polls proved to be wildly innacurate. My assignment was in a "lily-white" precinct where the Black candidate was expected to get only a very slim percentage of the vote. Several features of the experience continue to stand out to me.

First, the people who agreed to respond to questions were perceptibly different from those who refused. By mid-morning, both the young woman working with me and I were able to predict with complete acurracy whether the person exiting the polling place would consent to answer questions or not. Those who did were smiling and open sorts of people; those who did not were brusque in manner and would not meet our eyes.

Second, the sorts of people voting were peceptibly different at different times. Just after the poll opened there was a brief rush of chipper people obviously in before they went to work. Throughout the day there was a steady flow of housewives, older people, and occassional students, the whole being predominantly female. In the last hour, there was a great crowd, obviously of people just off from work, mostly male, and looking pretty grim over all.

It is quite clear to me that a good part of why the exit poll in this case turned out so innaccurate as they did was that we were instructed to stop interviewing with an hour of polling time to go, just as this last crowd was beginning to appear. The mid-day people had been giving the Black candidate for Mayor almost thirty percent of the vote in that precinct, which frankly shocked me as a long-time observer of the place. The final tabulated result in the precinct gave him less than ten percent. The figures broadcast for the exit poll, not being influenced by this late crowd, were accordingly innaccurate to the point of bizarrity, as they tremendously over=stated this candidate's voting strength in such precincts as this one.

It also seems likely to me that the people who did not agree to answer our questions may well have voted somewhat differently than those who agreed to answer. Certainly there was some pereceptible difference in manner and attitude between the two groups. It has always struck me that "liberal" types, in keeping with the origin of the word, are more likely to be friendly and willing to talk to strangers than conservatives, and in this election, there was certainly a possibility of people being perhaps embarrased to admit what their vote was, given the racial tensions involved. It is a well recognized phenomenon of polling that a Black candidate will generally poll stronger than the actual showing, and the conventional explaination, at least, is that this is owing to some people being ashamed they will be thought racist, even in an anonymous setting.

Analyzing whether a polling result is accurate or not, or if innaccurate, how and why it came to be so, does not seem to me to be purely a matter of mathematics and probability theory. Humans are not flipped coins, after all, and while randomicity may be a useful device for analyzing mass behavior, it breaks down badly in examing the details. Humans act on a wide range of inscrutable motivations, and cannot really be relied on always to be truthful about them, even if they actually do know why they did what they did.

[Cocoa]

38. interesting anecdote

thanks for sharing in such detail. I'm interested in the training you got for that job, if any. I would think the better polling organizations would want to know all your observations and incorporate them into their future training.

The passages in that Mitofsky report about their reviewal and planned improvements in the process struck me as the essence of scientific thinking. Polling is a science, after all. And as a real science, whose goal it is to describe reality (as opposed to a pseudoscience, whose job it is to persuade people of something or other), it has to be concerned with empirical observations, including the kind of report back from their one-day odd-job interviewers.

[The Magistrate]

49. As To Your Question, Sir

There was none. No training whatever. We had a sort of instruction packet, and much in it hardly matched our circumstances. We were supposed to attempt to interview persons who turned in one direction on exiting the polling place, but it was located in a school, and the exit was onto a fenced playground, so there was only one way to turn from the door that led to the street. We decided ourselves to simply attempt to interview every other person who came out, since it was obvious that was what the instruction aimed at, as a random left or right ought over time to be equivalent to every other person. My companion was an attractive woman who normally worked as a trade-show model, quite personable in a professional way, so there is no reeason to suppose anyone was put off by our approach. We handed people a sheet to check off answers on; we did not ask out loud. Perhaps the oddest thing that happened was a fellow who we did not ask to fill the form out, since we had asked the previous person, and who asked us why we did not, and complained that we had not, and that it was typical that we were not interested in his views, and did so so vehemently and at such length that I did hand him the form: while filling it out he railed about Socialism in the city governmment, specifically a recently passed tenant's rights ordinance, and would seem to have been a sort of "freeper" before their time....

[Yupster]

46. Similar anecdote to what another DU'er

posted about her experiences right after this election.

It seems like exit olling companies should make a real effort to get a good cross-section of society doing the exit polls. I think having mostly young, often college tudents doing the polling will skew the results in temselves.

It crtainly helps explain why the Democratic candidate for president does better in the exit polls every election.

Here's an article about past presidential exit poll results.

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/have_the_exit_p.html

[Yupster]

45. Right after the election a young DU'er

who was a college student posted about her experience as an exit pollster.

She said that due to the physical arrangement of the voting station, they were put at a position that was necessarily right near the Moveon.org table.

She said some vters walked near them and were interviewed, and others quickly walked away as far from them as possible and were not interviewed.

Were the voters who got interviewed and the voters who chose to avoid being interviewed a random sample of voters?

The exit pollster said she was afraid it was no where near a random sample. That was a hands on experience that was posted right here on DU right after the election.

[lvx35]

21. I agree, mathwise.

I'm not a math major, but I've been hitting it hard this last quarter for computer science major, including probability. What amazes me about math is how it describes idea situations, but how actually modelling human behavior with it is impossibly complex. That's why I find these arguments weak, For instance, could you imagine a small right wing conspiracy that would make them say they voted for Kerry at the exit polls when they voted for Bush. Its one of a million things that would screw things up as far as probability models go.
But ultimatly I don't want to get into the argument. Its ridiculous that our votes go into black boxes, and it needs to be remedied. So whatever, let people argue for it how they want, I've got my own fish to fry.

[Yupster]

47. For instance if Michael Jordan and I played

one on one basketball 1000 times, I would lose all 1,000 times. Now the odds against that would be one in trillions which would statistically prove that Jordan fixed the games.

The point is you need a truly random sample for the probability tables to have any meaning ande as the exit polls are skewed in the same direction every election, you obviously are not dealing with a random sample.

[Usrename]

73. Exactly!!! You hit it on the head!!!

If, on the other hand, you beat Michael Jordan 1000 times in a row it would have to be rigged!

Any other possibility would be absurd. Now I think you're catching on. It WAS rigged.

[Chi]

76. If you sampled every 9th game, your prediction would be 100% accurate.

[rucky]

52. This is what convinced me:

Here is the National Exit Poll Timeline:
(respondents; update; vote share)
8349 ; 3:59pm ; Kerry led 51-48
11027 ; 7:33pm ; Kerry led 51-48
13047 ; 12:22am ; Kerry led 51-48
13660 ; 1:25pm ; Bush led 51-48 (final matched to the vote)

and those aren't TIA's simulated numbers.

I'm not a math person, but shouldn't this alarm all of us? Is there a reasonable explanation why the addition of 600 respondants out of 13,000+ changed the margin by 4% or something like that?

[understandinglife]

74. I watched it happen and knew. Then, along with Tfc, I did an ...

... analysis of Snohomish County, WA State (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=208547). Let me quote from that study:

III. Conclusion

In the Washington State Governor’s race and Presidential race, the Democratic candidate performed substantially better in pre-election polls compared to official vote tally; and, for the Presidential race, the Democratic candidate (per ref 3) showed a distinctly better exit poll than official vote tally. In addition, for the two counties (Snohomish and Yakima) which used electronic voting without paper trails (“black box” voting), the Democratic candidates in both races performed considerably better in the absentee voting (which was counted by hand and therefore not susceptible to electronic manipulation) than in the electronic “black box” voting held on election day. When these facts are added to the fact that the software used to count the electronic vote is secret and not available to public viewing, serious suspicions are aroused about the integrity of the election in Snohomish and Yakima Counties, which demand further investigation.

IV. Recommendations

For comparative purposes, it is essential to have absentee vs. election-day tallies for both Pres/VP and Governor from the other WA State Counties (note: to date the only two WA State counties that have provided, via their web sites, a breakout of absentee vs. election-day are, rather ironically, Snohomish and Yakima).

We urge immediate action to impound all e-voting devices from Snohomish and Yakima County.

A survey of the Snohomish County Spread Sheet (ref 2) also points to specific precincts whose e-voting devices should be extensively investigated. In addition, under-oath testimony should be obtained from any executive, technician, election board employee or others regarding the programming of those devices. Specific precincts of concern are based on a specific divergence pattern noted in numerous Snohomish precincts.

The pattern example is:

Pipeline precinct

Election-day: Kerry, 36; Bush, 74
Absentee: Kerry, 123; Bush 99

A non-exhaustive list of Snohomish precincts that match the pattern includes:

Peterson, Osborne, Olympus, Oaks, Monroe6, Monroe3, Misty, Mc Rae, Marysville13, 11, 10, 8, 7, 5, 3; Martha Lake, Marks, Mapplewood, Mann, Maltby, Machias, Lynwood 21, Loma, Locust, Larimer, Larch, Lakeview, Lake Stevens 7, Kayak, Jordan, Huckleberry, Hiltons Lake, Hillside, Hillcrest, Hazel, Haines, Greenwood, Granite Falls 1, 2; Gold Bar 1, 2; Glenwood, Getchell, Four Corners, Fern Everett 76, 72, 68, 57, 54, 51, 50, 48, 43, 42, 30, 29, 28, 27, 6; Estates, Edmonds 45, 39, 28, 21; Edgecomb, Ebey, Dubuque, Dry Creek, Davies, Crest, Centeninial, Brookwood, Brook, Brier7,1; Brandi, Bothell 37, 34; Boeing, Ash, Arnot, Arlington 12, 9, 6, 4, 3, 2; Anderson, Alma

As noted, the Yakima summary available on-line does not provide a precinct break-out of absentee vs. election-day.

