X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.0-r431796 Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE Return-Path: Received: from newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id kA87XX8W003145 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2006 02:33:33 -0500 Received: from madman.mr.itd.umich.edu (mx.umich.edu [141.211.14.134]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kA87XTsB005326; Wed, 8 Nov 2006 02:33:29 -0500 Received: FROM newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) BY madman.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 45518845.2DA8D.28141 ; 8 Nov 2006 02:33:25 -0500 Received: from boston.eecs.umich.edu (boston.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.61]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kA87XKut005284 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2006 02:33:20 -0500 Received: from boston.eecs.umich.edu (localhost.eecs.umich.edu [127.0.0.1]) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id kA87XK8W003140 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2006 02:33:20 -0500 Received: from localhost (dreeves Æ localhost) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) with ESMTP id kA87XKpf003137 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2006 02:33:20 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: boston.eecs.umich.edu: dreeves owned process doing -bs X-X-Sender: dreeves Æ boston.eecs.umich.edu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <45513735.4070603 Æ umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.0-r431796 (2006-08-16) on newman.eecs.umich.edu X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 02:33:20 -0500 (EST) To: improvetheworld Æ umich.edu From: Daniel Reeves Subject: BREAKING NEWS: Democrats take both house and senate! Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 854 Well, the house at least, but based on the current 90% probability on tradesports I'm going for the scoop. This of course says nothing about whether Republicans cheated. I liked this comment by a blogger in New Zealand (not to endorse their 4.5M number): "Add it all up -- all those Democratic-leaning votes rejected, barred, and spoiled -- and the Republican Party begins Election Day with a 4.5 million-vote thumb on the vote-tally scale. "So, what are you going to do about it? May I suggest you ... steal back your vote. "It's true you can't win with 51% of the vote anymore. So just get over it. The regime's sneak attack via vote suppression will only net them 4.5 million votes, about 5% of the total. You should be able to beat that blindfolded. If you can't get 55%, then you're just a bunch of crybaby pussycats who don't deserve to win back America." ps, congratulations on this overnight improvement to the world! --- \/ FROM Daniel Reeves AT 06.11.07 21:05 (Yesterday) \/ --- > But it's only been in recent elections that the bias has shown up (according > to the GOP website -- I haven't researched this myself). > > In any case, those are hypotheses to test, as you say. The conspiracy theory > is plausible enough that it's important we get a scientifically rigorous > answer to this. Reliable sources solicited! > > And the conspiracy doesn't have to be vast and across the board -- if there's > an exit poll bias then there should be a measurable exit poll skew factor > that can be adjusted for to detect instances of fraud. > > Actually, just checking if the exit poll skew is universal should reveal a > lot. As Matt notes, a vast across-the-board conspiracy is implausible. > > > --- \/ FROM Matt Rudary AT 06.11.07 20:47 (Today) \/ --- > >> What makes 1 more plausible than a vast, right-wing conspiracy that changes >> vote counts across the board in every district without detection? >> Seriously? >> >> OK, here are a couple hypotheses to test: >> >> 1) Young people are more likely to vote Democratic and are also more likely >> to answer exit polls than older people. >> >> 2) People who work 60+ hours a week are more likely to vote Republican and >> are less likely to answer exit polls than people who work fewer than 60 >> hours per week. >> >> 3) People without jobs are more likely to vote Democratic and are more >> likely to answer exit polls than people with jobs. >> >> There are all sorts of reasons opt-out surveys are less accurate than >> mandatory surveys. These hypotheses may have explanatory power. >> >> Matt >> >> Daniel Reeves wrote: >>> and 6% chance that republicans keep both. >>> >>> ... according to the prediction market at tradesports.com. >>> >>> >>> Question: What do you all think of allegations that Republicans are >>> cheating? >>> >>> Here's some damning evidence from the GOP itself: >>> http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6718 >>> >>> From that page: >>> "For reasons that remain unclear, Democratic voters are more likely than >>> Republicans to agree to interview requests from pollsters." >>> >>> (Just to spell it out: If the exit polls favor democrats and the real >>> polls favor republicans, there are two explanations: >>> 1. a democratic bias in exit polls. >>> 2. a republican bias in the real polls. >>> What makes 1 more plausible? Seriously, how do Republicans answer that? >>> This is scary!) >>> >> > > -- http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel Reeves" "If you're smoking here, you'd better be on fire."