You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #96: sigh [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #91
96. sigh
The were not "disclosed" to me, any more than they were "disclosed" to Mitofsky, or anyone else working for Edison-Mitofsky. I was HIRED.

The data DO NOT BELONG TO ME. They were not RELEASED to me. I didn't EARN the data by being a good little girl. I posted a paper on the internet saying that I thought the data should be reanalysed - AND I WAS HIRED TO DO SO.

What you want is PUBLIC RELEASE of the data for INDEPENDENT analysis. I wasn't an independent analyst. I was HIRED.

But I'm a good data analyst, and I'm an honest data analyst, and I was motivated to subject the damn data to every conceivable analysis I could in order to see whether I could find EVIDENCE THAT THE DISCREPANCIES WERE DUE TO FRAUD.

And, as I have explained on countless occasions, I found very little evidence that vote-miscounts were responsible for the discrepancy (a small apparent machine effect, whereby the discrepancy was greater in urban precincts using OLDER technology than in precincts using optical scanners or DREs, and ABSOLUTELY NO RELATIONSHIP between redshift and advantage to Bush. But you know this.


So what the heck are you saying?

That you don't believe I did it right?

That you want to run the analyses yourself?

That I am lying?

And Mitofsky used the F word to Ron after Ron had repeatedly demanded public release of data that he will NOT release because of the ethical principles laid down by HIS OWN PROFESSIONAL ORGANISATION.

If Freeman or Baiman want to apply for a post as Mitofsky's statistician (it was vacant for a while) then they could see the data too. But what you and Baiman appear to want is PUBLIC RELEASE. To ANYONE.

If so, you need to make your case.

And to make that case you need to argue that somehow independent analysis of that data will tell you who won the election, and that without it no-one will know.

Well, all I can tell you is that it won't tell you. It can't. All I think it can tell you is that it is unlikely that vote-switching occurred on a massive scale. But feel free to suggest a hypothesis I haven't yet tested.

IF YOU CAN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC