pudge's Journal: Democratic Voting Expert Tells Me RFK is "Simply Wrong"

So in researching the last journal entry about RFK Jr.'s article about Ohio, I e-mailed Jasjeet S. Sekhon, associate professor at UC Berkeley, and one of the members of the Ohio Election Task Force and researchers for the DNC report about the 2004 elections.

I asked him, in the context of what RFK Jr. wrote, about the statistical proof that there was causation, not mere correlation, regarding the low voter turnout where machine/voter ratio was low.

He didn't answer that question directly, pointing me to the paper I quoted in the last entry, and saying "sometimes it is possible to answer if one brings enough data and cleverness to the question." He asserted the butterfly ballot did cause Gore to lose in 2000: I'm skeptical, but I don't have the inclination right now to dig in, so I'll just link to the paper. Anyway, as mentioned before, I think the aforementioned paper failed to even claim proof of causation.

However, that's all a minor point, since, as Sekhon says repeatedly, "voting allocation issues were not large enough to change the outcome."

Regarding RFK Jr., though, he stated what I've been saying, that most on the left think I'm all wet about. Judge for yourself what this Democratic expert who thinks Gore won in 2000 has to say about RFK Jr., and claims that Kerry won in 2004:

RFK's article is misconceiving, socially damaging and simply wrong---much like his previous one on autism and vaccines. RFK selectively cites the DNC report. More voters supported Bush in Ohio in 2004 than Kerry. There is no scientific evidence that they did not. There were some irregularities (such as the allocation of voting machines), but they were not large enough to change the outcome. Bush won in 2004; Democrats have to admit that he really did if they are to fix their electoral problems much like how an alcoholic first has to admit that s/he has a problem.

Ouch.

RFK

[polymath69]

Why are you still immolating this non-metabolic equine?

Re:

[pudge]

I explained it in the posts ... what's so hard to figure out? One particular issue popped up, I did a little research, I e-mailed one of the people involved.

Voter suppression through machine allocation

[MarkusQ]

I asked him, in the context of what RFK Jr. wrote, about the statistical proof that there was causation, not mere correlation, regarding the low voter turnout where machine/voter ratio was low

This isn't rocket science. If there are enough voting machines, the number of ballots cast will be determined by the number of people who show up to vote. If there aren't enough machines, the number of ballots cast will be capped at the amount of time the poll stays open divided by the average length of time it t

Re:

[pudge]

This isn't rocket science. If there are enough voting machines, the number of ballots cast will be determined by the number of people who show up to vote.

But that's question-begging tautology. "Not enough" is defined as "fewer than necessary to let everyone vote." And the question is, were there "not enough"? We don't know for sure, and to the extent we are reasonably confident of it, we don't know the extent of the impact (they estimate 2-3 percent, but cannot remotely prove that; RFK Jr. dishonestly ju

Re:

[MarkusQ]

But that's question-begging tautology. "Not enough" is defined as "fewer than necessary to let everyone vote." And the question is, were there "not enough"?

That's your question begging definition, not mine. And it isn't one that would get any traction in queuing theory either, since it is essentially circular. Instead, I'm using the more normal definition "enough so that the total throughput rate ( = number of machines times the machine throughput rate) is sufficient to prevent overrun of the input bu

Re:

[pudge]

That's your question begging definition, not mine.

Um ... no. You're the one who said it. I was quoting you.

Instead, I'm using the more normal definition "enough so that the total throughput rate ( = number of machines times the machine throughput rate) is sufficient to prevent overrun of the input buffer (e.g. the line doesn't extend beyond the allocated space)".

But you made a patently false assumption about the allocated space, which is, in fact, unlimited.

The fact that the line persistently did so in ma

Re:

[MarkusQ]

But that's question-begging tautology. "Not enough" is defined as "fewer than necessary to let everyone vote."

That's your question begging definition, not mine.

Um ... no. You're the one who said it. I was quoting you.

