Merkins 2012

[ubs]

Victus wrote

So either they don't share your beliefs that its possible/has happened, or for whatever reason, people who would stand to hugely benefit from an investigation aren't pushing for one.

The people who stand to gain hugely lost the election. The "other side" are the losing candidates, who, by virtue of losing do not have the power to request an investigation.

[Victus]

ubs wrote

The people who stand to gain hugely lost the election. The "other side" are the losing candidates, who, by virtue of losing do not have the power to request an investigation.

There are several months between the election and the establishment of a new government, at least in most jurisdictions. Moreover, if they wanted, they could start a petition.

I don't even see a push for an investigation.

[ubs]

Victus wrote

I don't even see a push for an investigation.

Like all those studies? Like the demands at OWS (which include better protections for election integrity)?

Maybe you're defining push too narrowly.

[Victus]

ubs wrote

Like all those studies?

Which, empirically, appear to be weak. If they're evidence that 2004 was rigged, then they're evidence that basically all elections are rigged. Did you want to bite that bullet?

ubs wrote

Like the demands at OWS (which include better protections for election integrity)?

Is there a list now? I've mostly seen complaints that they can't find jobs and that students have to pay their student loans off.

ubs wrote

Maybe you're defining push too narrowly.

I would like to see the candidates themselves engaged in this, rather than it being the realm of conspiracy theorists.

[ubs]

Victus wrote

Which, empirically, appear to be weak. If they're evidence that 2004 was rigged, then they're evidence that basically all elections are rigged. Did you want to bite that bullet?

I think we did. You are very focused on the study by Dr Freeman which he retracted and I favor the 10 university effort and the separate UC study (corroborated by MIT), which you find confusing and inconclusive. If you look up and declare the sky green, there's really no where for the two of us to go. I see blue.

Victus wrote

Is there a list now? I've mostly seen complaints that they can't find jobs and that students have to pay their student loans off.

Be careful about letting the Phils of the world do your thinking for you. It all seems fun at first but eventually the pitch-thinkers extract a fee.

Victus wrote

I would like to see the candidates themselves engaged in this, rather than it being the realm of conspiracy theorists.

Conspiracy theorists being, people not in office that have a problem with government corruption? Please tell me you aren't turning into a grown man who fears for the lives of his cartoon chickens.

[dogpet]

The Republicunts don't want to win this election, nor did they want the last one. You only have to look at the clown shows they put forward to see that.
PLPR is the only way to get most people on here some sort of say, as opposed to the dog of two heads. Look at Poland; who'd have thought the young would bother voting? You don't get rid of shit without a movement.

[Victus]

ubs wrote

I think we did.

Well then you need to come up with a compelling explanation for how competing political entities have maintained a conspiracy spanning 20+ years, probably involving tens of thousands of people and millions (billions?) of dollars in pay-offs, all while maintaining both total effectiveness and total secrecy (until now!).

Just as a matter of probability, the more people involved in a conspiracy (to say nothing of how 'important' it is), the less likely it is to go undetected for a given period of time. The sheer number of people and resources that would need to be involved to be successful, and the fact that the subject of the conspiracy is a highly public and scrutinized event which draws the focus of million and millions of eyes for months on end, lead me to assign a low probability to the suggestion that a conspiracy is afoot.

Instead, I favor a more straightforward explanation for the state of affairs:

Almost all of the people I meet and talk to strongly support obviously stupid policies, as evidenced by my discussions here. A plurality of these people vote. Politicians have incentives to (more or less) give voters what they want. Correspondingly, we have obviously stupid policies - oddly of the same flavor as those preferred by the electorate.

ubs wrote

You are very focused on the study by Dr Freeman which he retracted

You went out of your way to cite it...

ubs, earlier wrote

Another review of exit poll discrepancies from a Dr Freeman at Penn

And that's why I address it.

ubs wrote

and I favor the 10 university effort and the separate UC study (corroborated by MIT), which you find confusing and inconclusive.

I'm not confused by it, I just don't find it compelling. It rules out entirely plausible possibilities that are consistent with the data.

ubs wrote

If you look up and declare the sky green, there's really no where for the two of us to go. I see blue.

I'm not trying to go anywhere, only to determine what's true.

ubs wrote

Be careful about letting the Phils of the world do your thinking for you. It all seems fun at first but eventually the pitch-thinkers extract a fee.

Honestly, most of the stuff I've seen spilling out of OWS has been proto-socialistic: "tax the rich, more free stuff for me!"

I've seen a few decent 'demands', but there's about a 10:1 ratio of economically illiterate nonsense to defensible policy proposals, which doesn't make me enthusiastic about the 'cause'.

ubs wrote

Conspiracy theorists being, people not in office that have a problem with government corruption?

Conspiracy theorists being people who believe a massive conspiracy is afoot without any evidence, or in the face of contradicting evidence.

So if you really believe that the voting machines gave an unfair advantage to one side or the other, why not bet on it?

[ubs]

Victus wrote

Conspiracy theorists being people who believe a massive conspiracy is afoot without any evidence, or in the face of contradicting evidence.

The term 'conspiracy theorist' is a statist meme whose purpose is to marginalize people questioning the activities of those in power. It's so over used it's the equivalent of saying "fuck." What do you mean EXACTLY when you say conspiracy. Do you mean people working together? Was Enron a "conspiracy?" Was the effort to hide abu grabe a "conspiracy?" Are we "conspiring" to meet here for discussion?

Say what you mean and mean what you say.

