UC Berkeley Report on Florida E-Voting: Debunked

http://alex.strashny.com/2004/11/electronic_voting_machines_florida_and_bush_votes_in_2004.html ^

[elparce]

"On November 18, several researchers from UC Berkley released a working paper [local]. The paper alleges to present statistical evidence that, in the 2004 Presidential elections, the use of electronic voting machines in Florida gave to Bush votes that he would not have otherwise received. The finding was covered in a Wired News article.

Once I correct for this shift, the "electronic voting machine effect" disappears.In response to this, I wrote a paper [html, pdf] that shows that the model used by the Berkley team is flawed. Specifically, the model fails to account for demographic shifts between 2000 and 2004. In the four years, on average (across counties), the number of registered Republicans increased by 29% whereas the number of registered Democrats increased only by 5%. In three counties (Baker, Gilchrist, and Liberty), the number of registered Republicans increased by more than 90%. Once I correct for this shift, the "electronic voting machine effect" disappears. My conclusion is that there is no statistical evidence of a relationship between the use of electronic voting machines and the change in the percentage of votes cast for Bush."

(excerpt)

full story: http://alex.strashny.com/2004/11/electronic_voting_machines_florida_and_bush_votes_in_2004.html

[elparce]

Another "election was stolen" theory bites the dust.

El Parce

[Josh in PA]

I'm sure the DUmmies won't let the facts get in the way of their fantasies.

[rockabyebaby]

What do you expect from Berkley, certainly not the facts.

[EagleUSA]

What do you expect from Berkley, certainly not the facts.
=======
Well those useless bums and commies have to do something with their time....

[Gibtx]

so much for Berkley's vaunted math departments training....

[Tempest]

I knew the original "study" was garbage when I saw that it came from Berkley anyways.

[Jibaholic]

Someone needs to do a history of debunked "the 2004 election was stolen" theories. I think this is #4 now.

[wattsup]

What do we expect from Bezerkeley. The computer term GIGO comes to mind.

[Auntie Dem]

Another "election was stolen" theory bites the dust.

But you can't be trusted to be objective, you've got an agenda, whereas the Bezerkely academia are apolitical.

[FredZarguna]

Nice work.

I may not have read your refutation carefully enough to make this conclusion, however, does your work not in fact suggest that if the same demographic trend noted was in operation in non-electronic precincts, the effect for Bush incorrectly reported by Hout et al, should be seen there as well (but negatively)? That is to say, if we take electronic voting as the accuracy standard, could these results be used to suggest that if the same result isn't seen in non-electronic precincts, then there is statistical evidence of Democratic fraud?

[FredZarguna]

It wasn't the math department. It was sociology.

[StJacques]

I have no doubt that the "internal numbers" from the Florida counties -- gender, race, ethnicity, age, etc. -- will establish that the vote results are predictable. But even before you get to the "internals" you can now look at the "marginal numbers," which is what this author is presenting. Simply put, the context within which the Berkeley group made its argument is flat-out false, because they didn't know just what the numbers among registered voters are.

There is a whole lot more about the arguments over the Florida recount that is flawed. This just makes one more point. But it is a very good point indeed, because it shows that no one bothered to get good data before they started analyzing the results.

[BigWaveBetty]

Oh no, the DUmmies will surely vaporize. And this coming from their alma mater Berkley. Wait... is that wailing I hear... Uh, no, that was just me humming...

Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
And another one gone, and another one gone
Another one bites the dust
Hey, I'm gonna get you too
Another one bites the dust

[elparce]

Another nice article debunking the Berkeley study is here:

http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4038

El Parce

[Cutterjohnmhb]

I'm surprised they could tear themselves away from their flag burning and Jew hating to actually come up with a flawed study, they must have received a new shipment of speed.

[Paleo Conservative]

It's always good when you can nail Berkley.

[BigWaveBetty]

That was a good article, thanks!

For one thing, the state of Florida voted much more Republican in 2004 than in 2000,...

Allow me to extend a big thank you to algore and his Sore Loserman 37 days of post election Hell. I remember stories from 2000 that reported people re-registering as republicans who were democrats at the time because they were so disgusted at the dems and algore.

... and in 2000, it voted more Republican than it did in 1996.

Another big thank you to Terrence McAwful because his and the dems zeal to sue Nader off the ballot angered many Naderites. Had they voted this time FL would most likely have elected another dem to the senate. Those voting for Nader would have checked his name for prez., but then voted dem in the senate race. Thanks to the dems insightful (cough, cough) strategery they stayed home. Hey who knows, some might have even shown up and voted for GWB out of spite.

Side memo for Terrence: Yo, Terry! Ya big dummy, when are you going to learn? Do the right thing, even if it appears like doing so will be a negative for yourself and the party. (The right thing in this instance would be, let Nader have his right to free speech like everyone else. It's a shame I have to spell this out for a grown man like you Terrence, what would your mother say!)

[VeniVidiVici]

Why anyone would want to go the the terrorist training ground called UC Berkeley nowadays is beyond me.