Exit Poll Response Optimization Analysis (Max/min Kerry/Bush vote%)

[TruthIsAll]

 Exit Poll Response Optimization Analysis

The Excel Solver optimization program is a useful tool to
determine which combinations of exit poll response rates are
plausible, based on the 1250 precinct distribution provided by
Mitofsky, which has been analyzed by USCV and here at DU in
connection with the rBr hypothesis.

The objective:
Maximize/Minimize Kerry and Bush voting percentages subject to
constraints on response rates.

Constraints: 

The weighted average response rate is set to 53%.

1250 precinct partisan distribution
High Bush  > Non Partisan > High Kerry
40 415 540 165 90

The optimization was based on two sets of Kerry win
probability distributions:
1- 20% 40% 50% 60% 80% 
2- 10% 30% 50% 70% 90%

Response range constraints:
1)No restriction [0 - 100%] 
2)Restricted to [30% - 70%]
3)Restricted to [50 - 56%]

Optimization output includes the following parameters:

Response rate distributions (R)
Corresponding alphas 1/ (1-R)
Kerry responders
Bush Responders
Kerry Refusers
Bush Refusers
Total Kerry and Total Bush
Bush Vote %
Bush Exit Poll %
WPE (within precinct error)

Bush only won the IMPLAUSIBLE CASE of extremely high response
in High Bush strongholds (70%), and low response (38.2%) in
Kerry strongholds.

Kerry won all PLAUSIBLE optimizations. 



	1250	Precincts				
	Group A	High Bush	Non-partisan	High Kerry
	Prec	40	415	540	165	90
	Kerry%	20%	40%	50%	60%	80%
						
	Optimize	Goal	       Kerry	Bush	(53%avg rate)	
						
Implausible	1	Max Bush	50.30%	49.70%		
Plausible	2	Max Kerry	50.72%	49.28%		
Implausible	3	Min Bush	71.07%	28.93%		
Implausible	4	Min Kerry	50.30%	49.70%		
Implausible	5	Max Kerry	54.97%	45.03%	< [30%,70%]	
Implausible	6	Max Bush	50.35%	49.65%	< [30%,70%]	
						
	Group B					
	Kerry%	10%	30%	50%	70%	90%
	    Optimize     Goal	        Kerry	Bush		

Implausible	7	Min Bush	54.19%	45.81%	< [30%,70%]	
Implausible	8	Max Bush	48.08%	51.92%	< [30%,70%]	
Implausible	9	Min Kerry	48.08%	51.92%	< [30%,70%]	
Implausible	10	Max Kerry	54.19%	45.81%	< [30%,70%]	
						
Plausible	11	Max Kerry	51.02%	48.98%	< [50%,56%]	
Plausible	12	Max Bush	50.56%	49.44%	< [50%,56%]	
Plausible	13	Min Kerry	50.56%	49.44%	< [50%,56%]	
Plausible	14	Min Bush	51.08%	48.92%	< [50%,56%]	
						
						

	OPT 1						
	Kerry	50.30%					
	Bush	49.70%	<maximize				
			HighBush			High Kerry
		1250	40	415	540	165	90
		Kerry%	20%	40%	50%	60%	80%
	0.53	Resp	89.70%	57.35%	50.88%	46.57%	41.17%
	1.06	alpha	1.79	1.15	1.02	0.93	0.82
	662	Resp	36	238	275	77	37
	329	K Resp 	13	109	140	43	24
	333	B Resp	23	129	135	34	13
	300	K Ref	1	71	133	53	42
	288	B Ref 	3	106	133	35	11
							
	629	TotalK 	14	180	272	96	67
	621	TotalB 	26	235	268	69	23
	49.70%	B Pct%	65.76%	56.63%	49.55%	41.92%	25.81%
	49.52%	B Exit%	64.12%	54.12%	49.12%	44.12%	34.12%
	0.18%	WPE	1.64%	2.51%	0.43%	-2.20%	-8.31%



	OPT 2						
	Kerry	50.72%	<maximize				
	Bush	49.28%					
			HighBush			High Kerry
		1250	40	415	540	165	90
		Kerry%	20%	40%	50%	60%	80%
	0.53	Resp	50.30%	53.11%	54.04%	51.24%	50.67%
	1.06	alpha	1.01	1.06	1.08	1.02	1.01
	663	Resp	20	220	292	85	46
	344	K Resp 	4	94	158	52	37
	318	B Resp	16	127	134	33	9
	290	K Ref	4	78	124	48	36
	298	B Ref 	16	117	124	32	9

	634	TotalK 	8	171	282	100	72
	616	TotalB 	32	244	258	65	18
	49.28%	BPct%	79.9%	58.7%	47.8%	39.2%	19.5%
	47.95%	BExit%	79.9%	57.5%	46.0%	38.5%	18.9%
	1.33%	WPE	0.1%	1.2%	1.9%	0.7%	0.5%


	OPT 3						
	Kerry	71.61%					
	Bush	28.39%	<minimize				
			High Bush			High Kerry
		1250	40	415	540	165	90
		Kerry%	20%	40%	50%	60%	80%
	0.53	Resp	100.0%	6.3%	100.0%	0.0%	62.5%
	1.06	alpha	2	0.127	2	0	1.25000001
	663	Resp	40	26	540	0	56
	614	K Resp 	16	1	540	0	56
	49	B Resp	24	25	0	0	0
	281	K Ref	0	156	0	99	27
	306	B Ref 	0	233	0	66	7
							
	895	TotalK 	16	157	540	99	83
	355	TotalB 	24	258	0	66	7
	28.39%	B Pct%	60.00%	62.21%	0.00%	40.00%	7.50%
		B Exit%	60.00%	94.94%	0.00%	#DIV/0!	0.00%
		WPE	0.00%	-32.73%	0.00%	#DIV/0!	7.50%
							
	OPT 4						
	Kerry	50.30%	<minimize				
	Bush	49.70%					
			HighBush			High Kerry
		1250	40	415	540	165	90
		Kerry%	0.2	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.8
	0.53	Resp	89.7%	57.3%	50.9%	46.6%	41.2%
	1.06	alpha	1.79	1.15	1.02	0.93	0.82
	662	Resp	36	238	275	77	37
	329	K Resp 	13	109	140	43	24
	333	B Resp	23	129	135	34	13
	300	K Ref	1	71	133	53	42
	288	B Ref 	3	106	133	35	11

	629	Total K 	14	180	272	96	67
	621	Total B 	26	235	268	69	23
		B Pct%	65.8%	56.6%	49.6%	41.9%	25.8%
		B Exit%	64.1%	54.1%	49.1%	44.1%	34.1%
		WPE	1.6%	2.5%	0.4%	-2.2%	-8.3%




	OPT 5						
	Kerry	54.97%	< maximize; Response rates [30%,70%]				
	Bush	45.03%					
			High Bush			High Kerry
		1250	40	415	540	165	90
		Kerry%	20%	40%	50%	60%	80%
	0.53	Resp	30.0%	30.0%	70.0%	55.6%	62.5%
	1.06	alpha	0.60	0.60	1.40	1.11	1.25
	663	Resp	12	125	378	92	56
	413	K Resp 	1	30	265	61	56
	249	B Resp	11	95	113	31	0
	274	K Ref	6	116	81	44	27
	314	B Ref 	22	174	81	29	7

	687	TotalK 	7	146	346	105	83
	563	TotalB 	33	269	194	60	7
		B Pct%	82.4%	64.8%	36.0%	36.3%	7.5%
		B Exit%	88.0%	76.0%	30.0%	33.3%	0.0%
		WPE	-5.6%	-11.2%	6.0%	3.0%	7.5%


	OPT 6						
	Kerry	50.35%					
	Bush	49.65%	< maximize; Response rates [30%,70%]				
			High Bush			High Kerry
		1250	40	415	540	165	90
		Kerry%	20%	40%	50%	60%	80%
	0.53	Resp	70.0%	58.1%	51.5%	47.1%	41.6%
	1.06	alpha	1.40	1.16	1.03	0.94	0.83
	663	Resp	28	241	278	78	37
	332	K Resp 	8	112	143	44	25
	330	B Resp	20	129	135	34	13
	297	K Ref	2	69	131	52	42
	290	B Ref 	10	104	131	35	11

