From wrm1 Fri Nov 12 02:36:22 -0500 2004 From: Walter Mebane <wrm1@macht.arts.cornell.edu> To: kathy@truthisbetter.org CC: jasjeet_sekhon@harvard.edu, wand@stanford.edu Subject: response to your responses Hi Kathy, Thanks for posting a link to the critique we circulated of your posting of "Surprising Pattern of Florida's Election Results" at http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm Here's a response to the responses (by Elizabeth Liddle and Marc Sapir) to our critique that you also posted. If you'd like also to post a link to this response, I will post a copy of this message at http://macht.arts.cornell.edu/wrm1/ustogether/ustogether.html Best, Walter Mebane Elizabeth Liddle http://ustogether.org/election04/liddle/liddle_response.html states: > I have just repeated my original analysis of mid-size counties > counties, this time first of all omitting NW panhandle counties, > then omitting all N Florida counties. The machine effect remains > robust ((p<.01) despite loss of statistical power. In the following display I have removed from the display presented in my earlier message all op-scan counties at latitude at or north of Alachua County. Notice that all the remaining counties that have DemChg04 less than -30 (or so) have Dem vote proportions roughly the same (low) going back to 1992 and Dem registration proportions roughly the same (high) going back to 1996. This is again the "Dixiecrat" phenomenon, and again the voting patterns haven't much changed going back at least to 1992. The Dem registration proportions in these counties are not as high as in some of the panhandle counties, but aside from that, omitting all the North FL counties doesn't change anything. DemChg04 DemV00 DemV96 DemV92 DemR04 DemR00 DemR96 Brevard (O) 13.7 0.45 0.41 0.31 0.37 0.38 0.40 Citrus (O) 8.3 0.45 0.44 0.36 0.39 0.41 0.46 DeSoto (O) -30.6 0.43 0.43 0.36 0.59 0.64 0.70 Flagler (O) 26.6 0.51 0.48 0.41 0.38 0.40 0.42 Glades (O) -35.6 0.43 0.45 0.39 0.65 0.69 0.76 Hardee (O) -53.5 0.38 0.39 0.31 0.64 0.73 0.79 Hendry (O) -28.3 0.40 0.44 0.34 0.57 0.63 0.66 Hernando (O) 19.0 0.50 0.49 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.42 Highlands (O) -3.1 0.40 0.42 0.35 0.40 0.42 0.45 Levy (O) -38.9 0.42 0.45 0.40 0.60 0.67 0.72 Manatee (O) 29.1 0.45 0.43 0.34 0.33 0.35 0.37 Marion (O) 3.2 0.43 0.41 0.36 0.40 0.42 0.45 Monroe (O) 37.6 0.49 0.47 0.36 0.36 0.39 0.44 Okeechobee (O) -27.7 0.47 0.49 0.37 0.58 0.65 0.69 Orange (O) 23.9 0.50 0.46 0.35 0.40 0.41 0.41 Osceola (O) 18.8 0.51 0.47 0.33 0.40 0.42 0.44 Polk (O) -4.2 0.45 0.44 0.35 0.43 0.46 0.50 St.Lucie (O) 26.5 0.53 0.49 0.35 0.41 0.41 0.44 Seminole (O) 27.9 0.43 0.39 0.30 0.32 0.33 0.35 Volusia (O) 25.7 0.53 0.49 0.42 0.41 0.43 0.46 Marc Sapir MD, MPH http://ustogether.org/election04/sapir/sapir_response.html states: > Many people, joined into a number of ad hoc groups of professionals > and academics, looking into possible errors in vote counts in the > 2004 election, have already concluded that the small counties in > Florida (the ones Mebane refers to as mostly panhandle states) > should be discounted in statistical analysis. Mebane et al merely > document these effects which were well known to our statistical and > survey research consultants who live in Florida. Moreover, further > analyses excluding those small counties, as posted in graphics > linked to this web page, have stood up well enough to continue to > take this effort seriously. The first quartile of county population in FL in 2000 is 24,476. The counties with 2000 population at or below that level are Baker 22259 Calhoun 13017 Dixie 13827 Franklin 11057 Gilchrist 14437 Glades 10576 Gulf 13332 Hamilton 13327 Holmes 18564 Jefferson 12902 Lafayette 7022 Liberty 7021 Madison 18733 Taylor 19256 Union 13442 Wakulla 22863 Washington 20973 Hence Glades is the only small op-scan county in the preceding set. Therefore my response to Sapir is the same as to Liddle. To get rid of the counties remaining in the set (after deleting Glades) that are exhibiting substantial "Dixiecrat" behavior, let's try removing all counties that in 1996 had Dem registration proportion greater than .60 and Dem vote.proportion less than .45. Doing that and putting the e-voting machine counties back in the display gives: DemChg04 DemV00 DemV96 DemV92 DemR04 DemR00 DemR96 Broward (E) 27.5 0.67 0.64 0.52 0.50 0.51 0.53 Charlotte (E) 34.6 0.44 0.43 0.37 0.32 0.34 0.36 Collier (E) 40.0 0.32 0.32 0.26 0.24 0.24 0.25 Miami-Dade (E) 25.4 0.53 0.57 0.47 0.43 0.44 0.48 Hillsborough (E) 11.0 0.47 0.47 0.37 0.42 0.44 0.48 Indian River (E) 30.0 0.40 0.37 0.28 0.30 0.31 0.33 Lake (E) 13.6 0.41 0.40 0.33 0.34 0.36 0.37 Lee (E) 33.7 0.40 0.40 0.32 0.30 0.32 0.34 Martin (E) 51.5 0.43 0.38 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.28 Nassau (E) -28.9 0.29 0.34 0.30 0.37 0.48 0.56 Palm Beach (E) 34.8 0.62 0.58 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.46 Pasco (E) 18.9 0.49 0.50 0.39 0.37 0.40 0.43 Pinellas (E) 30.8 0.50 0.49 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.39 Sarasota (E) 45.0 0.45 0.43 0.35 0.31 0.31 0.31 Sumter (E) -10.9 0.43 0.46 0.41 0.41 0.48 0.57 Brevard (O) 13.7 0.45 0.41 0.31 0.37 0.38 0.40 Citrus (O) 8.3 0.45 0.44 0.36 0.39 0.41 0.46 Flagler (O) 26.6 0.51 0.48 0.41 0.38 0.40 0.42 Hernando (O) 19.0 0.50 0.49 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.42 Highlands (O) -3.1 0.40 0.42 0.35 0.40 0.42 0.45 Manatee (O) 29.1 0.45 0.43 0.34 0.33 0.35 0.37 Marion (O) 3.2 0.43 0.41 0.36 0.40 0.42 0.45 Monroe (O) 37.6 0.49 0.47 0.36 0.36 0.39 0.44 Okeechobee (O) -27.7 0.47 0.49 0.37 0.58 0.65 0.69 Orange (O) 23.9 0.50 0.46 0.35 0.40 0.41 0.41 Osceola (O) 18.8 0.51 0.47 0.33 0.40 0.42 0.44 Polk (O) -4.2 0.45 0.44 0.35 0.43 0.46 0.50 St.Lucie (O) 26.5 0.53 0.49 0.35 0.41 0.41 0.44 Seminole (O) 27.9 0.43 0.39 0.30 0.32 0.33 0.35 Volusia (O) 25.7 0.53 0.49 0.42 0.41 0.43 0.46 Now among the op-scan counties only Okeechobee has a very negative DemChg04 value. So does one e-voting county (Nassau). This is nowhere near enough to support worry about vote fraud among a high proportion of the op-scan counties. -- * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * Walter R. Mebane, Jr. email: wrm1@cornell.edu Professor office voice: 607/255-3868 Department of Government cell: 607/592-0546 Cornell University fax: 607/255-4530 217 White Hall WWW: http://macht.arts.cornell.edu/wrm1/ Ithaca, NY 14853-7901 * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - *
My original letter (sent to the Editor of Common Dreams) is here
The responses this message is responding to are posted here specifically Liddle and Sapir
For two technical but also more rigorous statistical analyses that support our conclusion that there was no effect of machine type (Op-Scan versus E-Touch), see an analysis using a matching estimator, by Jasjeet Sekhon and an analysis using a robust binomial regression estimator, by Jonathan Wand. The data used in those papers is available here.