| Author |
Message |
    
John M. Kedrowski
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Scifisher
Post Number: 1
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 6:06 am: | 
|
Has this been discussed before? Is there any rebuttal out there on this? If so, could someone point me in the right direction?
re: statistical article analyzing touch-screen voting irregularities
http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/11309.html
"Supporters of touch-screen voting claim it is a highly reliable voting technology, while a growing number of critics argue that paperless electronic voting systems are vulnerable to fraud. In this paper we use county-level data on voting technologies in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections to test whether voting technology affects electoral outcomes. We first show that there is a positive correlation between use of touch-screen voting and the level of electoral support for George Bush. This is true in models that compare the 2000-2004 changes in vote shares between adopting and non-adopting counties within a state, after controlling for income, demographic composition, and other factors. Although small, the effect could have been large enough to influence the final results in some closely contested states. While on the surface this pattern would appear to be consistent with allegations of voting irregularities, a closer examination suggests this interpretation is incorrect. If irregularities did take place, they would be most likely in counties that could potentially affect statewide election totals, or in counties where election officials had incentives to affect the results. Contrary to this prediction, we find no evidence that touch-screen voting had a larger effect in swing states, or in states with a Republican Secretary of State. Touch-screen voting could also indirectly affect vote shares by influencing the relative turnout of different groups. We find that the adoption of touch-screen voting has a negative effect on estimated turnout rates, controlling for state effects and a variety of county-level controls. This effect is larger in counties with a higher fraction of Hispanic residents (who tend to favor Democrats) but not in counties with more African Americans (who are overwhelmingly Democrat voters). Models for the adoption of touch-screen voting suggest it was more likely to be used in counties with a higher fraction of Hispanic and Black residents, especially in swing states. Nevertheless, the impact of non-random adoption patterns on vote shares is small."
John
|
Bob Fleischer
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Rjf7r
Post Number: 37
Registered: 09-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 10:04 am: |
|
So the argument is that if somebody tampered with the elections this way, the tampering would be blatantly obvious (as opposed to subtle and part of an larger program of biases produced in many different, and cumulative, ways)? |
John M. Kedrowski
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Scifisher
Post Number: 2
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 11:42 am: |
|
I see the argument as offering an alternative explanation for the discrepincies, which they acknowledge not only exist, but could also influence the outcome of the election. Their hypothesis is that voting machines scare away democrats.
"Touch-screen voting could also indirectly affect vote shares by influencing the relative turnout of different groups. We find that the adoption of touch-screen voting has a negative effect on estimated turnout rates, controlling for state effects and a variety of county-level controls. This effect is larger in counties with a higher fraction of Hispanic residents (who tend to favor Democrats) but not in counties with more African Americans (who are overwhelmingly Democrat voters)."
I think the study is BS and I would love to see how they "controlled" for factors like (intentionally) long lines at polling places.
I'm new here, so if there has been chatter about this study before, please indicate where I can go to get more information. Thanks.
John |
Pat A. Vesely
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Pat_vesely
Post Number: 2011
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 1:02 pm: |
|
Welcome to Black Box Voting John. Thanks for posting this. I'll try to find out whether there might be a little political bias behind this study.
Here's a quick Google search for David Card and Enrico Moretti the authors of this 'study'.
Here's the WhoIs lookup for the site.
Domain ID:D20823861-LROR
Domain Name:REPEC.ORG
Created On:27-Feb-2000 15:05:13 UTC
Last Updated On:10-Aug-2005 02:51:43 UTC
Expiration Date:27-Feb-2007 15:05:13 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Register.com Inc. (R71-LROR)
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:C5605182-RCOM
Registrant Name:Christopher Baum
Registrant Organization:RePEc Team
Registrant Street1:Boston College Economics
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Chestnut Hill
Registrant State/Province:MA
Registrant Postal Code:02467-3806
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.6175523673
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:+1.6175522308
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:baum@bc.edu
Admin ID:C5605182-RCOM
Admin Name:Christopher Baum
Admin Organization:RePEc Team
Admin Street1:Boston College Economics
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Chestnut Hill
Admin State/Province:MA
Admin Postal Code:02467-3806
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.6175523673
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:+1.6175522308
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:baum@bc.edu
Tech ID:C1-RCOM
Tech Name:Domain Registrar
Tech Organization:Register.Com
Tech Street1:575 8th Avenue
Tech Street2:
Tech Street3:
Tech City:New York
Tech State/Province:NY
Tech Postal Code:10018
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.9027492701
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:+1.9027495429
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:domain-registrar@register.com
Name Server:DNS7.REGISTER.COM
Name Server:DNS8.REGISTER.COM
It appears that their background is in economics.
Here's a Google search for RePEc.
I'll keep digging to see what I can find.
PAV ;-) |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 1271
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 1:09 pm: |
|
By coincidence, since the touch screens supposedly scared away Democrats--isn't it in predominantly Democratic areas where there were too few voting machines? This led to long lines and waits of many hours, which many people couldn't stay for. As a result, tens of thousands (if not many hundreds of thousands) of Democratic-leaning voters were disenfranchised. Do the authors of this study interpret this as "scaring off Democratic voters?" Hmmmm.
There are other websites that focus more on the statistical analysis. Kathy Dopp and others (e.g. US Count Votes) may have something to say about this study. They have done some of their own statistical analysis, and they have refuted the Mitofsky "shy Republican responder" theory. |
John M. Kedrowski
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Scifisher
Post Number: 3
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 1:50 pm: |
|
I'm not expert in statistics, but I do know a few things. I'm skeptical of their findings. Their abstract was so convoluted that their model has got to be atrocious...or they have completely ignored certain things. BTW - I tried to purchase the paper. I got the 404 object not found message. hmmmm. |
Lora Cove
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Lora
Post Number: 46
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 2:43 pm: |
|
Here are some observations about the abstract:
"If irregularities did take place, they would be most likely in counties that could potentially affect statewide election totals, or in counties where election officials had incentives to affect the results."
This is an assumption, one which is not necessarily true. You could have counties whose collective votes could affect the outcome but whose separate votes might not. And deciding which county election officials had incentives to change the vote is simply a judgment call without any backup. Totally unscientific.
"Contrary to this prediction, we find no evidence that touch-screen voting had a larger effect in swing states, or in states with a Republican Secretary of State."
Um, this is the very next sentence, and they switch from talking about "counties" and county "election officials" to "states" and "secretary of state," while referring to the prediction made about counties. Very slippery.
As for the rest...I'd have to read the paper. |
Lora Cove
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Lora
Post Number: 47
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 2:49 pm: |
|
OK, I followed some links and this paper seems to come from NBER: National Bureau of Economic Research. It claims to be non-partisan, but I read a sampling of stuff on their website, www.nber.org, and you can judge for yourself but dang if I don't smell neocon...
Here's a sampling:
"Corporate Governance and Financial Globalization
"Rene M. Stulz
"In his recent book, Thomas L. Friedman makes the case that globalization leads to a flat world.(1) By that, he means that it removes obstacles that, in the past, would have prevented firms and individuals from competing with each other across the world. Such competition improves welfare not only by insuring that goods are produced at the lowest cost but also by making sure that consumers get access to new and better goods. Assuredly, the world is not flat yet. Nevertheless, the metaphor is helpful for understanding the forces that shape our world. It is even more apt to describe the financial world than the world of trade in goods. For many countries, the most significant explicit barriers to trade in financial assets have been knocked down." |
Pat A. Vesely
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Pat_vesely
Post Number: 2012
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 3:12 pm: |
|
I've spent a couple of hours poking around the Internet and have found no obvious signs that these people exhibit any political bias one way or the other. There are no political contributions listed under the names of the researchers or the site owner.
I have found an article at the Election Law @ Moritz web site by Dan Tokaji that seems to be neutral.
I also found a post on a Democratic site that might actually support their conclusion to some extent.
Note post #3 of the ten responses on this thread. (as of the time I started this post) Perhaps we should do a better job of explaining the importance of voting regardless of the potential risks that these machines pose.
PAV ;-) |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 1272
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 3:45 pm: |
|
Morelli and Card are both researchers in the NBER's Children's Program. http://www.nber.org/programs/ch/
The website itself is a very academic-looking website. The conventional world of economics is conservative almost by definition. I didn't spot any progressive economists among the researchers. (I searched for a number of names like Hawken, Korten, Gilman, Meeker, etc.)
The NBER researchers have conventional links - Harvard, UC Berkeley, etc.
While NBER is not a bastion of progressive economic thinking, I wouldn't conclude it's a neo-conservative group any more than the American Medical Association or any other conventional research establishment would be.
[Soap-Box alert] But the world of economics on the whole speaks to a conservative elite--the typical thinkers who represent the economic world-view that shapes most academic programs in economics. This is the conventional wisdom that, consciously or not, perpetuates the economic belief system that helps the small percentage of people who have the most resources feel they are entitled to them, and helps them keep them.
