A Question for Pinheads.....

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I realize that Pinhead Logic is much different than normal people logic, so I have decided to bring my question to the board, in hopes that some willing pinhead will help shed some light. I understand that things which seem totally logical to normal people, are totally illogical to pinheads, but this doesn't mean the illogical becomes logical... or does it? I am confused... do pinheads base their logic on what normal people view as illogical? Anyway, this question has been on my mind, and I'm just getting around to posting it... I hope some of you more profoundly pinheaded ones can provide answers.

Why is it, you are totally convinced the national presidential elections, with all the safeguards, with all the poll workers making sure the rules are followed, with probate judges checking calibration of machines and verifying vote tallies, can somehow be manipulated or tainted.... yet, the ABC, Gallup, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, Rasmussen, Zogby polls are certifiably 100% accurate always?

Ask any pinhead, they might claim they don't believe the election was rigged, but if you get them to talk about it a bit, you will see that they really do believe this is possible, if not probable. Yet, the ones who believe this the most, are the same ones who will point to the latest public opinion poll, as evidence that their pinheads are winning support. I don't get it... are public opinion polls impervious to cheating? Can a Gallup or CNN poll not be manipulated or altered? What secret do the pollsters hold, that the election officials don't seem to know about? I'm sure there is a perfectly logical pinhead explanation for this.

[uscitizen]

33.33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 33333

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Jeesh, us... your number 3 key seems to be stuck this morning. Too bad you are unable to post words, I was hoping you could help answer my question. I guess that's what happens to your keys when you spend all your time at those porn sites, huh? You might try spraying some WD-40 on the keys, maybe you can get them un-stuck?

[maineman]

another assinine post from the preeminent gadfly...

you gonna pay up when the democrats gain seats in both chambers of congress, or not?

[Care4all]

Polling candidates or issues DOES NOT HAVE TO BE PRECISE, they can have a margin of error.....

The Sanctity of our votes, is all a democratic republic can hang its hat on....one man, one vote....

There is no way to make sure the electronic voting machines are giving us an accurate vote without it having a paper trail to audit and receipts for voters to verify whom they voted for was registered correctly in the tally...

[maineman]

care.....you just earned pinhead status from the blustering gadfly for that post..... congratulations!

[Care4all]

Hey! I don't mind being called a Pinhead.... hahaha!

I look at it as an endearing compliment from Dixie! :)

care

[uscitizen]

Yepper Care. Considering the source it is an honor to be called a pinhead by Dixie. Having dixie agree with me is a horrible thought, and would cause much soul searching ;)

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Polling candidates or issues DOES NOT HAVE TO BE PRECISE, they can have a margin of error.....

The Sanctity of our votes, is all a democratic republic can hang its hat on....one man, one vote....

There is no way to make sure the electronic voting machines are giving us an accurate vote without it having a paper trail to audit and receipts for voters to verify whom they voted for was registered correctly in the tally...


Doesn't the same logic apply to popular polling? It seems we have no verification at all, pollsters don't require an ID or registration, or anything really, so there is no way to confirm the results. I realize that polls have a margin of error and don't have to be precise, but it seems that some people put a lot of stock into what the polls are saying, and it seems it's the same ones who are convinced our elections are tainted. I'm trying to understand, if it's so easy to manipulate a legitimate national election, isn't it just as easy, if not easier, to manipulate a popular opinion poll? Why do some people hold the polls in such high regard, while insisting the elections are inaccurate?

[Care4all]

Doesn't the same logic apply to popular polling? It seems we have no verification at all, pollsters don't require an ID or registration, or anything really, so there is no way to confirm the results. I realize that polls have a margin of error and don't have to be precise, but it seems that some people put a lot of stock into what the polls are saying, and it seems it's the same ones who are convinced our elections are tainted. I'm trying to understand, if it's so easy to manipulate a legitimate national election, isn't it just as easy, if not easier, to manipulate a popular opinion poll? Why do some people hold the polls in such high regard, while insisting the elections are inaccurate?

Polls are fairly accurate because they have created and analyzed the system and procedures they use to calculate their polls via Actuaries...Actuaries are capable, mathematicians and hve polling down to a science....

and they check eachother...by having various different polling agencies asking the same questions....it is a science, not a guessing game on their part.....they don't conduct the polling willy nilly Dixie.

And as I have stated before, polling does not have to be PRECISE as voting should be, and their 3% margin of error reflects that....Polling is to get a "feel" for what the nation's people think....it is NOT a VOTE on legislation or a candidate....it is a POLL, that wages the public's views....

They don't poll just registered voters all the time...except in Exit polling, which is even MORE ACCURATE than polling the "general" public because they are polling who actually are voting.

[Immanuel]

You don't have to have a tear away receipt (although I don't see what difference it makes whether you give one or not) but a verifiable (by the voter) printout needs to be kept with the machine and a random sample of precincts need to have their data checked against the printouts to maintain integrity of the system.

Immie

[Prakosh]

Polls are fairly accurate because they have created and analyzed the system and procedures they use to calculate their polls via Actuaries...Actuaries are capable, mathematicians and hve polling down to a science....

and they check eachother...by having various different polling agencies asking the same questions....it is a science, not a guessing game on their part.....they don't conduct the polling willy nilly Dixie.

And as I have stated before, polling does not have to be PRECISE as voting should be, and their 3% margin of error reflects that....Polling is to get a "feel" for what the nation's people think....it is NOT a VOTE on legislation or a candidate....it is a POLL, that wages the public's views....

They don't poll just registered voters all the time...except in Exit polling, which is even MORE ACCURATE than polling the "general" public because they are polling who actually are voting.

Given the fact that some pollsters working for the right have recently been charged with fraud and convicted, perhaps there is some reason to begin more seriously analysing the pollsters and their results. For instance even though Rasmussen claims to only poll "likely voters" they are consistently 5-7 points higher on Bush approval than any other poll. Why is that? They are supposedly a right wing pollster, does that mean that they are less likely to be accurate or that they inflate Bush's numbers? I don't know. For me the premise of the question is wrong, I don't accept polls without thought anymore than I believe that Bush won in 2000 or 2004. I think he stole both elections, and the hapless Democrats aided and abetted him every step of the way....

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Polls are fairly accurate because they have created and analyzed the system and procedures they use to calculate their polls via Actuaries...Actuaries are capable, mathematicians and hve polling down to a science....

and they check eachother...by having various different polling agencies asking the same questions....it is a science, not a guessing game on their part.....they don't conduct the polling willy nilly Dixie.

And as I have stated before, polling does not have to be PRECISE as voting should be, and their 3% margin of error reflects that....Polling is to get a "feel" for what the nation's people think....it is NOT a VOTE on legislation or a candidate....it is a POLL, that wages the public's views....

They don't poll just registered voters all the time...except in Exit polling, which is even MORE ACCURATE than polling the "general" public because they are polling who actually are voting.


Yeah, but you are avoiding my question. Why are polls viewed as absolute, while elections are suspect? How come polls can't be manipulated and rigged just like you think the elections are? It just seems to me, the logic applies both ways, especially since we know for a fact, popular polls do not require any sort of ID or verification, nor do they require certification or judicial oversight, like elections. On the surface, it appears it would be easier to manipulate a popular poll than a national election, given the safeguards in place for voting and lack of confirmation with polls.

[IHateGovernment]

Who has said that polls are abolute. I say polls are shit they give a ball park but can't tell you anything real specific.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You don't have to have a tear away receipt (although I don't see what difference it makes whether you give one or not) but a verifiable (by the voter) printout needs to be kept with the machine and a random sample of precincts need to have their data checked against the printouts to maintain integrity of the system.

Immie

Do they do this with the CNN polls? Is there any way to go back and confirm who voted for what, and who may have voted twice, etc.? What is the safeguard in place, to maintain integrity of this system? I would say, if we can legitimately accept the results of the polls as accurate, perhaps our election officials could take some tips from the pollsters or something? Maybe we just need to do away with our election system altogether, and adopt a poll-based system... CNN can just tell us who the next president is, based on their polling data. This seems to be a more widely accepted result of accurate representation, and it would eliminate any question of fraud, since there doesn't seem to be any concern with fraud in the polls now.

[Damocles]

You don't have to have a tear away receipt (although I don't see what difference it makes whether you give one or not) but a verifiable (by the voter) printout needs to be kept with the machine and a random sample of precincts need to have their data checked against the printouts to maintain integrity of the system.

Immie
Receipts can be used to verify a vote sold to a bidder. Voters do not get a receipt that shows how they voted.

[uscitizen]

I have noticed that it depends on which way the poll is going VS your candidate as to whether they are garbage/accurate or not. And "you" pretty much means all of us ;)

[maineman]

no one ever took office based upon the results of an opinion poll.

[Immanuel]

Do they do this with the CNN polls? Is there any way to go back and confirm who voted for what, and who may have voted twice, etc.? What is the safeguard in place, to maintain integrity of this system? I would say, if we can legitimately accept the results of the polls as accurate, perhaps our election officials could take some tips from the pollsters or something? Maybe we just need to do away with our election system altogether, and adopt a poll-based system... CNN can just tell us who the next president is, based on their polling data. This seems to be a more widely accepted result of accurate representation, and it would eliminate any question of fraud, since there doesn't seem to be any concern with fraud in the polls now.

I don't follow polls. I don't care about polls. I have never said the polls are accurate. Polls are not accurate as they can easily be manipulated with questions, selection demographics and/or "interpretation" of the data.

I am not worried about the polls.

I do want to be certain that our election system maintains its integrity. To answer your question, at the moment there is no safeguard in place to maintain the integrity of our voting system.

Edit:

To be more specific no safeguard to maintain the integrity of the electronic voting system.

Immie

[uscitizen]

Receipts can be used to verify a vote sold to a bidder. Voters do not get a receipt that shows how they voted.

so why should the media get all the money spent to "buy" elections ? ;)

[uscitizen]

then there is the old myth that if you die you lose your right to vote :)

[Damocles]

True 'dat!

[maineman]

who cares whether or not opinion polls are precisely accurate or not anyway? On any given day, you can find a variation of percentages based upon the polling source. Go to www.pollingreport.com .... look at presidential approval ratings...they are all over the map - and who gives a fuck? the ONLY poll that matters is the one taken by all the voters on election day at the polling places in the voting booths. THAT is the only poll that MUST be accurate. WHy is that such a difficult concept for blustering neocon gadflies to comprehend?

[Immanuel]

Receipts can be used to verify a vote sold to a bidder. Voters do not get a receipt that shows how they voted.

I am not sure I understand what you mean here.

What I said was that the system would print out a verifiable list of votes by the voter that stays with the system showing who the vote was cast for. This printout stays with the system and a random sampling of the precincts should be taken to check on the accuracy of the system count.

Immie

[uscitizen]

I want a reciept, so I can get my half pint of likker!

[OrnotBitwise]

I am not sure I understand what you mean here.

What I said was that the system would print out a verifiable list of votes by the voter that stays with the system showing who the vote was cast for. This printout stays with the system and a random sampling of the precincts should be taken to check on the accuracy of the system count.

Immie
Those printed receipts will never have any value at all until such time as the machine manufacturers are forced to open up their source code for review. Until that happens, none of these half-measures mean squat.

I recommend voting absentee. It's more secure -- and more convenient.

[uscitizen]

I recommend voting absentee. It's more secure -- and more convenient.
//

Yep me too, and it works best for the dead as they are pretty well absent ;)

[Immanuel]

Those printed receipts will never have any value at all until such time as the machine manufacturers are forced to open up their source code for review. Until that happens, none of these half-measures mean squat.

I recommend voting absentee. It's more secure -- and more convenient.

I disagree. If you take random samples of precincts and compare the electronic count to the printout of the machines you would know if there had been any source code problems which would lead to investigations and major troubles for the culprit.

For example say they sampled 1500 precincts in the next presidential election. The machines showed significant errors in 800 of those precincts. It would lead to an investigation and I am sure a review of the source code.

I have no problem with reviewing the source code, but I am not sure that, that alone is sufficient to guarantee integrity of the system.

Immie

[Care4all]

so why should the media get all the money spent to "buy" elections ? ;)

it is a double roll tape, the recipt that is spit out for the voter, states the people they voted for....the carbon copy of thier receipt, is the receipt roll that stays with the machine and is ready to use as an Auditable paper trail.

Unless you can figure out a way for a register to print an audit tape that is different than its carbon copy receipt....the audit tape is auditable, just as with the 24hour computerized bank tellers.....

The voter's recept does not have their name on it, it may have a number, for how many voters used this machine and what number you were in that process....which could be matched up with the auditable carbon copy if need be...but I do not see this a necessary or even feasible if wanted, because of our vote's privacy and because surely many people will lose their receipts...

But if the voter reviews their receipt to make sure their votes were recorded properly, then the carbon copy tape will be auditable, and legit.

This STILL does not prevent any shennanigans from happening with the electronic end of the voting....unless we always use the auditable tape to verify the machine's count tally....

Or maybe as Immie has stated, random machines are chosen to audit with the corresponding tapes?

[OrnotBitwise]

I disagree. If you take random samples of precincts and compare the electronic count to the printout of the machines you would know if there had been any source code problems which would lead to investigations and major troubles for the culprit.

For example say they sampled 1500 precincts in the next presidential election. The machines showed significant errors in 800 of those precincts. It would lead to an investigation and I am sure a review of the source code.

I have no problem with reviewing the source code, but I am not sure that, that alone is sufficient to guarantee integrity of the system.

ImmieYou're right in that source review alone isn't sufficient. I'm just saying that it's a necessary part of any effective evaluation and enforcement strategy.

Given your scenario -- a good one, BTW -- access to the source code is still a necessary component. As of now, the companies that produce these machines are adamant about NOT submitting their code to review under any circumstances. That is the obstacle that has to be overcome.

[uscitizen]

How about a mechanical punch machine. lets the voter review his votes before commiting them to punch. to eliminate or virtually so hanging chad problems. not the little pokey pin thing, but more of an IBM punchcard type of electro mechanical machine. No programming to mess up. KISS.

[Care4all]

Yeah, but you are avoiding my question. Why are polls viewed as absolute, while elections are suspect? How come polls can't be manipulated and rigged just like you think the elections are? It just seems to me, the logic applies both ways, especially since we know for a fact, popular polls do not require any sort of ID or verification, nor do they require certification or judicial oversight, like elections. On the surface, it appears it would be easier to manipulate a popular poll than a national election, given the safeguards in place for voting and lack of confirmation with polls.

I am answering you Dixie...Polls are NOT CONSIDERED ABSOLUTE, just fairly accurate....and they can be audited by their peers and competition....

Voting should be ABSOLUTE....no margin of error and there is no reason why it can not be if we took the appropriate measures.

-------------------------------------------------

Prak
As far as polls that are singularly off.... like the right wing example mentioned above, while 5-10 other private polsters had similar polling results that did not match the Right Wing Polster's "positive for their candidate" results, then the right winger had a definate PROBLEM with their polling....and should not be used as a close to accurate poll within the status quo 3% margin of error imo....in other words, something went terribly wrong by mear accident...;), ;) or they intention tried to deceive.....but competition will out them or rather will out the mistake, as they did.

