Reply #44: In defense of "Truth" ,,, [View All]

...is all I intend. Here are the two points by Nederland endorsed by Jack Rabbit

* Regardless of your sample size, if your sample is not representative of the total population, exit poll results can be outside the MOE.

How is the representativeness of the sample size determined? By statistical rules and laws that are fairly well established. By historical comparisons of sampling and population results (1996, 2000 Presidential Elections). These requirements DO NOT include knowing the total population in detail and then determining if the sample matches that. This would make polling and just about any other type of statistical sampling unworkable. What were the procedures for the exit polls? Were there any reason to doubt the representative nature of the polls? Even the US Census, the Mack Daddy of data gathering and statistical analysis infers the total population from what is arguably a huge statistical sample. They cannot measure everyone. We had an approximation of previous exit polling in 2004 and it ties directly back to the methodology and accuracy of 2000 and 1996.

* When fraud occurs, it is impossible to determine whether or not an exit poll sample was representative.

This is simply wrong. When fraud occurs, the only way to determine the result of the ballot counting is through the Exit Polls. The caveat here is that the Exit Polls cannot also be fraudulent. Fraud in ballot counting (in whatever form) means you can't know what the vote really was. To say that absent this knowledge, you can't separately take a valid statistical sample makes no sense at all. This second point is a pure set up to negate polling altogether. It's a cute rhetorical device but not much in terms of real world analysis. Fraud took place in the Ukraine count. Exit polls pointed this out. The election was redone and the results changed when the fraud was corrected. Is Nederland arguing that the Exit Polls in the Ukraine lacked the "representativeness" to catch fraud.

TruthIsAll prevails in this argument. As do the other statisticians. Let me remind all of us that the basis for applied scientific inquiry, measurement, and inference is entirely reliant on the very same statistical laws and procedures cited and used by Truth. Let's stop standing Truth on it's head, accept that there are multiple paths to prove fraud in 2004, and move forward on all paths united to make sure it doesn't happen in 2006. To do otherwise is paralysis by analysis.

Thank you TruthIsAll for your great efforts.