IT'S CALLED THE TIN HAT SYNDROME :

__________________
Question Authority before it Questions you.

First lesson in statistics: A complete enumeration of a variable is always more accurate than any sampling scheme.

There are two major sources of statistical error: Accepting a false result believing it is true and rejecting a true report, believing it is false. These are often referred to as "Type I" and "Type II" errors. Neither of these errors are possible in complete enumeration.

Also, the possibility of unethical and inadvertent manipulation is far greater with statistical sampling. This is why blind and double-blind methods are used in high-risk/high-reward (like medicine) analyses. Even riskier are the time-dependent, bootstrapping methods employed in exit polling. Look-up bootstrapping and you'll understand what I am getting at. It is an extremely valuable and well-understood method (technically, by statisticians). Properly conducted it is very reliable.

I'm not saying that statistics are necessarily incorrect when there is a discrepancy with an enumerative poll. I'm just saying that the first thing a prudent person should do is freeze all of the data and poll results to avoid any tampering of anything. Then look first at the statistical technique and method before undermining faith in the people's vote.

If the stats stand, then look elsewhere. If stats fail scrutiny, stop there and accept the election. Undermining the voter's faith in the election process is a terrible thing to do. One's side may win this election but one may find the opponents using the same tactics in a subsequent election. That's a hell of a way to run a democracy.

Bot

And one of the last might be the central limit theorem. This fits here also.

I know what you mean, Brian, but I'm not.

I'm sure the same people will march to the polls en masse. You know, the ones who when we all have our heads between our knees and are kissing our asses goodbye in a nuclear winter, will thank God that GW is in charge and not that awful liberal Gore or Kerry... Hey, he's a war president, so what if we all are going to be casualties?

Then there's the great statistical error of human nature. In today's environement I have no doubt that there are folks who will lambast Bush in public and on polls with both barrels. People in general don't like confrontation and like to fit in. Yet they'll vote for him when no one's looking.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

Ted, I don't see the flush handle. That is Ted, isn't it?

I'm going to have some faith in the general population.........for this one time.........and only until the elections........and we'll see if they manage to pull their heads out of their asses for this one election.

Let me guess: That would be voting patterns in conformity with your own?

Bot

We've now devolved from arguing about a subject to incorporating me as part of your argument. That doesn't interest me.

Nope you missed the point. I am not arguing about you.

There is no insult implied or intended nor am I interested in arguing about whether your beliefs are consequential. I am suggesting that your metric for good or bad voting outcome is based on your perception of good or bad.

In contrast, I think if an election is fair and accurate, it is a successful election. I would prefer that candidates who share my POV get elected but my estimating of the value of elections is not predicated on my particular political perspective, other than as described herein.

B

Of course we ALL (don't lie now) associate good election results with those that correspond to our own opinions!

Tom W

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

That's just flat incorrect. For me it is as I said it: a good election is a fair and honest election. A bad election is either unfair or dishonest or both.

have you ever been an election commissioner? I have. Back in the early 1970's Mrs B and I were registered Republicans in rural north Louisiana. We were more rare than a virgin at Hefner's. By law in Louisiana, commissioners represent their parties unless no party members are available. Since we were the only registered Repos in that precinct, we automagically got the job for several elections. From that experience I learned that my personal estimation of goodness and badness of an election was terribly naive. The most important thing I could do as a commissioner was to make sure that every legal voter had unencumbered access to the booth. The second most important thing (IMO) was that the ballots be properly tallied, duplicated, recorded and sealed and transported to the parish seat. We had a sheriff's escort all of the way from polling place to the Clerk of Court's hands.

I was very proud of that, whomever won.

And no, I am no longer a Repo. I split with them in the 1980's over environmental issues. I think the party was dead wrong back then. they have mellowed considerably since then, but I am still not comfortable with them.

Bot

You are confusing the mechanics of a successful election with my perception of whether the electorate can see through what I believe is ongoing propaganda presented by the current administration.

I don't disagree with your assesment of a "successful election".

Assuming that things don't go your way, what then?

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone