Forums | MacLife

Yeah, that's the most simple explanation.

Yet that's not the argument you were just using.

resedit wrote:

The most simple explanation is that dems are using "voter fraud" the same way that repubs use "terror threat".

FUD - the oldest trick in the book.

An interesting assertion there. The Republicans want a war because they want to funnel large sums of government cash into open-ended unsupervised contracts with Halliburton. The Republicans want expensive, closed source, smurfy voting machines because they want to funnel large sums of cash into Diebold.

The Democrats want a sensible anti-terror policy that yields results. The Democrats want independently verifiable, secure voting machines.

One party is corrupt, beholden to special interests, and stupidity, while the other wants sensible intelligent policies that reflect the will of the people.

D'Eyncourt wrote:

resedit wrote:

jerwin wrote:

exit polling?

You know - not once have I ever been at a place where there was exit polling being done.

Seems to me that if you don't "exit pole" everywhere, your "exit poles" have opportunity for bias.
Also seems to me that some people may vote one way in private, and say they voted another when asked in public.

Wow. You really do not understand statistics, do you?

He does have a point that they dont exit poll everywhere, specifically absentee ballots.

after-life wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Wow. You really do not understand statistics, do you?

He does have a point that they dont exit poll everywhere, specifically absentee ballots.

Wow. You really do not understand statistics, do you?

By all means, explain how you can get a representative sample of voters when not everyone has an equal chance of being polled?

after-life wrote:

They can use historical data to determine differences in voter patterns between absentee voters and voters at the polls.

That is not an answer as to how everyone has an equal chance of being randomly selected for polling.

Give it a rest. Exit polls are extremely accurate, unless there are large shifts in voting patterns that can't be predicted beforehand.

Yes, because they were *so* accurate in 2004

after-life wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

Yes, because they were *so* accurate in 2004

Yes, and it was an extreme shock. It had never happened before.

How about everyone getting an equal chance at being randomly selected?

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

[snip]
By all means, explain how you can get a representative sample of voters when not everyone has an equal chance of being polled?

Because sampling is just that: a sample of the total vote. Even if you live in a voting district that is considered a bellweather for sampling, the chances that any one person might be selected is somewhere around 1 in 60 or worse (about 90,000 actual voters per Congressional district, maybe 1,500 people polled though probably fewer than that in a national election).

On the other hand, if you (like me) live in one of the many safe districts (and most of you do), then there is NO chance that you or I will ever see an exit pollster: not much point in sampling that vote because it will not be representative of the whole vote.

What about people who vote absentee in unsafe districts? An exit poll will never be able to sample them and absentee ballots grow in popularity every election.

Here in IL in our Governor race the incumbent Dem has a 56 disapproval rating and the Rep challenger has a 57.
I'm thinking low turnout regardless.

gas huffer wrote:

Man, I'm already looking forward to November 8th.

Strangely, so am I.   

Steyr AUG wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

[snip]
By all means, explain how you can get a representative sample of voters when not everyone has an equal chance of being polled?

Because sampling is just that: a sample of the total vote. Even if you live in a voting district that is considered a bellweather for sampling, the chances that any one person might be selected is somewhere around 1 in 60 or worse (about 90,000 actual voters per Congressional district, maybe 1,500 people polled though probably fewer than that in a national election).

On the other hand, if you (like me) live in one of the many safe districts (and most of you do), then there is NO chance that you or I will ever see an exit pollster: not much point in sampling that vote because it will not be representative of the whole vote.

What about people who vote absentee in unsafe districts? An exit poll will never be able to sample them and absentee ballots grow in popularity every election.

THAT, of course, is a completely different question. Should absentee ballots skew the sample, then presumably other methods will be used, either to compensate or to substitute for exit polling.

But do you understand why not everyone doesn't need to be polled for a sample to be taken?

D'Eyncourt wrote:

resedit wrote:

jerwin wrote:

exit polling?

You know - not once have I ever been at a place where there was exit polling being done.

Seems to me that if you don't "exit pole" everywhere, your "exit poles" have opportunity for bias.
Also seems to me that some people may vote one way in private, and say they voted another when asked in public.

Wow. You really do not understand statistics, do you?

Yes. I do.
Where you take the exit polls may be representative of the sample of THAT polling station - of voters that happen to respond to the exit poll at the times the exit polls are done. Different demographics vote at different times and at different polling stations (as they live in different areas) - not to mention the fact that different demographics also have different turnout ratios.

When you decide where to do your exit polls, you are creating a biased result. It may be biased towards the norm or it may be biased towards an extreme, but it is biased.

btw, about exit polls - do you think it is easier to tamper with the actual election or the exit polls?

Just sayin ...