Mystery Pollster is at it again -- Criticism of USCV

[davidgmills]

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2005/04/what_the_uscv_r_1.html#comments

[On the Road]

1. I Actually Like His Analysis

This is the way to go about it. You have to maintain skepticism on both sides. If there was signficant fraud, it should stand out as an anomaly.

[TruthIsAll]

9. No significant fraud? That's classic. Its bursting out all over.

You must be ribbing us.

With 99% of the anomalies going for Bush, with Blackwell's blatant corruption, with Diebold's voting machines lacking the paper trail they provide for their ATMs, with the MSM lockdown on fraud, with all pre-election national and state exit polls (other than the final 613 NEP respondents) going for Kerry, that is not significant enough for you?

What, exactly, do you need?

[On the Road]

14. I Would Need a Response to This Section Right Here:

-The exit polls have shown a consistent "bias" toward Democratic candidates for president since 1988, a bias that was nearly as strong in 1992 as in 2004.

-In 2004, the exit polls showed an overall bias toward both John Kerry and the Democratic candidates for Senate.
Errors were very large and more or less constant across all forms of automated voting equipment and tabulation in use in 97% of US precincts.

-The exit poll errors strongly correlated with measures of interviewer experience and the precinct level degree of difficulty of randomly selecting a sample of voters. In other words, they were more consistent with problems affecting the poll than problems affecting the count.

Given this evidence, the hypothesis that the exit poll discrepancy was evidence of fraud (or at least systematic error in the count favoring Republicans) requires one to accept that:

-Such fraud or systematic error has been ongoing and otherwise undetected since 1988.

-The fraud or errors extend to all forms of automated voting equipment used in the U.S.

-Greater than average errors in New Hampshire in 2004 somehow eluded a hand recount of the paper ballots used in optical scan voting in precincts specifically chosen because of suspected anomalies.

That would be a start. Appealing to authority of statisticians, to base motivation of Republicans, or to international use of exit poll does not count as an argument.

[Mairead]

23. That's the EASIEST POSSIBLE part to respond to:

He's assuming his conclusion! He says "-The exit polls have shown a consistent "bias" toward Democratic candidates for president since 1988, a bias that was nearly as strong in 1992 as in 2004."

But no such bias has ever been demonstrated.

But what he would say if he were being honest and playing it straight, as someone in his position should do, is

"The exit polls and official tallies for president have been consistently discrepant since 1988, with the exit polls purporting to show that the Democratic candidate should have had a higher --often decisively higher-- official tally than the offical tally has shown. The cause of this discrepancy is not known, though many theories have been advanced. Nor do we know whether it is the exit polls, or the official tallies, or both that are wrong. Most pundits simply assume the exit polls are wrong and the official tallies correct, though there is no evidence for that."

[On the Road]

27. What He Says is That

if the exit poll discrepancy is due to fraud, that the effect has shown up since at least 1988, and across all types of voting equipment and geographic areas.

This certainly weakens the case for the kind of evoting fraud that's been discussed here, which was not available for most of that time. Without remotely accessible tallies, fraud depends on having accomplices on the ground.

I would like to see more detail also, especially about previous elections to be able to make a better judgment. But if what the Mystery Pollster is saying is correct, it pretty much kills the idea that election fraud was committed to the extent and by the means being advanced here on DU.

[Chi]

28. You might want to read the.....

Heya ribofunk
Roy G. Saltman reports.
I just went looking for the files and can't find them.
They are brought up in a thread by Mistwell, but I already went through to page 20 and couldn't find it.

If search works for you, search for a thread by Mistwell, it was one of his last few. It had many responses.
If memory serves me well you will find the links about a third, to half way down the page. Look for eomer and Chi responses in a row.

If I find them on my box, I will post the link.

ON EDIT -- Here's one, from 1975...
http://www.eac.gov/bp/docs/NBS_SP_500-30.pdf

[On the Road]

29. Thanks, Chi

I found several threads. None of them have responses from eomer, but I see the Mistwell posts. I will look through them. I dropped out of this topic for a couple of months and a lot of water has gone under the bridge.

---------------------
Exit Poll Question

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=279921

Interviews with some Actual Exit Pollsters - they messed up

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=309106

Mythbusting the Exit Polls

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=307297

[Chi]

30. Not a problem

I figured, that's where you were coming from (out of the loop for a while).

Take note my first post now has one link, and a corrected spelling of saltman.

The thread I had in mind, was extensive on the use of computers in elections.
As you'll see by the Link I posted, it started well before 88.

The report after that reads like a blueprint for electronic election fraud. Should be easy to find now, if you need help finding it let me know.

Edited for clarity

[Mairead]

31. You missed my point, I'm afraid

He says, and I quote:

Whatever its shortcomings, the Edison-Mitofsky report provided ample empirical evidence that:
...
The exit polls have shown a consistent "bias" toward Democratic candidates for president since 1988, a bias that was nearly as strong in 1992 as in 2004.

My point is that he is repeating Mitofsky's claim that it is the exit polls themselves that are the source of the discrepancy. He isn't simply reporting the discrepancy and saying that we don't know what's going on yet (which is the actual case) and that the exit polls could be wrong, or the official tallies could be, or it could be a mix of both.

Using language that implies that something has been settled when it hasn't is the trick/error of assuming his conclusion.

[Helga Scow Stern]

2. Thanks for keeping track of this,

and for your comment to Mystery Pollster,

"Another mea culpa is in order. Keep up the mea culpas."

I don't have time to follow his arguments anymore.

What is he saying? How is it reasonable, unreasonable in your opinion?

[davidgmills]

6. I'm with you; I don't have much interest in following him either

But what irked me, was his comment that some other people shared his opinion about the Edison/Mytofsky report, when obviously the E/M report wasn't even written when their statement was made.

His blog has been loaded with mea culpas after being shown his errors, to the point where I don't know how anyone could consider the guy an authority. He's just another blogger who hapens to know a little more about polling than the rest of us.

[dzika]

3. No respect for Mystery Pollster on this issue...

Thanks for posting this but Mystery Pollster is defensive of the industry that's paying his bills. This is just a continued pattern of bias.

[mgr]

4. That is an ad hominen argument

What a person is, who he represent is beside the point. What is the weakness in his argument. He is only addressing the issue of exit polls, not fraud.

FYI, his position is consonant with the one I have been putting forward as well. I am not a pollster, nor a republican, believe there was rampant fraud to turn the electoral college, but have said pretty much the same thing.

I think there are means to rehabilite the exit polling, but that does not mean it will after refinement be able to discriminate fraud.

Mike

[dzika]

5. It's not an argument or attack

It's my opinion.

He is getting paid by the same industry that is paying Edison/Mitofsky. This has nothing to do with your position.

I offered no challenge the substance of his argument anymore than I do USCountVote's. I'll leave that up to those with more experience.

Of course, calling my opinion an "ad hominen argument" could be considered an ad hominen attack in itself. If you have an opinion, just state it and I will respect that. You don't need to step on me in the process.

Thanks

[davidgmills]

7. You are the big polling bias advocate

Someone is just pointing out what they see as Mystery Pollster's bias. Seems fair to me.

We have "democratic bias" and now we have "pollster bias" as well.

[mgr]

16. Its a subtle difference

If a person does not like an argument, it is not an appropriate refutation to address elements of the person's bias, that is not part of the argument. It is not as if it is a great unknown that Blumenthal is tied to the polling industry, but so is Ruy Texiera. You have to paint both with the same brush, or don't you since Ruy says what you want to hear, and Blumenthal does not?

What I am asking is what element of MP's argument would be evidence of this bias? The fact that he is making the argument is not evidence that it is biased, but that because he is biased he is making the argument. Anyone with an interest in an issue is biased simply because they have an interest.

One of the strongest critics of Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection was a character with the last name of Miwart (I'm forgetting much, and I don't have Bowler's book handy). Darwin revised several editions of the Origin to address Miwart's critiques. Miwart was a Christian, but it that did not play into Darwin's response.

Mike

[Chi]

21. Got a question...

Heya Mike
I'm a little curious as to your thoughts on the following.
I was reading the MP article posted and went looking for other articles to support or refute it, and came across a report from CalTech.
In the report they state the following....

"The central finding of this investigation is that manually counted paper ballots have the
lowest average incidence of spoiled, uncounted, and unmarked ballots, followed closely
by lever machines and optically scanned ballots. Punchcard methods and systems using
direct recording electronic devices (DREs) had significantly higher average rates of
spoiled, uncounted, and unmarked ballots than any of the other systems. The difference
in reliabilities between the best and worst systems is approximately 1.5 percent of all
ballots cast."
http://www.hss.caltech.edu/%7Evoting/CalTech_MIT_Report_Version2.pdf

What could have occurred between 2001 and 2004 to make this 1.5% difference into the mess we see illustrated (by bar graph) in the MP article?
(9.2% difference in reliability, vs the 1.5% in the CalTech study)

Thanx in Advance

[Chi]

25. Never mind ...n/t

[Mairead]

24. The "weakness in his argument" begins with him assuming his conclusion!

Thus converting everything that follows to nonsense. If your premises are bad, nothing meaningful can come from whatever follows.

[TruthIsAll]

8. Does MP have a degree? How many PhD's at USCV?

MP has no math background.

His credibility is de minimis.

He writes well, though.

No wonder he's a mystery.