[Damocles]

I prefer optical scanners to punch cards. The ballot itself allows for easy checking on your votes.

[uscitizen]

Yep optical scanners would work as well. But the same concept. no programs just electro mechanical in operation. KISS.

[Immanuel]

So why do all of us (except maybe Dixie ;) j/k Dixie) want a system with more integrity but the politicians of both sides seem to drag their feet on the issue? Could it be that they figure they are better cheaters than their opponents?

Immie

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I just don't understand it... We have an election system that seems to have relatively little room for fraud, being that results have to be certified, voters have to be registered, and ID's have to be checked... Sure, there are some dead people who still vote, and I suppose a machine could have a glitch, but for the most part, our election process is fairly accurate and safe.

Nevertheless, we have pinhead morons who insist that it isn't, can't be, Bush wouldn't have won the election if it had been, so that proves it. These very same people will break their necks to post the latest Gallup poll as if it's empirical fact, and never question the results. I just wondered what gave them so much more faith in the polls, which have far less safeguard against fraud than the election system?

[uscitizen]

Immie, I figure because most all of them are corrupt crooks and basically idshonest.

[Cancel7]

That's so stupid, nobody said polls are infallable. Though I didn't notice any republicans taking issue with them when Bush was riding high in them.

I think that overall, taken all together, over months, they can give a decent indication of whether or not a politician, or an issue, enjoys majority support. But no one, or two, polls can be taken as indication of anything. They have to hold steady, and over a long period of time. And this still gives little, if any indication of what issues are really driving the polls. Is it really Iraq? Or is it gas prices? When Americans say they are against or for something, the obvious follow-up question is, how much do you care? Is this issue enough to change your vote? How often is this question asked? Rarely I think, except possibly in the two party's internal polls.

When Bush was riding high in the polls, I just remembered Twain, and he had this right, "Ain't we got all the fools on our side, and ain't that a majority in any town?"

So now all the fools are possibly, on "my side", except they're still fools, and not really on my side at all.

And so, I don't care about polls. They must bug the crap out of you though.

[uscitizen]

The actual questions asked in the polls have a big impact on the outcome.
I could imagine a Dixie poll.
Q.
Are you a commie democrat that supports terrorism or do you support the american way. liberty, and Bush ?

[Cancel7]

The actual questions asked in the polls have a big impact on the outcome.
I could imagine a Dixie poll.
Q.
Are you a commie democrat that supports terrorism or do you support the american way. liberty, and Bush ?

LOL

That is very true. They can defintely be manipulated so that they come out the way you want them to.

[Damocles]

I am not sure I understand what you mean here.

What I said was that the system would print out a verifiable list of votes by the voter that stays with the system showing who the vote was cast for. This printout stays with the system and a random sampling of the precincts should be taken to check on the accuracy of the system count.

Immie
Actually our touchscreen machines do this. I was talking about the receipt for voting that another poster suggested. We cannot give those, it is against the law because of the reason I gave...

[uscitizen]

Btu I am pretty sure the touchscreen ones are programmable. Now if the code were burned into a rom and soldered into the board with no external means of reprogramming. I know computers , that is why I don't trust a programmable device for balloting.
I don't really agree with the hand out slip either, but perhaps a final verification of your choices before you commit your votes. And a hard copy trail that is updated as you vote, not dumped later.

[NOVA]

Thats truely amazing...
Dixie names a thread "A question for pinheads"...and actually gets them all to answer.....damn...you are good Dix...

[uscitizen]

As some of us stated. It is an honor to be called a pinhead by Dixie.
Sort of like the devil disagreeing with ya.

[TRGLDTE]

I disagree. If you take random samples of precincts and compare the electronic count to the printout of the machines you would know if there had been any source code problems which would lead to investigations and major troubles for the culprit.

For example say they sampled 1500 precincts in the next presidential election. The machines showed significant errors in 800 of those precincts. It would lead to an investigation and I am sure a review of the source code.

I have no problem with reviewing the source code, but I am not sure that, that alone is sufficient to guarantee integrity of the system.

Immie Random errors have a Normal distribution. A skewed data report would likely resemble a Weibull distribution (a long tail on one side). It wouldn't take 800 of 1500 to reveal a bias or flaw. Easy to do a non-parametric analysis (Kolmogorov - Smirnoff test) of the cumulative distribution function of the data and compare to the cdf of Normal +/- K bands. In some of my research, I've had to back into the sample size needed to generate certain sensitivity / ability to discrminate between Normal and Weibulll. I have found that, if all the samples distribute Weibull, then it takes less than 25 samples to discriminate between the two distrinutions. However, we can not assume that every sample has been manipulated, and would thus distribute Weibull.

So, since the width of the Kolmogorov band "d(a,n)" is nearly the same for an infinite number of points as it is for 120 data points, we could probably get a decent indication using as few as 120 random samples nation wide.

The analysis of this could be done by any competent statistician, or you could just plug it into off-the-shelf software (e.g., MiniTab).

[Prakosh]

Random errors have a Normal distribution. A skewed data report would likely resemble a Weibull distribution (a long tail on one side). It wouldn't take 800 of 1500 to reveal a bias or flaw. Easy to do a non-parametric analysis (Kolmogorov - Smirnoff test) of the cumulative distribution function of the data and compare to the cdf of Normal +/- K bands. In some of my research, I've had to back into the sample size needed to generate certain sensitivity / ability to discrminate between Normal and Weibulll. I have found that, if all the samples distribute Weibull, then it takes less than 25 samples to discriminate between the two distrinutions. However, we can not assume that every sample has been manipulated, and would thus distribute Weibull.

So, since the width of the Kolmogorov band "d(a,n)" is nearly the same for an infinite number of points as it is for 120 data points, we could probably get a decent indication using as few as 120 random samples nation wide.

The analysis of this could be done by any competent statistician, or you could just plug it into off-the-shelf software (e.g., MiniTab).

Since it's highly likely that the raw data "as few as 120 random samples nation wide" is available, why not do something like that in your spare time, if you ever have any, and let us know what you come up with. I would certainly be interested to see what you get.

[TRGLDTE]

Troglodyte 27 wrote:
Random errors have a Normal distribution. A skewed data report would likely resemble a Weibull distribution (a long tail on one side). It wouldn't take 800 of 1500 to reveal a bias or flaw. Easy to do a non-parametric analysis (Kolmogorov - Smirnoff test) of the cumulative distribution function of the data and compare to the cdf of Normal +/- K bands. In some of my research, I've had to back into the sample size needed to generate certain sensitivity / ability to discrminate between Normal and Weibulll. I have found that, if all the samples distribute Weibull, then it takes less than 25 samples to discriminate between the two distrinutions. However, we can not assume that every sample has been manipulated, and would thus distribute Weibull.

So, since the width of the Kolmogorov band "d(a,n)" is nearly the same for an infinite number of points as it is for 120 data points, we could probably get a decent indication using as few as 120 random samples nation wide.

The analysis of this could be done by any competent statistician, or you could just plug it into off-the-shelf software (e.g., MiniTab).

Since it's highly likely that the raw data "as few as 120 random samples nation wide" is available, why not do something like that in your spare time, if you ever have any, and let us know what you come up with. I would certainly be interested to see what you get. If there is a bias toward one particular candidate embedded in the system (widespread fraud), this method would likely detect it, but if there are isolated incidents, this method is not real good for that purpose. You would have to do pointwise comparisons (likely an NP-hard problem - translation: a royal pain in the ...).

I'll think about it doing the simple one though.

Ornot - reality check on the methodology, please

(P.S. Yes, I am a math geek)