• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Republicans cheated again--and still lost!

PerryLogan

Banned
P
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
980
Check it out--the Republicans cheated in the 2006 election...and they still lost!

Reported Results Skewed Toward Republicans by 4 percent, 3 million votes

Election Defense Alliance, a national election integrity organization, issued an urgent call for further investigation into the 2006 election results and a moratorium on deployment of all electronic election equipment, after analysis of national exit polling data indicated a major undercount of Democratic votes and an overcount of Republican votes in U.S. House and Senate races across the country. "These findings raise urgent questions about the electoral machinery and vote counting systems used in the United States," according to Sally Castleman, National Chair of EDA. "This is a national indictment of the vote counting process in the United States!"
Click to expand...
http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/major_miscount_of_vote_in_2006_election
 
That Exit Poll showed Democratic House candidates had out-polled Republicans by 55.0 percent to 43.5 percent – an 11.5 percent margin – in the total vote for the U.S. House, sometimes referred to as the “generic” vote.
By contrast, the election results showed Democratic House candidates won 52.7 percent of the vote to 45.1 percent for Republican candidates, producing a 7.6 percent margin in the total vote for the U.S. House — 3.9 percent less than the Edison-Mitofsky poll. This discrepancy, far beyond the poll’s +/- 1 percent margin of error, has less than a one in 10,000 likelihood of occurring by chance.
Click to expand...


Yeah, we all know how reliable exit polls are. :rolleyes:
 
Talking to exit pollsters is not compulsory. Perhaps people are more reluctant to admit to voting Republican than Democrat. It is fairly easy to believe that people who, in spite of the last six years, still voted Republican, might by now be somewhat less convinced that they were doing the right thing that the Democrat voters, and less willing to confess it to a stranger.

The poll's "margin of error" is calculated only from the sample size, it can't take into account the possibility of a self-biasing sample.
 
Dr Adequate said:
It is fairly easy to believe that people who, in spite of the last six years, still voted Republican, might by now be somewhat less convinced that they were doing the right thing that the Democrat voters, and less willing to confess it to a stranger.
Click to expand...

Of course, that would be easy to measure by the size of the margin between the most recent national elections. You guys do know how poll workers are hired, right?
 
Cylinder said:
Of course, that would be easy to measure by the size of the margin between the most recent national elections. You guys do know how poll workers are hired, right?
Click to expand...

They look for fired baggers from the local grocery store.
 
Cylinder said:
Of course, that would be easy to measure by the size of the margin between the most recent national elections.
Click to expand...
No, it would be easy to measure by the size of the margin between how people voted and what they told exit pollsters, am I missing something?

You guys do know how poll workers are hired, right?
Click to expand...
They get interviewed by some guy from the HR department of the polling company?

Is this relevant?
 
So the "evidence" of Republican cheating here is the same "evidence" there was of Republicans cheating in 2004--namely, disagreement between exit polls and real results.

Of course, it's significantly more likely that--instead of this being some sort of massive Republican conspiracy (and an inefficient one at that)--the exit polls are simply inaccurate and tend to be skewed towards the democrats.
 
WildCat said:
AFAIK, the only actual verified vote fraud in 2004 was by Democrats in Wiosconsin, who slashed the tires of busses that were to be used by Republicans to take voters to the polls.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it was for A GOOD CAUSE, so it wasn't REALLY election fraud.
 
The Painter said:
Yeah, we all know how reliable exit polls are. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Actually, I think one of the major tools that international vote monitoring teams use to ascertain whether an election outcome is valid is to compare exit polls with election results. But I have not been able to verify this tonight with a quick google.

That said, your comment suggests that exit polls are unreliable. Got evidence? Not in a specific race or election, but that exit polls are not, ingeneral, a valid test of the validity of election results?
 
Just to be clear, I'm not claiming a grand conspiracy here (and you did not accuse me of that claim) - just a simple observation bias.
 
Cylinder said:
Just to be clear, I'm not claiming a grand conspiracy here (and you did not accuse me of that claim) - just a simple observation bias.
Click to expand...
But your link does not support claims of "observation bias", but rather my explanation: the "self-biasing sample":

"The most likely source of this error is differential non-response rates for Democrats and Republicans..."

It gives no evidence --- nor even mere opinion --- that the discrepancy is caused by the pollsters.

---

The effect also exists in the UK, BTW. People are (comparatively) reluctant to admit that they voted Conservative.
 
Dr Adequate said:
But your link does not support claims of "observation bias", but rather my explanation: the "self-biasing sample"

"The most likely source of this error is differential non-response rates for Democrats and Republicans..."
Click to expand...

It's been a while since I took Stats, but I think that would be the correct term. It's close to selection bias as well, but I think the former fits better here since the pool from which the sample is taken is representative. Mitofsky et al claim that Republicans were less likely to be sampled than Democrats - that's observation bias. At any rate - in case I've gotten my nomenclature fubbed - I meant to say it was sampled in a way that affected the outcome.

Dr Adequate said:
It gives no evidence --- nor even mere opinion --- that the discrepancy is caused by the pollsters.

---

The effect also exists in the UK, BTW. People are (comparatively) reluctant to admit that they voted Conservative.
Click to expand...

"Reluctant to admit" is a qualitative judgment and is really not the conclusion. Republicans were less likely to have been included in the sample. The link was provided as evidence that US exit polls are not historically accurate and that inaccuracy has been skewed to the Democrats for nearly two decades. Once again, I'm not claiming any conspiracy on the part of the pollsters - I am suggesting (with evidence from the polling organization itself) that the skew is probably in the design. For instance, in their 2004 after action, NEP found that 35% of poll workers were between 18-24 - a demographic that leans heavily Democratic (54-45 in 2004). One of their recommendations was to change recruiting in a way that reduces the number of students and young adults.
 
Cylinder said:
"Reluctant to admit" is a qualitative judgment and is really not the conclusion.
Click to expand...
Er ... yes it is.

A smaller proportion of Republicans reveal their voting preference than Democrats. This is what the figures show, and what the article you cited actually said.
 
Perhaps the demographics of republicans suggests not that they are reluctant to admit, but rather are reluctant to be engaged.
 
Rob Lister said:
Perhaps the demographics of republicans suggests not that they are reluctant to admit, but rather are reluctant to be engaged.
Click to expand...

..or that they were as likely as Democratic voters to speak to someone in their own demographic, but the pool of poll workers was skewed to a demographic that votes Democrat. I'm not saying that's the only explanation (I suspect a variety of factors in play) but rather that it is incorrect to ascribe an untested motive.

In other words, a non-response isn't someone who shows reluctance to admit their voting habits - it also includes all chosen persons (they chose every Nth person to exit the exclusion zone) with whom the poll worker did not or could not make contact.
 
Just as possible. I usually vote conservative and avoid engaging anyone on my way to or from the booth.

I might ask, how do the telephone pre-exit polls compare to the exit-polls? To the actual election? IIRC, they consistently match better, but I don't pay much attention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom