Reply #69: hmm... [View All]

[OnTheOtherHand]

Since you disregard much of the post to which you are purportedly responding, it is hard to know what to think or to say. At least we have two important points of agreement: that the election results aren't audited, and that they should be.

"It is curious that you think the raw data that was provided before the final exit-polls were manufactured - was not raw, but weighted." Again, your terminology is very fuzzy. It would help if you responded to the actual text of my actual posts, and indicated whether you agreed, or even comprehended the words. Let me try once again. Your distinction between "raw" and "weighted" is incorrect. As far as we know, E/M doesn't release "raw" data until later; the datasets available via ICPSR actually incorporate "raw" information from over 70,000 questionnaires. But the estimates that E/M is preparing during election day, both before and after polls closed, incorporate all sorts of weights -- demographic, geographic, folding in absentees, taking account of pre-election polls, and ultimately incorporating official returns. So, the salient difference isn't between "raw" and "weighted," but rather between weighted to official returns or not. I can't think why it would be useful to insist that weighted results are "raw."

"It is our finding that the raw exit-polls show that it WAS" (i.e., the vote count was stolen). Well, I don't think even Freeman goes as far as "show that it WAS." You can "find" that, if you want. Most survey research experts "find" something else. Folks should know that if, say, they go to reporters saying "The exit polls show that the election was stolen," the reporters will have a hard time finding credible experts who agree. In contrast, if folks say "Paperless e-voting is inherently insecure," that view has more expert support. That is pertinent no matter what you or I think of the exit polls.

"Ya know, the people who paid $10 mil must be quite pissed that they wasted their money." This statement implies that you may not have read my previous post; maybe you can sort things out from Febble's response.