This is a STRUCTURED DEBATE thread.. I get to pick 2 rules in addition to the Zone2 regular board rules.. Here they are:
1) Discussion in this thread is ONLY about the posted analysis from Dr Shiva at MIT.. If you're not willing to watch the presentation, understand his definitions, analyze his results - dont bother posting here. I assume just a dozen or so USMB members will make that effort.. Others will be thread banned and/or warned.
2) Not the place to go into gory detail about the IMPLICATIONS of finding systemic voting machines in America.. Just jumping the gun BEFORE any evidence certain.. We all understand that FINDING systemic voting machine issues is an Armageddon type situation and a potential nation ending disaster,.. THIS THREAD is for pure analysis of ONE THEORY...
This presentation by the MIT folks was the FIRST AND ONLY assertion of machine voting issues that used ACTUAL open sourced election data. And it's a repeatable experiment.. Those are the kind of assumptions that ultimately matter. It's gotten SCADS of attention in the MMedia and SoshMedia in the past 4 or 5 days.. And I initially thought something was proven here.. After watching the vid several times and portions MANY times - trying to understand his variable definitions and assumptions -- I'm having doubts at what he's proven here.
My current thinking is that because of the way HE CHOOSE his variables and the ASSUMPTIONS that he made -- that ALL he's really proven here is that "partisans in states that allow "STRAIGHT PARTISAN" voting options -- prefer that method over checking boxes on a "normal" full ballot.. I'll flesh out that analysis later on..
But simply -- Straight party voting (SPV) preference IS prefered by partisans over the effort of splitting votes on a normal ballot.. His SCATTERPLOTS use Republican SPV (RSPV) as a measure of the PARTISIANSHIP of that precinct on the Xaxis.. But that is not the partisan SPLIT in that precinct. His Y axis takes "Other Votes for Trump" (OVT) in that district where the voters choose NOT to SPV.. He Subtracts OVT - RSPV to use on that axis,
Given that problem definition -- The slope of ANYTHING plotted in that space is -- (OVT - RSPV) / RSPV..
ALL THAT IS a "proof" that partisans of ANY PARTY prefer straight party line voting.. A "Duhh" moment.. And the negative slope on all his scattergrams just shows that "open ballot voting" drops off the more a district leans Republican.
My contention is -- that if he ran the SAME TEST on DEMOCRATS -- you'd get the same results..
I'm NOT done yet. Still arguing with my wife and biz partner. We both have EXTENSIVE work and publications in signal and image processing data analysis and can handle "HSchool Algebra 2" math and graphing -- which is what this exercise really is.. It's just REALLY TRICKY to set up the variables and definitions. After that, it's simple statistical graph analysis.
Welcome all folks that are capable of reviewing this.. If you dont know what a scatterplot is or independent/dependent variables on a graph -- please dont even try.. There's DOZENS of OTHER threads on this..
The presentation is at the link below and COULD (given the SoshMedia MMedia tyrants) disappear tonight from the web.. So be quick to watch it and take notes if you want to join in..
EDIT: I dithered a lot here in thread because his definitions and word use were NOT precise. So if you just want the "nut in the avocado" here --- skip to post 76.. And then come back and read thru the thread.
1) Discussion in this thread is ONLY about the posted analysis from Dr Shiva at MIT.. If you're not willing to watch the presentation, understand his definitions, analyze his results - dont bother posting here. I assume just a dozen or so USMB members will make that effort.. Others will be thread banned and/or warned.
2) Not the place to go into gory detail about the IMPLICATIONS of finding systemic voting machines in America.. Just jumping the gun BEFORE any evidence certain.. We all understand that FINDING systemic voting machine issues is an Armageddon type situation and a potential nation ending disaster,.. THIS THREAD is for pure analysis of ONE THEORY...
This presentation by the MIT folks was the FIRST AND ONLY assertion of machine voting issues that used ACTUAL open sourced election data. And it's a repeatable experiment.. Those are the kind of assumptions that ultimately matter. It's gotten SCADS of attention in the MMedia and SoshMedia in the past 4 or 5 days.. And I initially thought something was proven here.. After watching the vid several times and portions MANY times - trying to understand his variable definitions and assumptions -- I'm having doubts at what he's proven here.
My current thinking is that because of the way HE CHOOSE his variables and the ASSUMPTIONS that he made -- that ALL he's really proven here is that "partisans in states that allow "STRAIGHT PARTISAN" voting options -- prefer that method over checking boxes on a "normal" full ballot.. I'll flesh out that analysis later on..
But simply -- Straight party voting (SPV) preference IS prefered by partisans over the effort of splitting votes on a normal ballot.. His SCATTERPLOTS use Republican SPV (RSPV) as a measure of the PARTISIANSHIP of that precinct on the Xaxis.. But that is not the partisan SPLIT in that precinct. His Y axis takes "Other Votes for Trump" (OVT) in that district where the voters choose NOT to SPV.. He Subtracts OVT - RSPV to use on that axis,
Given that problem definition -- The slope of ANYTHING plotted in that space is -- (OVT - RSPV) / RSPV..
ALL THAT IS a "proof" that partisans of ANY PARTY prefer straight party line voting.. A "Duhh" moment.. And the negative slope on all his scattergrams just shows that "open ballot voting" drops off the more a district leans Republican.
My contention is -- that if he ran the SAME TEST on DEMOCRATS -- you'd get the same results..
I'm NOT done yet. Still arguing with my wife and biz partner. We both have EXTENSIVE work and publications in signal and image processing data analysis and can handle "HSchool Algebra 2" math and graphing -- which is what this exercise really is.. It's just REALLY TRICKY to set up the variables and definitions. After that, it's simple statistical graph analysis.
Welcome all folks that are capable of reviewing this.. If you dont know what a scatterplot is or independent/dependent variables on a graph -- please dont even try.. There's DOZENS of OTHER threads on this..
The presentation is at the link below and COULD (given the SoshMedia MMedia tyrants) disappear tonight from the web.. So be quick to watch it and take notes if you want to join in..
EDIT: I dithered a lot here in thread because his definitions and word use were NOT precise. So if you just want the "nut in the avocado" here --- skip to post 76.. And then come back and read thru the thread.
Last edited: