reply to post by SkepticOverlord
There is already a rather large thread on your first link
The member Xcalibur254 did a great job of just completely picking apart the analysis. The "author" of the google doc even came and joined ATS to
defend it....but he seemed to have dissapeared after Xcalibur254 completely destroyed his analysis.
And your second link seems to make the same assumptions as the first.
The people doing these analysis are making incorrect assumptions to base their "proof" off of. They are both taking the smalles precincts out of a
state, calculating a percentage, and claiming all the candidates should get that share of the vote in the entire state. Also, the second source you
linked, their whole premise is that we should treat votes as COMPLETELY RANDOM EVENTS....It is absolutely horrible math theory.
Romney does better in larger urban areas...that is just a known fact. So the people doing these "analysis" take that fact, flip it on it's head, and
take statistics knowingly ignoring it.
This would be like saying, let's take the 5 most rural states and get a percentage of vote of Republicans and Democrats...and then cry fraud once you
include the top 5 states that have the largest metro areas and all of a sudden the Democrats are doing better.
The people doing these could start with the largest precincts, calculate a percentage and then it looks like Romney is being cheated in the smaller
Sorry...but this is just horrible...horrible math.
edit on 29-2-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)
29-2-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)