	629	TotalK 	10	182	274	96	67
	621	TotalB 	30	233	266	69	23
		B Pct%	74.4%	56.2%	49.2%	41.6%	25.6%
		B Exit%	72.0%	53.5%	48.5%	43.5%	33.5%
		WPE	2.4%	2.7%	0.7%	-1.8%	-7.9%

	OPT 7						
	Kerry	54.19%					
	Bush	45.81%	< minimize; Response rates [30%,70%]				
			High Bush			High Kerry
		1250	40	415	540	165	90
		Kerry%	10%	30%	50%	70%	90%
	0.53	Resp	30.0%	30.0%	66.8%	70.0%	55.6%
	1.06	alpha	0.60	0.60	1.34	1.40	1.11
	662	Resp	12	125	360	116	50
	427	K Resp 	1	22	241	113	50
	236	B Resp	11	102	120	2	0
	250	K Ref	3	87	90	35	36
	337	B Ref 	25	203	90	15	4

	677	TotalK 	4	110	330	148	86
	573	TotalB 	36	305	210	17	4
		B Pct%	91.2%	73.6%	38.8%	10.4%	4.4%
		B Exit%	94.0%	82.0%	33.2%	2.0%	0.0%
		WPE	-2.8%	-8.4%	5.6%	8.4%	4.4%



	OPT 8		Requires high Bush response in Kerry precincts				
	Kerry	48.08%					
	Bush	51.92%	< maximize; Response rates [30%,70%]				
			High Bush		High Kerry
		1250	40	415	540	165	90
		Kerry%	10%	30%	50%	70%	90%
	0.53	Resp	70.0%	64.5%	48.7%	41.9%	38.2%
	1.06	alpha	1.40	1.29	0.97	0.84	0.76
	663	Resp	28	268	263	69	34
	300	K Resp 	4	104	128	41	24
	362	B Resp	24	164	135	29	11
	301	K Ref	1	44	138	67	50
	287	B Ref 	11	103	138	29	6

	601	TotalK 	5	148	267	108	74
	649	TotalB 	35	267	273	57	16
		B Pct%	87.2%	64.4%	50.6%	34.7%	18.1%
		B Exit%	86.0%	61.3%	51.3%	41.3%	31.3%
		WPE	1.2%	3.1%	-0.7%	-6.5%	-13.2%


	OPT 9						
	Kerry	48.08%	< minimize; Response rates [30%,70%]				
	Bush	51.92%					
			High Bush		High Kerry
		1250	40	415	540	165	90
		Kerry%	10%	30%	50%	70%	90%
	0.53	Resp	70.0%	64.5%	48.7%	41.9%	38.2%
	1.06	alpha	1.40	1.29	0.97	0.84	0.76
	663	Resp	28	268	263	69	34
	300	K Resp 	4	104	128	41	24
	362	B Resp	24	164	135	29	11
	301	K Ref	1	44	138	67	50
	287	B Ref 	11	103	138	29	6

	601	TotalK 	5	148	267	108	74
	649	TotalB 	35	267	273	57	16
		B Pct%	87.2%	64.4%	50.6%	34.7%	18.1%
		B Exit%	86.0%	61.3%	51.3%	41.3%	31.3%
		WPE	1.2%	3.1%	-0.7%	-6.5%	-13.2%


	OPT 10						
	Kerry	54.19%	< maximize; Response rates [30%,70%]				
	Bush	45.81%					
			High Bush		High Kerry
		1250	40	415	540	165	90
		Kerry%	10%	30%	50%	70%	90%
	0.53	Resp	30.0%	30.0%	66.8%	70.0%	55.6%
	1.06	alpha	0.60	0.60	1.34	1.40	1.11
	662	Resp	12	125	360	116	50
	427	K Resp 	1	22	241	113	50
	236	B Resp	11	102	120	2	0
	250	K Ref	3	87	90	35	36
	337	B Ref 	25	203	90	15	4

	677	TotalK 	4	110	330	148	86
	573	TotalB 	36	305	210	17	4
		B Pct%	91.2%	73.6%	38.8%	10.4%	4.4%
		B Exit%	94.0%	82.0%	33.2%	2.0%	0.0%
		WPE	-2.8%	-8.4%	5.6%	8.4%	4.4%
							
							
	OPT 11						
	Kerry	51.08%	< maximize; Response rates [50%,56%]				
	Bush	48.92%					
			High Bush		High Kerry
		1250	40	415	540	165	90
		Kerry%	20%	40%	50%	60%	80%
	0.53	Resp	50.0%	50.0%	54.1%	56.0%	56.0%
	1.06	alpha	1.00	1.00	1.08	1.12	1.12
	663	Resp	20	208	292	92	50
	352	K Resp 	4	83	158	62	45
	310	B Resp	16	125	134	30	5
	286	K Ref	4	83	124	44	32
	301	B Ref 	16	125	124	29	8

	639	TotalK 	8	166	282	106	77
	611	TotalB 	32	249	258	59	13
		B Pct%	80.0%	60.0%	47.8%	36.0%	14.6%
		B Exit%	80.0%	60.0%	45.9%	32.8%	10.4%
		WPE	0.0%	0.0%	1.9%	3.2%	4.2%




	OPT 12						
	Kerry	50.56%					
	Bush	49.44%	< maximize; Response rates [50%,56%]				
			High Bush		High Kerry
		1250	40	415	540	165	90
		Kerry%	20%	40%	50%	60%	80%
	0.53	Resp	56.0%	56.0%	51.9%	50.0%	50.0%
	1.06	alpha	1.12	1.12	1.04	1.00	1.00
	663	Resp	22	232	280	83	45
	340	K Resp 	5	104	145	50	36
	322	B Resp	17	128	135	33	9
	292	K Ref	4	73	130	50	36
	296	B Ref 	14	110	130	33	9

	632	TotalK 	9	177	275	99	72
	618	TotalB 	31	238	265	66	18
		B Pct%	78.7%	57.3%	49.0%	40.0%	20.0%
		B Exit%	77.6%	55.2%	48.1%	40.0%	20.0%
		WPE	1.1%	2.1%	0.9%	0.0%	0.0%

	OPT 13						
	Kerry	50.56%	< minimize; Response rates [50%,56%]				
	Bush	49.44%					
			High Bush		High Kerry
		1250	40	415	540	165	90
		Kerry%	20%	40%	50%	60%	80%
	0.53	Resp	56.0%	56.0%	51.9%	50.0%	50.0%
	1.06	alpha	1.12	1.12	1.04	1.00	1.00
	663	Resp	22	232	280	83	45
	340	K Resp 	5	104	145	50	36
	322	B Resp	17	128	135	33	9
	292	K Ref	4	73	130	50	36
	296	B Ref 	14	110	130	33	9

	632	TotalK 	9	177	275	99	72
	618	TotalB 	31	238	265	66	18
		B Pct%	78.7%	57.3%	49.0%	40.0%	20.0%
		B Exit%	77.6%	55.2%	48.1%	40.0%	20.0%
		WPE	1.1%	2.1%	0.9%	0.0%	0.0%



	OPT 14						
	Kerry	51.08%					
	Bush	48.92%	< minimize; Response rates [50%,56%]				
			High Bush		High Kerry
		1250	40	415	540	165	90
		Kerry%	20%	40%	50%	60%	80%
	0.53	Resp	50.0%	50.0%	54.1%	56.0%	56.0%
	1.06	alpha	1.00	1.00	1.08	1.12	1.12
	663	Resp	20	208	292	92	50
	352	K Resp 	4	83	158	62	45
	310	B Resp	16	125	134	30	5
	286	K Ref	4	83	124	44	32
	301	B Ref 	16	125	124	29	8

	639	TotalK 	8	166	282	106	77
	611	TotalB 	32	249	258	59	13
		B Pct%	80.0%	60.0%	47.8%	36.0%	14.6%
		B Exit%	80.0%	60.0%	45.9%	32.8%	10.4%
		WPE	0.0%	0.0%	1.9%	3.2%	4.2%

[TruthIsAll]

1. Bush 51.2% 2-party vote requires an infeasible response curve.

To show how implausible the final vote was:

For Bush to win 51.2% of the 2-party vote, he needed 40% of
Kerry voters to respond in High Kerry precincts and 70% to
respond in High Bush precincts.

The weighted average response constraint is 50% Kerry/50%
Bush. Although the average is feasible, the shape of the
response curve is not.

 
Kerry	48.85%					
Bush	51.15%					
		High Bush		High Kerry
	1250	40	415	540	165	90
	Kerry%	20%	40%	50%	60%	80%
0.50	Resp	70.0%	54.4%	48.5%	44.6%	39.7%
1.00	alpha	1.40	1.09	0.97	0.89	0.79

625	Resp	28	226	262	74	36
295	K Resp 	8	98	127	39	23
330	B Resp	20	128	135	34	13

315	K Ref	2	76	139	55	43
310	B Ref 	10	114	139	37	11

611	TotalK 	10	174	266	94	66
639	TotalB 	30	241	274	71	24

	B Pct%	74.4%	58.1%	50.7%	42.9%	26.5%
	B Exit%	72.0%	56.5%	51.5%	46.5%	36.5%

	WPE	2.4%	1.6%	-0.8%	-3.6%	-9.9%


Note:
Alpha = 2*Response rate, not 1/(1-R) as stated.
The calculation was correct. 
e.g. Alpha = 1.12 if R =.56 

[TruthIsAll]

8. Self delete

[TruthIsAll]

11. HOW TO USE THE OPTIMIZER: TWO METHODS

There are two types of optimizations:

1. Find a maximum/minimum percentage (optimization).
2. Determine the response curve "allocation" (goal-seeking) to achieve a target percentage.

For both methods, we need to define a Kerry win percentage schedule for the 5 partisanship groupings.
For example: 20%, 30%, 50%, 70%, 80%.

We can either:

1- Determine the max/min percentage for Kerry or Bush over a given response interval constraint (ie 40-60%)
or
2- Set a target Kerry or Bush maximum or minimum percentage and determine the partisanship response curve necessary to achieve it, but restricted to staying within the response curve interval. This is called Goal-seeking. It eliminates the need to test thousands of scenarios using simulation or "what-if" analysis.

[TruthIsAll]

2. TWO MORE SIGNIFICANT, PLAUSIBLE OPTIMIZATIONS

Changed the response range constraint to (45,61%):

	   Optimize	Goal	        Kerry	Bush    Response
Plausible	15	Max Bush	50.42%	49.58%	<[45%,61%]
Plausible	16	Max Kerry	51.42%	48.51%	<[45%,61%]

OPT 15						
Kerry	50.42%					
Bush	49.58%	<tried to maximize Bush (NG)				
		High Bush		High Kerry
	1250	40	415	540	165	90
	Kerry%	20%	40%	50%	60%	80%

0.53	Resp	61.0%	58.2%	51.5%	47.1%	45.0%
1.06	alpha	1.22	1.16	1.03	0.94	0.90

663	Resp	24	241	278	78	41
335	K Resp 	6	112	143	44	29
328	B Resp	18	129	135	34	11
295	K Ref	3	69	131	52	40
292	B Ref 	12	104	131	35	10

630	TotalK 	9	182	274	96	69
620	TotalB 	31	233	266	69	21
	B Pct%	77.3%	56.2%	49.2%	41.6%	23.6%
	B Exit%	75.6%	53.5%	48.5%	43.5%	28.0%
	WPE	1.7%	2.7%	0.8%	-1.8%	-4.4%


OPT 16						
Kerry	51.49%	MAXIMIZE Kerry (feasible)			
Bush	48.51%					

		High Bush		High Kerry
	1250	40	415	540	165	90
	Kerry%	20%	40%	50%	60%	80%
0.53	Resp	45.0%	59.3%	45.0%	61.0%	61.0%
1.06	alpha	0.90	1.19	0.90	1.22	1.22

663	Resp	18	246	243	101	55
356	K Resp 	3	117	109	74	54
306	B Resp	15	129	134	27	1
287	K Ref	4	68	149	39	28
300	B Ref 	18	101	149	26	7

644	TotalK 	8	184	258	112	82
606	TotalB 	32	231	282	53	8

	B Pct%	80.9%	55.6%	52.3%	31.9%	9.3%
	B Exit%	82.0%	52.6%	55.0%	26.8%	2.4%
	WPE	-1.1%	3.0%	-2.8%	5.1%	6.9%

[TruthIsAll]

3. A SHORT EXPLANATION: OPTIMIZATION VS. SIMULATION

A Monte Carlo simulation employs a set of scenarios utilizing random sampling of probability distributions which are the basis of a model (typically to forecast the most likely result).

Optimization (non-linear or linear) employs a mathematical ALGORITHM to determine the necessary distribution of component variable factors in order to optimize (maximize or minimize) a linear or non-linear OBJECTIVE function.

Some examples of Optimization Models:

1. The Traveling Salesman problem:
Seeks to minimize the time spent in traveling from location to location.

2. Portfolio Optimization (Quadratic programming):
Here we seek to MAXIMIZE return for a given level of risk.
Conversely, we may want to MINIMIZE risk for a given return.
This is an application of non-linear (quadratic) optimization to determine the appropriate mix of investments.

3. Profit Maximization (Linear Programming)
Subject to constraints of costs and capacity, allocate corporate resources accordingly to maximize the bottom line.

For exit poll response analysis, we seek to determine the maximum (or minimum) Kerry/Bush percentage given a distribution of 1250 precincts which vary by partisanship and response rate. The total weighted average Kerry/Bush response rate is 53%.

Looking at the other side of coin, the problem can be stated as: Find a feasible distribution of partisanship categories of precinct response rates which will produce a given vote percentage. This may prove to be impossible; the algorithm cannot iterate to a feasible, much less implausible, solution.

If we know that Bush's final 2-party vote is 51.2%, then given the precinct partisanship distribution, and the overall 53% response rate, is there a FEASIBLE distribution of Kerry/Bush response across the five partisanship categories which will get him that 51.2%?

That is the question we are looking to answer.

And the answer is: There is no feasible solution. The response rates vary tremendously. The variability in exit poll response rates within partisanship categories for Bush to get 51.2% is toally unrealistic.

[autorank]

4. This needs to be read and studied. It's explosive.

Nothing like taking a new look with a different tool. This says it all:
Bush only won the IMPLAUSIBLE CASE of extremely high response
in High Bush strongholds (70%), and low response (38.2%) in
Kerry strongholds.

I look forward to the dialog on this one! Thank you for the extensive analysis. Obviously I need to study it more but I will and I'm sure that the process will be rewarding.

Everybody ready to look through the telescope? Hope so.


NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY!

Contact the DNC and Give 'em Hell About NOT Acting on Election Fraud

[kster]

5. kick.nt

[autorank]

6. I kick.nt and raise you a kick.nt. This is great stuff.

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY!

Contact the DNC and Give 'em Hell About NOT Acting on Election Fraud

[TruthIsAll]

7. I have been waiting patiently for the rBr crew to show up...

so keep kicking it...

[OnTheOtherHand]

9. two reasons I don't understand your simulation

(1) You seem to be assigning entire precincts to categories such as "K Resp," "B Resp," etc. The simulation seems not to allow for the fact that individuals in each precinct actually respond.

(2) As I've argued elsewhere, it's perfectly possible to have a precinct with a WPE of -20 or more (more negative) and an estimated alpha over 1.7 even if Kerry and Bush voters actually respond at the same rate. So I don't see how we can just figure what we think the response rates must have been, then declare them implausible.

I would be interested in your response to Bruce O'Dell's working paper
http://www.digitalagility.com/data/ODell_Response_to_USCV_Working_Paper.pdf
or
http://tinyurl.com/8mtfe

[TruthIsAll]

10. This is not a simulation. It is an optimization

Comment on this analysis.

[OnTheOtherHand]

18. OK, then, start with one reason I don't understand your optimization

So, what does it mean, in OPT 1, in the high Bush precincts, to have TotalK = 14 and TotalB = 26?

[TruthIsAll]

19. Quick answer.

40 High Bush precincts = 40 aggregated votes.
Kerry gets 20%, Bush 80%
89.7% response rate
Of the 36 who respond, 13 to K, 23 to Bush
Of the 36 who refuse, 1 to K, 3 to Bush

Total Bush 26
Total Kerry 14

[OnTheOtherHand]

20. precincts = votes?

Well, that isn't Monte Carlo simulation, but it's more than just an "optimization." At least it assumes that all precincts are the same size. And it assumes that any deviation between the official results and the exit poll results stems from response bias , not random sampling error.

I dunno, when I first saw response rate calculations back in March, I thought they were pretty convincing or at least provocative, and now I have really soured on them. We can probably calculate that the Kerry response rates in three or four of those precincts "must have been" 200%, but I don't know how much that proves.

[TruthIsAll]

21. Just noticed the typo: should read "of the 4 who refused" (not 36)

I am still working on this. I believe the aggregate approach has value. I am not looking for exactitude. It's a different approach than doing simulation.

I have made changes which I have not yet posted. The goal is to let the algorithm try a lot of combinations to find a feasible response curve.

I am not quite there yet, but hopefully the model will yield insight into what the rBr level must be to satisfy the constraints and yield the 51.2% 2-party vote for Bush - and for Kerry.

[OnTheOtherHand]

22. ok, fair enough

I'm still working on my end, too -- the response rate issue is pretty complicated.

[autorank]

12. KICK Where's the debate on this? I'm stunned by the silence.

:freak:

[Internut]

14. I am stunned by the silence

on this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x374313#374363

You'd think that co-founder of USCV trashing the USCV paper in public would be big news, no?

[autorank]

15. Those politics are utterly transparent, not worthy of a response.

[Internut]

16. Not to me they are not, please elaborate. n/t

[mgr]

24. Discussion is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=374482&mesg_id=374482

[kster]

13. kick.nt

[FogerRox]

17. TIA maybe one of your better posts-- another different angle

Friggin book marked & RE BOOTED I mean kicked

[autorank]

23. KICK

:kick:

[LightningFlash]

25. I'd like to see a comparative regression analysis done.

Now that the US government has bit it and released all of the official cencus statistics, I'd like to see a real regression analysis done which could indicate just exactly where the particular fraud and errors happened and how frequent. I know it needs precedence.

[autorank]

26. LighteningFlash, excellent. How logical. Let's see of the FOMs

--Friends of Mitofsky--bit at this one.

[Peace Patriot]

27. To repeat my rant of the week:

If the Bush Cartel had wanted an honest, verifiable election, why didn't we have one?

And...

If the news monopolies had wanted an honest, verifiable election,

a) why did they ALTER the exit poll data on everybody's TV screens on election night, "adjusting" the exit polls (Kerry won) to fit the official tally (Bush won), thus denying the American public major evidence of fraud (unlike the practice in every other democracy);

b) why didn't they commission exit polls specifically designed to detect fraud--in view of the controversies about the 2000 election, and the experts' warnings about the hackability of electronic voting machines owned and controlled by Bush partisans, run on secret, proprietary source code;

and c) why are the news monopolies and their exit pollsters WITHHOLDING the raw exit poll data NOW?

While it is extremely important to investigate the numerous smoking cannons of this election, keep in mind that we shouldn't have to do this. The Bush Cartel CHOSE to have an unverifiable election, and the news monopolies CHOSE to muddy the waters with a different kind of exit poll that is conducted anywhere else in the world, CHOSE to LIE to us about the results of those polls, and are NOW CHOOSING to deny us the evidence.

[autorank]

28. It's the TIA Optimizere (Total-Instant-Analysis)

Version 1.0