Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Collection of reactions to RFK

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:00 PM
Original message
Collection of reactions to RFK
The top slot at the Solar Bus site (http://election.solarbus.org) is a focus on the RFK's article, with links to all the reactions, and reactions to reactions, including:

Salon magazine criticizes RFK
RFK responds to Salon's criticism
Professor Steve Freeman responds to Salon
Election Rights advocate commentary (autorank)
Election Rights Lawyer commentary (landshark)

if anyone has more links that qualify, please send them my way.

thanks
gb



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Innocent Smith Donating Member (466 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. math blog
There was a good link a couple of days ago to a math blog. The blog site's focus was completely on math and not about politics, but one of the blogs was a mathematical discussion of RFK's article.

I don't have a link though because I didn't bookmark. Gee, I'm really helpful.

Maybe someone else saw it and can aim to to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. ya, please send me the URL if you find it :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. self delete
Edited on Thu Jun-15-06 04:21 PM by mod mom
self delete
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
3. Mark Chu-Carroll wrote a good analysis of the problems
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I don't know about that one
I might use my editorial power to nix that article. The author is nitpicking semantics. The very first argument is a piece of trash. she is nitpicking how RFK says the exit polls were "inexplicable" because they were outside the margin of error.

She goes to great length to say they were not "inexplicable" because the margin of error only gives you a certail level of confidence. So she's arguing the definition of inexplicable. Then she criticizes Steve Freeman's claim, saying it's bullshit, without making any kind of statement to support her criticism.

I don't think that article deserves attention...?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Innocent Smith Donating Member (466 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. That is the one I saw
Read all the comments after the article where they hash it out a little more. If fact what Mark writes in the comments are more interesting than what he wrote the original blog.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I agree
The article turns out to be just a sketch to the comments which I thought were all around excellent by everybody (barring one or two true believers).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. personal attacks on RFK
I think lot of people do not read the comments, and the article alone is a personal attack on RFK and Freeman, with blatant misuse of proper debate. If I could post the comments without the reaction, I guess I'd do that... :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
9. Dr Ron Baiman: Clearly a CRIME was Committed in OHIO
Dr Baiman posted this on another thread here but since he is new to DU, he can not post an original thread. I think it got lost in the numerous posts and think it needs to be front and center:

*********
"I would take this evidence to a trial. Clearly a crime was committed in Ohio. There is simply no other explanation for these patterns other than vote shifting. The only thing we don’t know is who did it and how. And exactly this kind of information is necessary to get serious electoral reform - that you claim to support."

RON BAIMAN

Ron Baiman is currently a Policy Research Project Development Analyst at Loyola University in Chicago, as well as an visiting assistant professor at the University of Chicago. He holds a Ph.D. in Econonomics from The New School for Social Research.





In his June 7, 2006 reply to Kennedy’s rebuttal of his earlier critique Farhad Manjoo citing Mark Blumenthal, claims that:



a) The exit poll margins of error for Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, and Ohio were between 5% to 7%. This is preposterous. Rather than relying on Mark Blumenthal (an unreliable source for quantitative analysis), I urge Manjoo to download the National Election Pool a “Methods Statement” for the Edison Mitofsky (EM) exit polls (produced on Nov. 2 2006) at:



http://www.exit-poll.net/election-night/MethodsStatemen...



The second page of this statement sets 95% confidence intervals for these polls (for a “characteristic” held by roughly 50% of those polled, for example a Presidential candidate preference for which there is a close to even split) squarely at 4% for sample sizes of 951-2350 – the range of reported sample sizes for these states. However, as Blumenthal knows, the reported sample sizes (also in the methods statements) are about half of what they really are (see Mitofsky correspondence in Baiman June 5 Free Press AAPOR report). For these true doubled sample sizes of 2351-5250, NEP’s own estimated confidence interval falls to 3%. This clearly puts the Ohio discrepancy of about 4% outside of the margin of error - even using NEP's inflated margins of error.

My margin of error calculations (and I believe Freeman’s) find a 2% margin of error with a 30% cluster adjustment factor. As I have stated in my earlier response to Manjoo, this puts Ohio well outside the margin of sampling error with odds of less than 1,900 that Kerry’s reported result is true given the exit poll result. This is not “slight” evidence but rather highly statistically significant, especially one considered with the inexplicable pro-Bush exit poll discrepancies in the two other key battle ground states of Florida and Pennsylvania. As Freeman and I have stated, the odds that these “sampling errors” (in the same direction and of these magnitudes) would occur for these three states simultaneously in less than one in 182,000,000 (i.e virtually impossible - this number is based on doubled sample sizes). Moreover, when one looks at precinct level exit poll data , and not just aggregate state polls, the evidence in even more striking and inexplicable. A fact that Manjoo has not addressed at all.



<snip>

http://www.Baiman.blogspot.com


His posts can be found on this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Febble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Boy, you really like this piece
don't you?