You most decidedly were not. The phrase you quote simply does not occur in the message that preceded it, nor does anything similar. You may have thought you were paraphrasing what I had said (which is not the same as quoting), but even then I don't even see where you could claim tha

Re:

[beyondkaoru]

hey folks, you know this discussion was interesting for the first few posts, but it's kinda silly arguing now about each others' arguing.

ok, so first, i don't know if or how or who may or may not have cheated at voting stuffs, but here's a problem: lots of americans just don't care enough about voting to wait in a line that they know will take something like 3 hours. so, even if your queue/line/whatever can go on infinitely, the longer it is typically the smaller the chance that someone will be interested i

Exactly

[MarkusQ]

Exactly. I only got off on the queueing theory argument because he seemed to be disputing the fundumental point (as you put it "you must understand that decreasing voter throughput is definitely a way to decrease votes") and all the (admittedly valid) points about bordom, etc. don't matter until you accept it.

Although how anyone could not accept it is beyond me.

--MarkusQ

Re:

[pudge]

Exactly. I only got off on the queueing theory argument because he seemed to be disputing the fundumental point (as you put it "you must understand that decreasing voter throughput is definitely a way to decrease votes")

I didn't. I disputed the point that we know for a fact that long lines caused a 2-3 percent reduction in voter turnout, that low machine-voter ratio was the cause for the turnout drop. We know it CAN reduce turnout. We know turnout was reduced. We know there's no other explanation anyone

Re:

[pudge]

ok, so first, i don't know if or how or who may or may not have cheated at voting stuffs, but here's a problem: lots of americans just don't care enough about voting to wait in a line that they know will take something like 3 hours. so, even if your queue/line/whatever can go on infinitely, the longer it is typically the smaller the chance that someone will be interested in joining it.

Of course. I never denied that, explicitly or otherwise. However, again, RFK said three percent of people were forced to l

Re:

[pudge]

You may have thought you were paraphrasing what I had said (which is not the same as quoting), but even then I don't even see where you could claim that I defined "not enough" in anything close to that manner.

You didn't. I was saying what the phrase you used means. And it can't mean anything else. Not in English, anyway.

Cute. Can I play too? The surface area if the Earth is finite. The land area is quite a bit smaller, and the contiguous portion in which people could legally stand while waiting to vote i

Re:

[MarkusQ]

As another commenter pointed out, all this he said / he said stuff is getting ridiculous, and is distracting from the main point. If anyone who is reading this thread cares to, they can easily go back and verify who is telling the truth and who is twisting things. As far as I'm concerned they are welcome to. But as it's clear I'm not going to convince you I'm not going to waste any more time on it.

I'm going to list the points which I think we agree on. Please point out any that you disagree with.

In

Re:

[pudge]

As another commenter pointed out, all this he said / he said stuff is getting ridiculous, and is distracting from the main point. If anyone who is reading this thread cares to, they can easily go back and verify who is telling the truth and who is twisting things. As far as I'm concerned they are welcome to.

*shrug* You say that as though I've lied or twisted anything. I've clearly not.

Some people have jobs
Some people have children
Some people have other responsibilities
Some of the people with responsibilit

Re:

[MarkusQ]

*shrug* You say that as though I've lied or twisted anything. I've clearly not.

One example of lying, you claimed to be quoting me when you were not here [slashdot.org].

One example of twisting things, you heatedly denied being a "registered Republican" as if it were a horrible thing to be accused of, even though I had never said anything about your party affiliation and would not have made it an accusation if I had. Then when I pointed that you were presently holding elective office as a Republican you defended your

Re:

[pudge]

One example of lying, you claimed to be quoting me when you were not here.

False. I was, in fact, quoting you. You incorrect inferred that I meant the entire passage was a quote from you, when only one phrase was, and I was providing the definition for your phrase.

One example of twisting things, you heatedly denied being a "registered Republican" as if it were a horrible thing to be accused of

False. I was simply stating that what I perceived you as saying about me was false. Whether it is a horrible accu

Re:

[MarkusQ]

One example of lying, you claimed to be quoting me when you were not here.

False. I was, in fact, quoting you. You incorrect inferred that I meant the entire passage was a quote from you, when only one phrase was, and I was providing the definition for your phrase.

Where? From where? I never said that I thought the entire passage was a quote. What I am saying is that nothing in that passage comes from anything I had said previously, at least so far as I can find. Please tell me (with specificity, as

Re:

[pudge]

What I am saying is that nothing in that passage comes from anything I had said previously, at least so far as I can find.

