We Don't Need Paper to Prove Fraud (Editorial from co founder of Air Am.)

[MidwestTransplant]

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=10385

As a former C.P.A and auditor, I have used statistical sampling throughout my career with great confidence. With electronic record keeping, it's easy to create a program to falsify the books. But there are ways to uncover that. Auditors have developed statistical ways to cut right through corruption in companies. You don't even need a paper trail. These statistical approaches can be used with almost 100% accuracy to uncover fraud. /////Snip

[Dissent Is Patriotic]

1. great news.

i was starting to lose hope when i listened to randi yesterday. i knew those repugs would say they needed paper, but i'm not an accountant, i'm glad to know there are other ways to pin these bastards down. e

[glitch]

2. Thank You! You can post up to 4 paragraphs - here are a few

"As a former C.P.A and auditor, I have used statistical sampling throughout my career with great confidence. With electronic record keeping, it's easy to create a program to falsify the books. But there are ways to uncover that. Auditors have developed statistical ways to cut right through corruption in companies. You don't even need a paper trail. These statistical approaches can be used with almost 100% accuracy to uncover fraud.

With the votergate 2004 it's a numbers game just like it is with corporate accounting, even easier. All you're talking about is one number-- total votes for each candidate.

There's a huge difference between polling what WILL happen and polling something that has already happened. The reliability of polling something that has already happened is highly reliable vs. predictive polls, like Gallup or Zogby, which is very risky. The reliability can be, not plus or minus 4 percent as we see with predictive poplls, but rather a much more reliable plus or minus one half or one tenth of one percent with exit polls, because those are based on asking people who already voted. I would even say that if the exit polling were done in the key precincts of Florida and Ohio, which it was, then these results should be practically “bullet proof.” "

[Eloriel]

3. Also posted here:

Does ZOGBY Think There Was Fraud? Read This And You Decide
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1343789

***** Co-founder of AAR on Zogby site: Votergate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x34585
Link: http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=10385
also: Votergate 2004; We Don't Need Paper to Prove Fraud, But We Do Need Money
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x974160

[Fovea]

4. Damn!

That is a very good editorial.

In the absence of a smoking gun, the nitrates on the shooters hands will come very close to being conclusive.