Well, much as I deplore what happened in Ohio, as I think Baiman's piece is so flawed it should come with a health warning, here is a link to the health warning:

http://www.geocities.com/lizzielid/TheGunIsSmoking_Review.pdf

Moreover, while Baiman splutters at Blumenthal and recommends downloading the Edison Mitofsky methodology statement (written in advance of the poll, and intended as a guide to the tabulations, not the projections) he completely ignores the fact that E-M, in their January 2005 evaluation actually give the standard errors they computed on election night from their incoming data (no, not the vote count data, the actual exit poll data) from which MoE's can easily be derived, and which is where, of course, Blumenthal got them.

All of which is in fact irrelevant as it can be clearly seen from the between-precinct error that the discrepancy in Ohio was not due to chance, as absolutely no-one, least of all E-M, disputes.

What is more serious is that in order to decide whether fraud was responsible for that discrepancy in Ohio (or elsewhere) there is simply no point in arguing how "significant" it was - that tells you nothing except that it wasn't due to random sampling error. Baiman claims he has found "patterns" to distinguish polling bias from fraud, and rests his entire case on these "patterns" for which he alleges there is "simply no other explanation" than vote-shifting. Unfortunately, even the most generous statistical tests demonstrate that they are not even statistically different from noise. And even eyeballing them, which is all Baiman invites us to do, is misleading, as he has, even more bizarrely, plotted his data in such a way that it hides the data points that refute his case.

Baiman has had ample time to respond to these criticisms, and has simply ignored them. If you want evidence of election theft in Ohio there are plenty of places to point, not least to the long lines in Democratic precincts in Columbus. But pointing to statistically insignificant patterns in misunderstood exit poll data from 49 precincts is, frankly, misdirection, which is the last thing I'd have thought the voters of Ohio need.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-15-06 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
10. Dr Bob Fitrakis responds to Manjoo Article
Mods, I have been given permission to post this entire piece by Bob Fitrakis:

Salon.com gets it all wrong
by Bob Fitrakis

In Farhad Manjoo’s “Was the 2004 Election Stolen? No” he claims Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s article in Rolling Stone contains “numerous errors of interpretation and his deliberate omission of key bits of data.” As an Election Protection legal observer in Columbus and one of the four attorneys who challenged the Ohio election results, I was struck by Manjoo’s own numerous errors of fact and deliberate omissions of widely-known studies and data.

In his first claim that the Ellen Connally anomaly, where an under-funded retired municipal judge from Cleveland ran ahead of Kerry in rural southwestern counties fails to indicate vote-shifting from Kerry to Bush, Manjoo deliberately omits several well-known facts. The obvious fact on record is that Democratic nominee Al Gore pulled his campaign out of the state six weeks prior to the 2000 election while Kerry and his 527 organization supporters spent the largest amount of money in Ohio history. So to compare the non-Gore campaign in 2000 to the massive Democratic effort in 2004 seems disingenuous. Moreover, Manjoo conveniently ignores the fact that sample ballots were everywhere in the state of Ohio and voters in these rural counties were repeatedly mailed and handed both party’s sample ballots. There were large and active campaigns in the key counties in question – Butler, Clermont, and Warren – passing out Republican and Democratic sample ballots. This is a major omission. Also, Manjoo might actually want to do some research on the amount of money Eric Fingerhut spent vs. John Kerry. Fingerhut’s major effort was walking across the state of Ohio because he didn’t have any funds. Hardly Kerry’s problem.

By the way, it is easy to shift votes on punchcard machines due to the ballot rotation law in Ohio. For instance, the hole to punch for Kerry would be “4” in one precinct and the hole to punch for Bush would be “4” in the next precinct. Public records reveal that in key southwest Ohio counties, ballots were counted at the county level, not the precinct level, to save money on counting machines. Thus, all one has to do is shift Kerry cards to a Bush tabulating machine to get a shift. There was more than enough time to do this, when votes came in during the wee hours of the morning. In fact, when we finally got to look at the ballots from four precincts in Warren County, we were surprised to discover that two the pink “header” cards used to separate precinct ballots had holes punched for Bush.

It appears Manjoo knows very little about Ohio election law. As a licensed attorney in the state and involved in the practice of election law, I’m stunned by the obvious errors that Manjoo makes. The purges in
Ohio were, in fact, deliberate, and they occurred in Democratic strongholds. Cuyahoga County records indicate 24.93% of all voters in Cleveland were purged between the 2000 and 2004 election. Census data indicates that most of the people who move in urban areas move within the county, which would make them still eligible to vote under Ohio law, and not be purged. What Manjoo leaves out is the standard practice by counties, which would have moved these individuals to “inactive” status before purging them. Additionally, numerous surveys as well as reports by the Toledo Blade and other newspapers reveal that many of these people had voted in local elections or had contacted their county board of elections, which under voting directives indicates activity. This activity would prevent them from being purged.

Yes, there was the deliberate purging in the Democratic strongholds indeed. The Toledo Blade reports 28,000 voters purged from the Democratic stronghold of Toledo in late August 2004. Perhaps Manjoo should make it a practice to do a Lexus Nexus search prior to attacking people for omitting data. The key here is that it is standard for counties to purge in odd-number years, 2001, 2003, etc. Manjoo also ignores the fact that 95.12% of all the provisional voters in Hamilton County came from the Democratic city of Cincinnati, where only 32% of the county’s voters resided. Less than 5% of the provisional ballots were handed out in the lily-white suburbs. Perhaps Manjoo has a hard time imagining a man of Karl Rove’s high standards targeting black and poor voters.

Manjoo’s claim that the missing voting machines did not impact the African American communities is bizarre and laughable. As an election observer who witnessed lines at 9 inner-city African American precincts, I counted an average of 80 voters leaving per hour without voting in precinct after precinct. I have my logs from that day, if Manjoo would care to see them. I find Manjoo’s comments both preposterous and possibly racist. The reality is, Franklin County needed 5000 machines. They went into the election with 2886, but they only put out 2741 on Election Day. I have in my possession a document that shows 125 machines that had been previously allocated, but were blackout out and held back on Election Day – all 125 from the Democratic stronghold of Columbus. Forty-two percent of the African American wards had machines held back at the last second. This constitutes 74% of all the majority African American wards in Franklin County. Perhaps if Manjoo had actually called and asked for the documents, he may have had a better perspective. Mark Crispin Miller, Rolling Stone and Bobby Kennedy all verified their facts before they wrote their pieces. Election Protection volunteers, attorneys and eyewitnesses have yet to hear from Mr. Manjoo. Perhaps this is a new style of investigative reporting. As an award-winning investigative reporter, I’m also quite interested in how salon.com fact checks their writers.

While Manjoo’s errors are legion and will clearly pass into infamy, one of his most absurd is pretending that Bill Anthony, the Franklin County Board of Elections Chair, had anything to do with the actual allocation of the machines. The allocation of voting machines was drawn up by Matt Damschroder, the Director of the Franklin County Board of Elections. Manjoo actually, in a major error, refers to Damschroder, as the Chair of the Election Board. Manjoo incorrectly cites both Anthony and Damschroder as chairs of the Franklin County Board of Elections. Under Ohio law, there’s only one Chair and Damschroder has never been chair. I’m surprised that Manjoo would make an error of this magnitude. Anthony is the Chair. The Board he chairs deals with general policy matters. Damschroder is the Director who deals with the nuts and bolts of Election Day activity. For example, it was Damschroder who admitted going back to 1998 and purging 3500 felons in Franklin County at Blackwell’s request. In a given year, Damschroder told WVKO he only purges between 200-300 felons. In 2004, Damschroder admitted that he went back and purged people indicted, but not convicted of a felony. By the way, Damschroder is also the former Chair of the Franklin County Republican Pary. It is Damschroder who admitted that when 356 people showed up to vote at the right polling site, the vast majority from the inner city, he refused to have their votes counted because his election workers gave them a provisional ballot in error. This is listed in his official voting log as “Voted on Paper, Should Have Voted on Machine.”

In conclusion, it appears that Manjoo, in his zest to be the great “de-bunker” of grassroots activists and progressive writers, simply creates his facts as needed. No surprise that he thinks Bush won. After all, he seems to adopt the same intelligence-gathering methods Bush used in Iraq which are favored by Fox News. His approach reminds me of that famous quote from Ronald Reagan "Facts are stupid things".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-18-06 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Fitrakis just makes stuff up sometimes
Fitrakis: "Manjoo’s claim that the missing voting machines did not impact the African American communities is bizarre and laughable.... preposterous and possibly racist."

Manjoo: "Kennedy is right to highlight the problem of long lines; every single study of the Ohio race done so far has fingered this problem as by far the single biggest cause of disenfranchisement. And he's right, too, that the problem affected minorities disproportionately."

Go ahead, read the whole thing: it doesn't remotely support Fitrakis's scurrilous attack.

About the only thing here that Manjoo definitely got wrong was calling Matt Damschroder "chair" instead of "director" of the board. The rest is Fitrakis claiming that his facts are more important than Manjoo's and sneering a lot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 08:48 PM
Response to Original message
12. Here are two reprints, GNN & the Free Press...
Edited on Fri Jun-16-06 08:50 PM by autorank
They’re reprinting ”Kennedy’s Challenge”from “Scoop” which is what we encouraged by waiving all copyright with attribution of author and “Scoop”.

Look what the mysterious reprehensor did (It looks terrific) at Gurerrilla News Network - GNN::

http://www.gnn.tv/threads/16756/Salon_Mother_Jones_the_Tortured_Dialogue_On_Election_Fraud

The Columbus Free Press Editor - Bob Fitrakis; Managing Editor - Suzanne Patzer;
Senior Editor - Harvey Wasserman

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2006/2038

Free Press turned the links into footnotes and listed the URLs at the end of the article, which
is a nice way to look at all that great EVIDENCE OF FRAUD.


Great work gary, and of course, see Gary's summary at http://www.solarbus.org/election/index.shtml

:hi:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-18-06 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
14. Kick......nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-18-06 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
15. Don't forget Mark Crispin Miller's response to Manjoo.
Edited on Sun Jun-18-06 06:47 PM by glitch
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 15th 2024, 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC