[ExI] FW: elections again (with new analysis)

[spike]

> The Avantguardian
> Subject: Re: [ExI] FW: elections again (with new analysis)
> 
...
> > Somewhat disturbing is that the UN is apparently more 
> concerned over 
> > this than our own media is.
> > http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout5.php&id=4271&blz=1

Thanks Avant.  I have been on a business trip on the east coast.  It
occurred to me that my suddenly stopping my posting on this topic may have
made you think I had been disappeared.  {8^D  Yes, I have noticed the news
people aren't talking much about the suspicious looking NH results.

> >  
> > 
> > So in short, I wholeheartedly support your efforts to get to the 
> > bottom of this anomaly. I for one think that every precint 
> that uses 
> > the voting machines should be required to take a small 
> random sample 
> > of hand counted paper ballots as well. This sample could be used to 
> > validate the machine count.
> > 
> > Here is a site that has useful election data:
> > http://checkthevotes.com/primary_dem_New_Hampshire-comparison
...
> Stuart LaForge


Ja, and there are plenty of other techniques to verify a machine counted
vote, but do let me say up front that I am *greatly* encouraged by the fact
that these kinds of data are available online, for now there will be
thousands of people like me who will figure out various ways to filter the
data and indicate if something is up with those machine counts.  

While on my trip and away from the internet, I used the time to ponder.  I
came up with a number of verification schemes, many of which are simple to
utilize.  I expect many of these to be put in place before this November.
Recall what happened in 2004, where there was an anomaly, or disagreement
between entry polls and results.  I heard and saw many saying this was a
stolen election.  The anomaly in the NH primary was four times the size of
the anomaly that was declared stolen by some pundits.

This being said, we must recognize that a primary isn't really an election.
A political party is not bound by all the election law that applies to the
November event.  A political party has the right to nominate whomever the
leaders decide to nominate.  Those who vote in the primaries are free to
vote for whomever they want in November.  The primaries and caucuses are the
way the likely voters advise the party on who to nominate.

The NH outcome may have been the most fortunate thing that could have
happened, for it demonstrated the desperate need for election verification,
in a relatively harmless way.  Well, harmless if one is not an Obama
supporter.  I will point out that I have no horse in that race as I am not a
democrat, so I am coming at this as a disinterested third party.  I am
definitely interested in a fair election in November of course.  I haven't
decided who I will vote for, either in February or November.  

I have enjoyed relearning how to do the statistical calculations that I
first learned as a teenager.  The raw numbers are not as interesting as the
probability of this outcome assuming no funny business with the machines.
That will be coming soon.

Thanks for the website Avant!

spike