[berniew1]

10. several at USCv have PhDs, and I have as much stat background as any of

them; 3 grad degrees in relevant subjects from 2 well known universities, as well as univ. teaching experience in the field, though some are pretty good. But I'm not a big believer in basing much on the degrees of those espousing an argument. In this case, a lot of the documentation and analysis is pretty obvious, based on organizations(EP,CC) and individuals like Jonathan Simon who planned ahead.

[TruthIsAll]

12. My question was rhetorical; I believe at least 8 at USCV are PhDs

in Math/Stat. Some are department heads of major unviersities.

If MP is going to try to debunk the USCV professors, I guarantee he will soon be eating crow and will be singing more mea culpas.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TruthIsAll]

18. Add these hominems to your list...

1. The reluctant Bush responder effect.
2. The bandwagon effect.
3. The design effect.
4. The cluster effect.
5. The 8348, 11027, 13047 respondents were wrong effect.
6. The final 613 of the 13660 exit poll were right effect.
7. The WPE effect.
8. The early women turnout effect.
9. The "We are not Ukraine" effect.
10. The 99% confidence limits effect.

So he is going toe-to-toe with the math/stat professors at uscountvotes? What a joke.

NEVER ONCE DID HE MENTION THE FRAUD EFFECT.
OR THE THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTED ANOMALIES WHICH ALL FAVORED BUSH.

ACCORDING TO MP, THE FIRST 13047 RESPONDENT EXIT POLL NUMBERS WERE WRONG DUE TO SOME "DESIGN EFFECT", WHICH COULD ONLY BE RECTIFIED BY RE-WEIGHTING TO MATCH THE VOTE.

SURE.


My response to the latest Mystery Pollster (Jan. 8) blog:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=276319

EXIT POLLS: THE LATEST MYSTERY POLLSTER BLOG - AND MY COMMENTS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=178839&mesg_id=178839

[LatePeriduct]

19. Kicked

[TruthIsAll]

22. mgr, explain this, please

You:
FYI, his position is consonant with the one I have been putting forward as well. I am not a pollster, nor a republican, believe there was rampant fraud to turn the electoral college, but have said pretty much the same thing.

Me:

You believe there was rampant fraud.
Good. So do I.
Yet you also claim that my analysis, which clearly indicates that there was indeed rampant fraud, is bogus.

Your ad hominems don't add up.
You contradict yourself.

Just like those who claim that matching the exit poll to the vote is a legitimate operation, when it contradicts logic and common sense.

So what are you saying, in effect?
You are saying all of us are right.
But you don't like the way we are going about it, using classic statistical analysis to confirm that which you already believe.

Did you learn that by studying David Hume?
Or are you just an example of Darwin's theory in action?

[LatePeriduct]

26. I'd also like answers to the question.

I mean he claims to be a statistical expert, yet he doesn't understand they include dead people in statistics?

Huh? http://www.votersunite.org

[berniew1]

11. Actually he got it wrong, didn't look deep enough at straight ticket votin

which created much of the ticket splitting in many states. Straight party votes in many states did not go to the candidate of that party for President. Though its clear thats what the voters intended. they weren't compiled that way by the compilers. In Texas straight party Dem votes went to Bush for Pres, and similar in some other counties of other states. In Indiana, straight Dem votes went to Libertarian for Pres. In many states, those who voted straight dem lost their presidential vote, including North Carolina, South Carolina, Missouri, Michigan, and some others.
see:
http://www.flcv.com/ussumall.html
and http://www.flcv.com/summary.html

[LatePeriduct]

15. Of course he got it wrong.

Its far more reasonable to use the razor option, and realize that 97% of the polling samples could not have been sampled wrong.

Not when most states had purged voters and straight-vote bias, that explanation over runs all others.

But the argument in itself is what the thieves use. How do you counter that argument?

Exit polls have traditionally favored the democratic side. But this was not a preliminary exit poll...It was a final exit poll wasn't it.

The final exit polls have not very often favored anyone. Therefore based on it being a midnight run exit poll, you have strong counter argument which shows it had to be correct. Otherwise there would have had to have been a huge anomoly in E/M's own data, wouldn't there?

They can't counter their own argument.

[berniew1]

13. The problems weren't all fraud, but the documentation is clear

http://www.flcv.com/ohiosum.html
http://www.flcv.com/fla04EAS.html
http://www.flcv.com/summary.html

major problems in many states

[Sancho]

20. I think there are two issues here...

First, in Pinellas, Florida (where I live) the correlations by precinct of Bush/Martinez and Kerry/Castor are .99! Ticket splitting APPEARS in the errors...but not after you look carefully.

Besides, any competent pollster should have questions and be prepared for inconsistencies that reflect "ticket splitting".

Also, competent pollsters are sampling by demographics and other factors (every 4th women, etc) in order to get a representative sample.

I just don't believe that M-E doesn't already know there is evidence of foul play. They really need to release the raw data....