Odd. Just go back one comment from what I was replying to. Hell, I quoted it. You said "If there are enough voting machines," [slashdot.org] implying there was not. So I said what "not enough" means and showed how it didn't make sense.

I specifically disclaimed any knowledge of the exact magnitude of the effect in the very first post in this thread, and clearly stated why I didn't think it was impor

Re:

[MarkusQ]

What I am saying is that nothing in that passage comes from anything I had said previously, at least so far as I can find.

Odd. Just go back one comment from what I was replying to. Hell, I quoted it. You said "If there are enough voting machines," implying there was not. So I said what "not enough" means and showed how it didn't make sense.

I see. You took one word out of what I had said (the word "enough"), took it out of context, threw a "not" in front of it, defined it in a way that I do not agree

Re:

[pudge]

I see.

False.

You took one word out of what I had said (the word "enough")

True.

took it out of context

False.

threw a "not" in front of it

True ... but you had implied there were not enough. That was, after all, your main contention.

defined it in a way that I do not agree with

True ... which is odd, since it cannot be defined in any other way.

and, to you, that is quoting me.

Yes, of course it was. I was defining your term.

I am willing to accept that you can not read them any other way.

Close. It cannot be read in

Re:

[MarkusQ]

It cannot be read in any other way. Again, you wrote, "the shortage of machines caused the number of votes to be reduced to the observed level." There is no other way to read that than that "the shortage of machines caused the number of votes to be reduced [2-3 percent]," and we know that this statement is unsupportable. You disclaimed it later, but it's not my job to try to reconcile to unreconcilable statements you made.

Despite your low ID I am beginning to suspect that you are trolling. But I will t

Re:

[pudge]

When we say that something was reduced from some number that we had expected (X) to some other number that we actually observed (A), we are saying that there is a difference (D) such that A = X - D and that D > 0.

That's it.

False. There was only one "observed" level, and you never implied there was any other. If you were really inventing some new "observed" level, you never said what it was, or how it was observed.

Further, I was quite clear in my response how I interpreted what you said, and you had an

Re:

[MarkusQ]

It cannot be read in any other way. Again, you wrote, "the shortage of machines caused the number of votes to be reduced to the observed level." There is no other way to read that than that "the shortage of machines caused the number of votes to be reduced [2-3 percent]," and we know that this statement is unsupportable. You disclaimed it later, but it's not my job to try to reconcile to unreconcilable statements you made.

Despite your low ID I am beginning to suspect that you are trolling. But I will t

Re:

[pudge]

What in the heck are you babbling about?

Facts.

You are correct, there was only one observed level and I never implied anything about any other.

False. You implied precisely that. You said you didn't mean by "observed level" that it dropped 2-3 percent (the only observed level on the table), but that the "observed level" was just some arbitrary value.

Then, in the very next sentence, you accuse me of inventing some 'new "observed" level' and not defining it or saying how it was observed. Where did that come f

Check your meds

[MarkusQ]

False. There was only one "observed" level, and you never implied there was any other.

You are correct, there was only one observed level and I never implied anything about any other.

False. You implied precisely that.

Dude. Whatever you are on, check the dosage.

Now.

I'm serious.

--MarkusQ

Re:

[pudge]

Um. The first sentence I wrote was in the context of BEFORE you wrote your statement about "the observed level." The second was your reply, which broadened my context to INCLUDE your statement. But it was your statement about "the observed level" that made this implication.

Keep trying, though!

Re:

[pudge]

Bah, hit submit when I meant to hit preview.

Note that I am not making any claims here about the quantity of votes suppressed, or saying that it was intentional, or who did caused it if it was.

But you did. You said the shortage of machines caused a certain amount of reduction of voter turnout. Those are your words: "the shortage of machines caused the number of votes to be reduced to the observed level." That is a claim about the quantity.

And again, voter suppression implied intent. So you are saying tha

A side issue

[MarkusQ]

I am not a lifelong Republican, I am not registered as a Republican

How interesting. A while back you said [slashdot.org]:

I am running, unopposed, for Republican Precinct Committee Officer (PCO), the party representative of the precinct.

Are you actually allowed to be the representative of a party, and run for an office in the party, without being a member of the party? It seems rather odd.

--MarkusQ

Re:

[pudge]

We do not register by party in Washington State. No one is registered in any party.