Even in a very "blue" State, in the only two counties using electronic and proprietary vote gathering devices, remarkable shifts were detected and they were ONLY DETECTED because a portion of the voters, the absentee voters, used paper ballots. Coupled with what I witnessed, as did others doing screen captures between midnight and 130am, EST, November 3, 2004, convinced me that we must never again permit votes to be gathered and tallied by proprietary, secret, and easily compromised (networked) electronic systems.


Peace.

[malaise]

2. This should be sent to all media

If the sudden change in exit polls was/is to be believed, universities should simply close all their mathematics departments. That so called intelligent people or media who claim to present the truth won't discuss this speaks volumes. That includes the leadership of the Democratic party.


Freeman's paper was all I needed on this subject. http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/Documents/ExitPoll.pdf

[autorank]

6. Good point...all of s sudden, all rules changed for * and company

It will hit the media along with references to Freeman's work and others. The people who have taking on the task of keeping the focus on reality-based analysis deserve our thanks in extreme. That includes TruthIsAll, Freeman, Baiman, Simon, the USCountsVotes crew, and others who just point out the truth.

[EFerrari]

10. I recently sent the Public Editor at the NYT a response

to their response last December, "There is no story here and wishing won't make it so."

Lying, condescending @ssholes.


I sent it with links to the Conyers' report, the GAO report, a link to Mark's book. And asked, "Is it a story YET?"

:evilgrin:

[autorank]

19. Is it soup yet? Why didn't you cover that? Why aren't you covering this?

Those are the equivalent of "What do you know? and When did you know it?"

They've known a lot and they've known it for a long time.

But sfexpat2000, here's the answer to why they don't cover things. These are the same bunch that leg a "plant", Jeff "Gannon", sit in their midst and be a plant for over a year AND then never really covered the story. If they'll do that, what kind of initiative can we expect from them.

When their "masters" decide that it's in their corporate interests to cover this story, then the flood gates will open. I suspect that may be some time soon based on *'s destruction of any real long term economic prospects for the US (something that can be reversed with * gone).

When it does, that's our chance to insert ourselves and rock the boat enough to get some reform.

Keep the faith (which I don't need to tell you!)

[EFerrari]

20. Yep. Soon, they will have to get out in front of the outrage

before it engulfs them.

The Chronicle Readers' Rep has promised me an update on Kevin Shelley. Must be getting hot in CA.

:toast:

[autorank]

22. Please post that! Do you have a link to the CA A.G. report clearing

him of one or all of the charges filed to chase him out of office.

That's a hot story, IMHO. I understand he was cleared of the main accusation but it it's all of them or if the main accusation was the only substantive charge, that's amazing.

Our Democrats out there should have demanded a Democrat to replace Shelley, ya know, "the will of the people."

[EFerrari]

23. No, I don't. I have some text from a local station's

interview with the AG that Amarylis gave me. The SF Chron reader said, "That Ch 7 report notwithstanding, Shelley has not been cleared."

I didn't dispute it but look forward to the "update". Because they will have to account for why he is not being charged.

[autorank]

31. "Guilty by investigation" That's a line from Syriana. Just raise the

question, about some one on the left, and you can throw them out.

Of course, if you're on the right, you can do time and get a radio show and run for Senator!

[autorank]

3. For the more adventurous...try this

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0507/S00238.htm or this www.truthisall.net

[EFerrari]

4. Sing it, autorank!

K & R

:kick:

[autorank]

7. A capalla! This will make the rounds, soon!!! It's time, * is ILLEGITIMATE

:hi:

[EFerrari]

8. You give him too much credit!

LOL!

:hi:

[EFerrari]

17. Sunday afternoon KICK

:kick:

[nicknameless]

24. Thanks, TIA and Autorank!

But, I thought exit polls were only pertinent in other countries' elections :eyes:

K&R

[autorank]

32. Sen. Lugar and Powell used exits in the Ukraine to demand a new election.

But not in this country. The spread in the Ukraine was not as well defined as here but, consistency is not a virtue for the Republicans. They just tell the truth over there, on rare ocasion, and stand that truth on it's head here. Total bull shit!

[nicknameless]

43. Too bad we don't have a Natalia Dmytruk, who could at least tell the truth

in sign language on our news broadcasts. People in eastern Europe have much more experience fighting against tyranny.
Too many Americans are maybe drawn to complacency because they don't know, first hand, what's at stake. :shrug:

[autorank]

59. The first think it takes is guts, and the Eastern Europeans have that

in an abundance. They get right in "the man's" face and push hard. The risks to life and liberty are great. AFterall, one of the strongest election integrity/fraud groups started in Serbia, going up against the rightwing there. Not a nice opponent, no holds barred. I have huge admiration for those folks. They fight so hard, I suspect, because they've lived through the alternative.

[kster]

25. Kick-n-Recommended..nt

[Peace Patriot]

26. Thanks for the plain English, autorank! It's much appreciated!

Recently, four Ohio ELECTION REFORM initiatives, that were predicted to win by 60/40 votes, were flipped over on election day to 60/40 LOSSES!--the most audacious flipover yet. (The machines and their masters are now dictating election policy and preventing reform--a chilling Orwellian twist.)

Bob Koehler's article about the Ohio initiatives:
http://www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/subcategory.jsp?custid=67&catid=1824

I'd like to see the odds for THAT--a 60/40 flip!

It's out of control. Ohio's illegitimately elected legislature is now planning to ban all scrutiny of their election theft machines, outlaw any challenge to federal election results, criminalize voter registration drives (which favor the poor and middle class majority), and exclude as many black and poor voters as possible with voter ID requirements.

And just like the Bushites, who set up this fraudulent, non-transparent election system with secret, proprietary programming code, Edison-Mitofsky--who doctored their exit poll data on everybody's TV screens, late on election day, to "fit" the results of that secret programming, but who got caught due to alert bloggers and statisticians who took screen shots of the real poll data--are going for yet more secrecy. They're still refusing to disclose their raw data from the election to qualified researchers (and to senior House member John Conyers and his committee). Now they've said that we will never again get to view their real exit poll results. They are going to make sure of that.

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."--Josef Stalin

We might re-write this today: "Those who answer exit polls decide nothing. Those who count the answers to the exit polls decide everything." --Warren Mitofsky

---------------------

Is anyone working on the Dem Party (or someone!) funding independent exit polls in '06 and '08? It is desperately needed!

[autorank]

35. Your question...

"Is anyone working on the Dem Party (or someone!) funding independent exit polls in '06 and '08? It is desperately needed!"

Remember when we talked about the DNC Report on Ohio? Well, that's the last election integrity effort there that I know about despite all the outrages.

I wouldn't count on any exits in 06 or 08. It's going to take a scandal, a 'smoking gun,' someone who has just had enough and who has the goods (as in clear evidence). It was a "management" mistake that there even was an exit poll in 2004. They won't make it again.

[FredStembottom]

41. My "I'm not a math major" question....

Autorank, if you are still monitoring this thread.....

Am I correct:

1) That previous American Pres. exit polls were correct and didn't need to be "adjusted"?

2) That exit polls are used to VERIFY votes in other countries?

3) The "shy Bush-voter" theory is more a story than a theory due to no empirical evidence to back it up.

If I am:

And those first 2 statements are correct - and the only time(s) that these polls have gone haywire is when Bush has run, then it seems quite unreasonable to me to jump to 3 and adopt that story as "proof" that the exit polls that have worked time and time again suddenly DON'T work. Not on the basis of a mere story about shy people.

Whatever the answer is, a proven system trumps a story anytime!

[Yupster]

48. Answers

#1 - No actually in every election since 1988 which was the first where the exit poll info was published the Democratic presidential candidate exit polled better than the tabulated vote. In some cases it was a dramatic difference like the 1988 vote where the exit poll showed Dukakis and Bush tied while Bush actually won by a robust 8 %. In some elections it was just a 2-3 % skew, but in every single one, the Democratic candidate performed better in the exit poll.

# 2 is true, but it is an entirely different type of exit poll that is used to verify elections than the ones used in the US elections. The two have the same name but just as football in Germany and the USA are not nearly the same thing, neither is an exit poll. It is very possible to have a European type exit poll done in America. In fact it should be done, but it willl be wildly expensive in people and money, and the news companies are not willing to foot the bill. It would more likely be an effort by a group like ACT PAC, and the problem with that is they are too partisan to undertake an effort like that and present believable results. It would have to the government and they aren't going to foot the bill.

# 3 is much debated. There are many anecdotes by exit pollsters and there was a study in England that said their conservative voters tell exit pollsters to go screw themselves too, but I don't think it's been established one way or the other.

Hope that helps.

[autorank]

50. FredStembottom, thanks for the questions.

I'm just getting back to the thread. Bush with some local politics! Fun stuff.

1) Mitofsky has become more accurate over time. In the last two presidential elections, he's been within less than 1% accuracy on the outcome. As to adjusting a "poll" with actual voting results, what an odd thing that is. It nullifies the poll because the actual results are not a polling subject. I'll check on previous uses of this. Previously, the exit polls were confounded by what's called "spoiled" votes. This phenomenon is found in largely minority precincts. A large percentage of "spoiled" ballots are disqualified due to some reason and they're tossed out. Democrats lose up to 2% in presidential elections and the polls, which don't have 'spoilage' fail to catch this. Election fraud is much older than 2004 and 2000. Black, Hispanic, and Native American voters have experienced this for decades.

2) The exit polls in other countries are structured a little different and administered under much more difficult circumstances. To say that the amazingly comprehensive 2004 National and State Exit Polls are not good "fraud catchers" because they're not called that is like saying a kitchen butcher knife is not a murder weapon because it's not called that. The goal of any poll is to accurately reflect the will of the population polled. This one did, to the great embarrassment of many.

3) The "shy Bush voter" theory is also called the "reluctant Bush responder" theory. It's just that and now debunked, largely here on DU. Turns out that the "shy" Bushies would mostly have been in the "shy" and laid back North Eastern USofA. You know, those New Yorkers, Boston folks, and their country cousins in Philadelphia and New Jersey, those shy folks. It's toast.

Here's a clincher. The Edison-Mitofsky firm did the exit polls for a consortium of media companies (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, Washington Post, and a couple of others). When the first howls arose from the ranks about the disparity between polls and results (given all the rotten tricks and strategies), Representative Conyers and his Democrats from the House Justice Committee went to Ohio to hold hearings. Rep. Conyers, always the gentleman, wrote an excellent letter to Mitofsky asking for a release of the raw data of the exit polls. This would have settled a lot of questions and added great power to Conyers investigation. Mitofsky begged off saying there were confidentiality issues and he couldn't give up the data. This was bogus, of course. So Conyers went back and was told that the data was owned by the consortium of media companies. So Rep. Conyers sent them a letter. They said no and here we are.

HERE'S MY QUESTION? If there's nothing to hide, then why do then continue to hide the private data?
They say that they have but it's been in small increments and to "friendly" folks, not to the general public or the academic or business community where there are real questioners. They don't release it because it will help further prove the case that the only election on election day with a real paper trail was the National and State Exit Polls and that paper trail shows the election, sans paper in most places, was highly questionable.

One wonders why some continue to fight us on this but he, it's a free country, for now.

Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier.

[FredStembottom]

56. Thanks, Yupster and autorank

You have put some lovely "grey areas" into my syllogism. :thumbsup:

Still....I feel that there is no basis to adopt the "rBr" brain fart.

No matter what the truth of the last 2 elections, nothing even points toward rBr! ( and BTW, autorank, I have friends and relatives in the northeast - NY and Boston-area - and the shyness and reluctance is freakin' deafening!!!!)

Thanks for helping me along.

[autorank]

68. My pleasure. I'll get the "rBr" link from DU later tonight and post it

:hi: and say hello to the "shy" ones.

[NoFederales]

27. :-) and kicked

NoFederales

[paineinthearse]

28. Rank

Great work, buddy.

K&R.

by the way, where the hell is TIA?

[Peace Patriot]

29. We need a BIG BROOM! And it's not just the Republicans who need their

house cleaned.

[autorank]

33. Here's a dirty house!

And the cleaners have arrived, called citizens! Citizen activists. Citizen activists in court.

[bonito]

37. Kick n/t

[reprehensor]

40. Punt.

[LibertyorDeath]

42. Thanx autorank ...To doubters

Set aside the numbers
if you must....... that still leaves the CEO of Diebold

Diebold's CEO, Wally Odell, who was moonlighting as a Republican fundraiser. In his invitation to a benefit for Bush last August, wrote, "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/main632436.shtml

I take Odell at his word he said he would deliver and he did.
He has the ability to shape elections through vote tampering
as does any black box voting company.

then there's the sordid history of ES&S

"Who are these corporate lackies with the money who are handling our vote. Well it's not a large crowd and the brothers Urosevich would be a good place to start. Bob and Todd Urosevich started ES&S with funding from the Ahmanson Family. Then Bob left ES&S and went to run and program for Diebold while Todd remained CEO of ES&S. They say those that control the software control the vote. “Those who cast the votes decide nothing."

Vested interests: ES&S was given its grubstake (while operating under the name American Information Systems) in 1984 when the billionaire Ahmanson family injected enough cash to get ahold of a 68 percent ownership. (2) This wealthy family has been instrumental in making the Republican Party take a hard right turn — pouring money into conservative Christian candidates and right-wing agendas.(3)

the voting division of Diebold is a subsidiary. It used to go under the name of Global Elections Systems, out of Mckinney Texas, actually they were out of Canada but they called themselves out of Mckinney, Texas. Diebold, what they did was they bought this small company in Texas and kind of, they didn't really merge it in particularly they just let it continue to run in Mckinney,Texas with all its same people, its same software and so forth. But the Diebold company itself is interesting, it does have very strong Republican ties, specifically to the Bush administration.
http://mcwahtdesign.com/election-2004-6a.htm

I don't need to be hit over the head with a hammer to see what the fuck is going on here but it's pretty amazing the how many do.

What more do they want from Wally an RSVP to the writing of the proprietary code that records the vote but no one is allowed to
authenticate as fraud free.

[autorank]

51. What a link, my God! Yes, Wally is the smoking gun!

Makes you wonder what they'd consider CONFLICT OF INTEREST, if not this.

You points are solid and compelling. We don't need any more quesitons. The answers are obvious from Wally's statement to the exit poll analysis to the efforts to suppress votes in Ohio and elsewhere. It's all a pattern of proof to a sufficient degree to movitate action.

We'll keep pushing and this story will be told.

Some said Zogby wouldn't ask the impeachment question in a poll. Well he did. Now lets see if he'll ask the bigger question, "Do you think Bush stole the 2004 election?" Ask it today, I dare any pollster to do that. The answer will be at least 40% yes and probably more.

Great site, it's just amazing! http://mcwahtdesign.com/election-2004-6a.htm

[LibertyorDeath]

64. These companies have one goal, control the outcome of elections in the US

ES&S is as corrupt as Diebold IMO

Election Systems & Software (ES&S)

Election Systems & Software operated under the name American Information Systems from its inception in the early 1980s until around 1998.

* = It was founded by Todd and Bob Urosevich, originally under the name Data Mark.

* = The Urosevich brothers obtained financing from the Ahmanson family, who took a 68 percent controlling interest.

? Vested interests: ES&S was given its grubstake (while operating under the name American Information Systems) in 1984 when the billionaire Ahmanson family injected enough cash to get ahold of a 68 percent ownership. This wealthy family has been instrumental in making the Republican Party take a hard right turn — pouring money into conservative Christian candidates and right-wing agendas.

They were instrumental in getting at least 24 conservatives into the California legislature; launching prop. 209, California's successful anti-affirmative action law; financing Prop. 22, California's effort to ban gay marriages; financing efforts to remove evolution from school curriculi; and financing the Chalcedon Institute, which reportedly believes in the death penalty for homosexuality and other "sins." The Ahmansons are heirs to the Home Savings of America fortune, which was the largest savings and loan association in the world during the rollicking 1980s (while the S&L scandals were taking place.) Howard Ahmanson is a major benefactor of the Christian reconstructionist movement, whose followers wish to turn certain tenets of the Bible into national law.

? Skating too close to criminal prosecutions and kickbacks...02/05/2002, The Baton Rouge Advocate reports that Arkansas Secretary of State Bill McCuen pleaded guilty to felony charges that he took bribes, evaded taxes and accepted kickbacks. Part of the charges related to election systems. Tom Eschberger, who became a Vice President for ES&S, took an immunity deal and testified against McCuen.

http://mcwahtdesign.com/election2eConn.htm

Don't stop autorank keep spreading the truth
each day more people are waking up to the fact that the American Electoral system has been taken over by a small group of criminal thugs loyal to the Republicans.

[understandinglife]

60. "What more do they want from Wally an RSVP to the writing of the ...

... proprietary code that records the vote but no one is allowed to authenticate as fraud free."

What more, indeed!

bookmarked and recommended ...


Peace.

[LWolf]

53. Recommended and kicked.

Let's see; since we're talking math, what are the odds this thread will end up on the greatest page?

:silly:

[PATRICK]

54. The three-legged dog

I have seen one or two. They run well, get where they are going, don't fall down or other things one might expect. They create uneasiness, a certain aversion and even lack of belief. The Ukraine was a three legged dog getting a lift in the Supreme Court van and it was not close to home so it did not make anyone uneasy. In Ohio on the ballot initiatives, the polling data and the assumptions reduced the beast to two legs so that it could not move but it did howl very well.

The goal of the GOP gang of course is for us not to have a leg to stand on.

TIA tries very well to separate the legs and test them against reality. Oddly, most people will agree up to a point on each of them, but they don't believe a three legged dog can run. The intent to steal and the methods were very open all the time up to and during the election. One might presume the bullying and
"recalibrating" of all polls after 2000 would tend to weight them in favor of Bush, and not only that but the recalibrating and rationalizing after 2004 by the exit pollster ironically reveals that bias. It is never just a question of the math but of a very clear political reality, clearer than the vagaries of the "swing voter" or some mystical invisible trend or coin flipping or fear flipping out in shame inside the booth. Is the pattern of one leg in sync with the others? Do the oddities and inconsistencies match the political machinations and needs precinct by precinct or battleground state?

Reason allied to common sense added to experience goes against a purposely naive unquestioning but pompously windy legitimizing of the "result", i.e. Bush "wins", without having to acknowledge that with widespread documented and televised voter suppression, winning is itself a criminal act. Trying to analyze your losing cards dealt from a marked deck is the fruitless myopia of a hoodwinked "loser". Each time one descends to the minutiae, the ashes of forever lost ballots- itself an issue crying fraud to heaven- one accepts one's role as a powerless sucker. In other countries politicians pull out of a pre-cooked election like ours, take to the streets, go to jail. They never kiss up to the crook.

Why are we reduced to arguing over a smoking gun or paper trail when the mountain not the mole hill has fallen upon us? The three legged dog is truth in democracy in our America today. Soon we will be reduced to motionless howlers and then a bullet. Do the critics support using exit polls as a legitimate means to challenge a questionable election? What is the mathematical threshold? Do they support recounts or secure and accurate records? The people who have put ALL of those measures, direct and indirect at risk, along with the very access to the polls of the opposing party's voters are determining the process, the reform and the argument points every step of the way to total oblivion.

As some of the naysayers have said, I don't need the numbers to know a wrong has been done and in a real sense for most purposes it wouldn't matter if Kerry lost, though it is the GOP-pressured system itself that makes real proof impossible(Odd?). But I take grim comfort in knowing for the first time since Reagan that the majority of mankind is not on board with the bad guys no matter how ignorant or duped or misguided they are purposely made to be. However one might argue the theory and the complex weaving into political and psychological apples and oranges, all that we are allowed to see agrees with TIA. All the points that other side might make agree with criminals and human weakness and the GOP chose NOT to have one leg to stand on lest they enter into(and lose) a contest with a crippled dog. I have less faith in despair and imaginary defeats and mythical voter trends that help the High Dems sleep at night free from personal repsonsibility to protect the vote.

Logic tells me that not one element of fraud was left out from fear of the law or scruples. Not one aspect of the election was conceded to chance by the crime soaked party that did not represent the people or the truth or much of anything palatable to an electorate not addled by greed, fear or lies. If this presumption "finds" evidence one may try to prune out that bias and even concede margins of error and still be very sure beyond a reasonable conspiracy theorist doubt that the finger applied to grant Bush a mandate and sweep the board barely sufficed to steal the election above a challenge. Challenges in fact could have been mounted had not the Dems been fighting the 2000 fraud methodology.

You wouldn't think a three legged dog could run. Like flying saucers or bigfoot or the moon made out of green camembert. But it does. And it doesn't get to count.

[bleever]

57. Excellent. "Each time one descends to the minutiae, the ashes of forever

lost ballots- itself an issue crying fraud to heaven- one accepts one's role as a powerless sucker."

Who can prove that * won?

Nobody.

[autorank]

58. Nice aphorism! Nobody can PROVE anybody won! Illegitimacy reigns!

Nobody can prove he won. In fact, if Kerry won nobody could prove it because we surrender our votes to the machines/tabulators controlled by private vendors who don't let us look at those votes, tabulations in a meaningful way.

YOU VOTE (touch a screen, mark a optiscan ballot==>MACHINE CAPTURES VOTE (does whatever it's programmed to do)==>VOTE INFORMATION TRANSFERED TO A TABULATOR (does whatever it's programmed to do)==>TABULATOR RESULTS REPORTED TO BOARD OF ELECTION (They aggregate and report)

What's wrong with this picture: MACHINES & TABULATORS "do whatever they're programmed to do." We DO NOT EVER FIND OUT THOSE PROGRAMS OR THE CODE BEHIND THE PROGRAMS OR THE SPECIFICS OF THE PROGRAM AND CODE FOR ANY MACHINE OR TABULATOR...BECAUSE...THE MACHINE/TABULATOR SOFTWARE AND METHODS ARE KEPT FROM THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND THE PEOPLE. THE VENDORS WHO PROVIDE THE MACHINES AND TABULATORS REFUSE TO GIVE THIS UP BECAUSE IT'S "PROPRIETARY" AND "A TRADE SECRET."

THEREFORE, WE'VE OUTSOURCED OUR ELECTIONS TO MACHINE AND TABULATOR VENDORS.

WHO ARE THEY:

DIEBOLD - RIGHT WING REPUBLICAN, CHAIRMAN SUPPORTS BUSH IN WRITING BEFORE 2004.

ESS - FORMERLY OWNED BY RIGHT WING ACTIVISTS (READ DOMINIONISTS) NOW OWNED BY SAIC, DEFENSE AND GOVT. CONTRACTOR IN DC AREA, RUN BY KENNETH W. DAHLBERG (REMEMBER HIM FROM WATERGATE). SAIC EXISTS ENTIRELY ON GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS. OH, AND THEY HAVE A CORPORATE' ARMY.

SVS (SEQUOIA) - FORMERLY OWNED BY DE LA RUE, BRITISH CORPORATION, BUT SOLD RECENTLY TO SMART TO "SMARETMATIC" OF, GET THIS, VENEZUELA! THEY HAVE A SHAKY RECORD DOWN THERE AND NOBODY CAN QUITE FIGURE OUT WHO REALLY OWNS THEM. THEIR RECORD ISN'T GREAT IN VENEZUELA.

Just swell. We've lost our liberties and freedom to private vendors of voting machines, and they're not even good machines or software.

[bleever]

61. Abramoff lobbies for Diebold, then his personal assistant becomes

Rove's, and sits beside him at the bank of computers on election night.

Nothing to see here, folks! Move along! Mandate! 9/11! Mandate!

[autorank]

66. Was Abrmahoff in that pic too!

Please post link. Lord, I'm floored!

[bleever]

75. No, Abramoff isn't in that picture.

As far as I can tell.




Who knows who's back there. Or on the phone.

[Freddie Stubbs]

65. Is this really TruthIsAll's work?

It isn't in ALL CAPS. What ever happened to him? He (or she) used to post on DU a lot.

[autorank]

69. It's his work. I edit a bit but it's the T-Man.

This was a "plain English" version so the ALL CAPS IS OFF AND THERE IS NO NEED FOR PROPORTIONAL SPACING OF DATA.

Easy on the eye and ability to write text as it appears best and insert links that can just be clicked.

I'll PM you on the other question but he's around.

[the other one]

70. This proves NOTHING!

But, it does argue strongly for official investigations at the federal level. Our election system should be held sacred, and when that much disagreement can be raised, then confidence must be restored through trasparency. The fact that those who may have benefited are the same people who have scoffed at the complaints and blocked the investigations does not serve to restore confidence.

Taken alone, statistics prove nothing, but taken together with the other observable irregularities and injustices which were known to have occurred, it seems strange that anyone would say with 100% confidence that the election results were accurate and correct. And that is all I am saying. I don't know if the election was stolen, but until the issue is brought out into the open and addressed by the media and the gov't., I will continue to suspect the worst.

[Kurovski]

71. Best election fraud thread yet.

K&R.

[mikelewis]

72. Do you agree that an investigation is needed?

I believe an investigation is needed to determine "what went right and what went wrong" without engaging in a "Blame-Game". A 4% error on a national scale is a catastrophic error and definitely raises questions of legitimacy whether on the part of the polling company or through election tampering. If exit polls are to be trusted as a measure of the integrity of the election, as they were in the Ukraine a few months ago, then there needs to be an immediate National debate on "What went wrong in Ohio" during the 2004 election and even more recent the 2005 election.

Also, if the exit polls were the only tendril of nauseous fumes emanating from the election, I'd probably think that the pollsters simply got it wrong. But the exit polls are just one puff of rancorous bile spewed out into the swamp of corruption in the election. I believe TIA is right and that the Election Riggers shot the Sheriff but failed to shoot the deputy. They rigged the election but failed to rig the exit polls.

I believe a Congressional investigation into the exit poll company will ultimately uncover conclusive evidence to prove a legal case of Fraud. I believe BushCo tried to win through disenfranchisement and when that failed, someone flipped the numbers in the tabulators. The numbers were changed in the dead of night and when the results came in, Mitofski then adjusted his numbers to match the vote. Whether he did so at the command of Bush or in an effort to save his contract will be born out only in an investigation.

I believe a Congressional investigation is warranted based upon the startling discrepancies in the exit polls and their relevance to the integrity of our election process. If the polling company simply got it wrong, I think we deserve proof to that effect. I also believe there is a sizable portion of our population who would support an effort to guarantee a free and fair election and would appreciate a serious investigation into the mechanism by which we gauge its integrity.