Victus wrote

So if you really believe that the voting machines gave an unfair advantage to one side or the other, why not bet on it?

I don't gain anything from it.

If we chose a judge that picked my argument would you be convinced? A final authority drawing a conclusion but not adding to the discussion would do nothing for me. Nor would forcing you to bend to my position.

Right now I think that like most conservatives you are biased in favor of power and that like most anarchist leaning libertarians I am suspicious of power. Our views color our interpretation of how much evidence is enough. I think there is enough....or I guess, like the accountant for whom Benford's says fraud I poke waiting for the story to unfold.

[Brick]

Herman Cain is nuts.

[Brick]

Nope, no liberal media bias

[Victus]

ubs wrote

The term 'conspiracy theorist' is a statist meme whose purpose is to marginalize people questioning the activities of those in power. It's so over used it's the equivalent of saying "fuck."

I'm pretty sure it has its own definition, independent of whether the government is the topic of discussion.

ubs wrote

What do you mean EXACTLY when you say conspiracy.

A conspiracy is an arrangement between two or more persons, acting for their interests and/or against others' interests. Most definitions I've ever come across hint that the to-be-concealed act is usually illegal, although not necessarily so.

ubs wrote

Do you mean people working together? Was Enron a "conspiracy?"

Based on what I know, yes. And it failed.

ubs wrote

Was the effort to hide abu grabe a "conspiracy?"

Based on what I know, yes. And it failed.

ubs wrote

Are we "conspiring" to meet here for discussion?

Nope. We might meet the definition of a conspiracy if we communicated ahead of time to exchange further communications at this location or at some given time, but since we arrive and communicate here spontaneously (i.e., without planning), it's not a conspiracy (also its not illegal or 'against' anyone).

ubs wrote

Say what you mean and mean what you say.

I already did.

ubs wrote

I don't gain anything from it.

If you're right, you stand to gain $100, or however much we agree to ahead of time.

ubs wrote

If we chose a judge that picked my argument would you be convinced? A final authority drawing a conclusion but not adding to the discussion would do nothing for me. Nor would forcing you to bend to my position.

We wouldn't need an independent judge, just an objective outcome similar to the bets I have pitched to others, such as the following:

We take the county-level data on Republican vote share gains from 2000 to 2004 in Florida (if you don't like 2000, just substitute in 1996) and the data you provided on county-level voting methods from 2004 and run them through an ANOVA. If the 2004 election was rigged via the e-voting machines, then there should be greater average Republican gains (either from 2000 or 1996) in counties using said machines, compared to those using the OptScan method. If the vote share trend difference is greater in E-vote than OptScan counties to a statistically significant degree (p < .05), then you win and I owe you $100, no questions asked.

If the above isn't true; if E-vote and Optscan counties aren't significantly different (p > .05) or are significantly different in the other direction (Optscan > E-vote) then i win and you owe me $100, no questions asked.

Interested?

ubs wrote

Right now I think that like most conservatives

I'm not a conservative.

ubs wrote

you are biased in favor of power and that like most anarchist leaning libertarians I am suspicious of power.

I think you're buying into what is, frankly, little more than a conspiracy theory. The two conspiracies above would pale in size and complexity to the one you seem to believe in, and they collapsed in relatively short order.

[ubs]

If I think of a gain worth betting for, I'll let you know what it is. It would most likely not be money. Money takes the fun out of games.

But the bet would have to be within the same election measuring whether the standard deviation of data from regions of Florida with a high number of e-machines were significantly different from the exit polls than those with low numbers of e-machines.

I don't think different election years are comparable for our purposes. Even if we used every election since the beginning of the republic we would have fewer than 1,000 and I'm sure you agree that using larger number tools on medium number problems is bunk.

And you are conservative when compared to me.

Also, protip: You'll get more people to take bets with you if you limp a little.

[Victus]

ubs wrote

If I think of a gain worth betting for, I'll let you know what it is. It would most likely not be money. Money takes the fun out of games.

But it does add a nifty incentive for participants to be rational.

ubs wrote

But the bet would have to be within the same election measuring whether the standard deviation of data from regions of Florida with a high number of e-machines were significantly different from the exit polls than those with low numbers of e-machines.

Between-county variance would make such a comparison problematic. If you believe that 2004 (but not earlier elections) was stolen using E-voting, the test included in the bet is the obvious way to find out.

ubs wrote

I don't think different election years are comparable for our purposes. Even if we used every election since the beginning of the republic we would have fewer than 1,000 and I'm sure you agree that using larger number tools on medium number problems is bunk.

67 counties worth of data is quite enough for a simple ANOVA, but if you're worried about losing due to a lack of statistical power, we could just refine the winning conditions of the bet:

You win $100 if E-voting generates significantly greater Republican gains than OptScan. I win if Optscan generates significantly greater Republican gains than E-vote, I win $100. If the result is not significant either way, neither of us collects.

ubs wrote

And you are conservative when compared to me.

Does this broadly describe your views?

[Irreligious]

Brick wrote

Brick, the woman who wasn't shown on CNN was just as hysterical and vague in her complaints as the hysterical male tea party demonstrator.

When, in the history of the U.S,. did unelected American voters ever get to cast a vote on a federal budget? I'll tell you: Never.

[Irreligious]

Brick wrote

Herman Cain is nuts.

I agree. This man is an unprincipled clown who is saying whatever he thinks conservative voters want to hear. He's certainly not a libertarian, so I can understand why you don't like him.