(Message edited by catherine_a on December 03, 2005) |
John M. Kedrowski
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Scifisher
Post Number: 4
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 4:27 pm: |
|
Has anyone had any luck actually purchasing the paper? For some reason, I am unable to do so. I wonder if it still exists on the net? |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 1273
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 5:08 pm: |
|
Why not write the authors? Their email addresses are below (if you read the instructions carefully) I got this by using the search facility at the NBER website.
David Card
Department of Economics
549 Evans Hall, #3880
UC Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720-3880
Tel: 510 642-5222
Fax: 510/643-7042
E-Mail: EmailAddress: hidden: you can email any nber family member as first underscore last at nber dot org
CV: http://www.nber.org/vitae/vita125.htm
NBER Program Affiliations: ED, CH, AG, LS
NBER Working Papers by this researcher.
Enrico Moretti
University of California, Berkeley
Department of Economics
549 Evans Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720-3880
Tel: (510) 642 6649
Fax: (510) 643 7042
E-Mail: EmailAddress: hidden: you can email any nber family member as first underscore last at nber dot org
CV: http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~moretti/cv.pdf
WWW: http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~moretti/
NBER Program Affiliations: CH |
Lora Cove
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Lora
Post Number: 48
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 6:48 pm: |
|
I remain suspicious. Maybe because I recently read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins. |
John M. Kedrowski
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Scifisher
Post Number: 5
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 7:35 pm: |
|
Thanks for the help. I've been a lurker on this forum for a long time and I came across this paper and it had me stumped. We'll see where this thing leads... |
Jo Anne Karasek
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jo_anne_karasek
Post Number: 46
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, December 3, 2005 - 9:21 pm: |
|
The underlying premise of this working paper is unsound--"If irregularities did take place, they would be most likely in counties that could potentially affect statewide election totals, . . ."
There is absolutely no basis to assume that irregularities would most likely take place in larger population counties. They would be easier to cover up if done in smaller amounts in many Republican rural counties. And they would be harder to uncover if many counties had to be audited (I personally strongly doubt the Triad counties in Ohio, but there were more than 40 of them to be audited.)
Why, when paperless voting machines are used, would vote alteration have to be limited to a small number of counties!!! Misprogramming by heavily Republican oriented manufacturers, for instance, can convert the results more easily in many counties than in a few.
Further, where complicity would be necessary for manufacturing the "irregularity" to the benefit of a Republican, it would be easier to get it in a less populous highly Republican county than in a more populous highly Democrat county. I personally know of a a less populous Republican county where it would be difficult to find a true Democrat to watch out for Democrat interests.
By the way, this is the study link
http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~moretti/dre.pdf |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 1274
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, December 4, 2005 - 3:19 am: |
|
Hi Jo Anne,
I agree that the fundamental assumptions made by these authors have no basis.
It is hard to understand why/how this paper was published in the first place, especially given the unusually extensive discussion of polling methodologies and fine points of statistical analysis of elections since the Nov. 2 2004.
I wonder if the authors have withdrawn it. |
John M. Kedrowski
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Scifisher
Post Number: 6
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, December 4, 2005 - 5:32 am: |
|
Thanks for posting the link. I read the study this morning and here is my analysis.
F sub m times X is the mechanical effect voting machines have on the fraction of minority voters. In other words, this is the scare factor that the paper postulates. When they run their regression, this is the factor that will suppress the correllation between the lines of significance.
The X factor was arbitrarily determined. It has no research backing it up and they made no effort to control for things like long lines, voter intimidation, and deliberate voter misdirection. Basically, the picked and choosed among county wide data sets to find data sets with no explanation as to why they picked particular county data set. Then they compared certain data sets until they got a value for X. This value was then arbitrarily applied everywhere.
In conclusion, the model of this study is flawed. It has no basis in reality and does little to control for the independent variables that may have affected the data in the county's they arbitrarily choose for their value of X. Further, the artificially determined value of X is arbitrarily applied everywhere irregularities occured and their is no research or explanation as to why this was done.
The only thing this study got right is to show that their is a positive correllation between the use of voting machines and votes for George W. Bush. Their alternative explanation is far from proven.
Hey, Bev Harris is cited in the bibliography! |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 1276
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, December 4, 2005 - 5:54 am: |
|
The paper was called a "Working Paper"--hence I assume a work in progress (or perhaps a work withdrawn). Perhaps they might like to hear your observations. Their basic assumptions are so flawed that it's possible this is why the paper disappeared from the NEBR website. (Though you'd have to wonder why they didn't also remove the UCal Berkeley post as well.) Maybe they're looking for reactions?
It is extraordinary if they didn't mention the voter suppression and disenfranchisement that accompanied the use of touch screens. Since touch screens are expensive, it's unavoidable that counties will tend to have less than the number actually needed. It's also evident (to me, anyways) that their distribution was done on a calculated political basis so as to prevent Democrat-leaning minority populations and to facilitate voting in Republican-leaning wealthy, white suburban areas.
Their work might be useful if it were to look at a broader range of factors.
It's the inherently subjective nature of statistics (e.g. arguments are possible about the fundamental assumptions made, what factors were and were not included, and the mathematical procedures employed in the analysis) that makes them troublesome in cases such as this paper.
BBV sticks to unarguable kinds of data (receipts of financial payments, factual evidence of laws and regulations not being followed, paper trails of correspondence documenting what vendors or election officials did or didn't know and when, etc.).
It is all useful. The statistical data can point to anomalies that require more detailed investigation. Statistical studies such as the one John K. mentions here also show the kinds of bias and faulty logic that can impact on statistical research. Statistical research can also be useful for identifying alliances (e.g., who is trying to prove what). |
BBV Admin
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2882
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, December 4, 2005 - 7:17 am: |
|
This is an excellent illustration of the folly of inserting political bias into the voting machine issue. The bias here is subtle.
Note that the authors of this study assume that tampering would focus on federal or statewide races. They also assume that tampering would be a new phenomena (because if it had been going on for a decade, it wouldn't do any good to use past voting trends to identify tampering.)
In fact, the first beneficiaries of tampering were most likely local councilmen, commissioners, supervisors (who make decisions on lucrative and bribe-prone land use and construction projects) and local sheriffs (who control contraband -- drugs and guns -- and guard the ballots).
When you insert the assumptions that tampering has been going on for more than one election cycle and/or that it has, at least initially, targeted local races, the study becomes pretty much meaningless.
We would be much farther along today in reforming the system if we were dealing with the system vulnerabilities itself and the implementation of its checks and balances.
Black Box Voting has not been involved in statistical studies mainly because the results are so easily thrown out the window simply by adjusting assumptions -- and the results are rarely usable as evidence in a court of law anyway.
Bev Harris |
Lora Cove
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Lora
Post Number: 49
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, December 4, 2005 - 10:29 am: |
|
My take on this study is similar to the above comments. Their rationale for which counties would be likely to use fraud to affect elections is highly questionable. As for the models they use to rule out the effects of other factors, I have no idea as to their validity.
One comment they made in passing that in my opinion is extremely important, is that their study looked at systematic fraud. The way I interpreted it, is that their whole study was geared to try to determine if there was a consistent, uniform use of fraud in all the counties they deemed fraud would be likely to be used. This assumption right there is rather unbelievable to me. This is the conspiracy theory taken to new heights. A given county might or might not be able to get away with fraud, or even try to attempt it. The remaining counties that were not supposed to be fraudulent of course might have been. Their study found that on average there was no indication of fraud, based on the above assumption. To me, that renders their conclusions essentially meaningless.
I take it further and question the authors' motivations in conducting their study, and the motivations of the contributors of NBER. Although there may not be any obvious political affiliation, from my skimming of the stuff on their site, it seems rather consistently supportive of the American capitalistic system, without calling anything about it into serious question. Granted this is a brief and undoubtedly biased opinion of the site. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 1282
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, December 4, 2005 - 2:40 pm: |
|
Lora,
I think you're right on all counts. Looking for a "single-flavor" fraud across the board is not necessarily how things are done. Different opportunities and tactics (and combinations of tactics) would be a more likely scenario, and also a way of guaranteeing success while minimizing risk.
My impression of the NBER is like your own, that it is "consistently supportive of the american capitalistic system, without calling anything about it into serious question." In many or most cases I think they've bought into the ideas they've been told since they were young. They're brainwashed, just like we all are to varying degrees. Many or most probably genuinely believe that what they are doing is meaningful and valid.
I don't know when these folks will wake up from the common fairy-tale myths about free markets etc. |
BBV Admin
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2888
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, December 4, 2005 - 3:25 pm: |
|
One of my favorite analogies is from Bruce O'Dell, who says many of the current election statistics studies are like a Rorschach ink blot test -- the results seem to depend on the pre-existing beliefs of the statistician. |
