Berkely electronic-voting study rebuffed

December 7, 2004 6:51 AM

Berkely E-vote Study is Crap (Wired) Put your tin-foil hats away. Go to PEST counseling, or just accept the fact that W really is our president.
posted by dancingbaptist (47 comments total)

I love the smell of Rush Limbaugh and editorializing snark in the morning.

[smells like a crap FPP]
posted by Armitage Shanks at 6:58 AM on December 7, 2004

Be very careful dancingbaptist, they don't like this sort of talk around here....
posted by Durwood at 7:00 AM on December 7, 2004

D'oh! I just posted this as a FPP above. Help!

It's not crap, it's true. The rather blunt smackdown can be found here: http://election04.ssrc.org/research/critique-of-hmcb.pdf
posted by allan at 7:00 AM on December 7, 2004

Charles Stewart, an MIT political science professor, called the study "the type of exercise that you do in a graduate data-analysis class" rather than as an academic paper.

"If I were to get this article as (an academic) reviewer, I would turn it around and say they were fishing to find a result," Stewart said. "I know of no theory or no prior set of intuitions that would have led me to run the analysis they ran."

So graduate teaching at our finest universities - including, presumably, MIT - involves teaching students how to massage statistics, and not how to do real quantitative analysis? How did he learn how to do anything, then?
posted by raysmj at 7:01 AM on December 7, 2004

I am so unsurprised right now, I could shit.

The other day I found in my drawer of papers a stack of Kerry/Edwards stickers, and I let out a heavy sigh.
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:01 AM on December 7, 2004

Stop me if you've heard this one...

John Kerry walks into a bar,
Bartender says "Why the long face?"

You can even recycle this for next year! s/John Kerry/Celine Dion , it still works

thank you goodnight
posted by cavalier at 7:04 AM on December 7, 2004

I'm not saying whether the Berkley study is true or not because I don't know. But the article didn't really say either. It quoted a grand total of three people who disputed the results. I imagine that eventually a consensus will develop about the truth or falsity of the Berkley study.

Personally, I think that GWB won the election. I still think that the more recounts or investigations there are the better. America's voting system is supposed to be open and honest. Anything that goes wrong should be fixed for the next election.
posted by jefeweiss at 7:08 AM on December 7, 2004

This post is as crap as the ones it debunks. Where's seth when you need him?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 7:09 AM on December 7, 2004

So some students didn't get their methodology right. That still doesn't explain why Ohio gave Bush extra votes or why Florida voting machines were counting backwards (Backwards!) or why there were so many problems across the country.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 7:09 AM on December 7, 2004

I'm really growing rather fond of the word "debunked." For some reason, it reminds me of a big butt.
posted by adampsyche at 7:10 AM on December 7, 2004

I read the berkeley study, and if I can flatter myself, I'll say it raised a quarter of an eyebrow. After reading the critique, I'm kicking myself for not realizing it was that bad.

If you know a little statistics, read the pdf. (only 8 pages). It's decent wit, backed by a subtle but seething academic rage in misused tools.

Fuzzy Monster--don't dismiss "methodology". In quantitative analysis, it's not what you compute, it's how you compute it that makes all the difference.
posted by allan at 7:15 AM on December 7, 2004

raysmj: Although you learn quite a bit about methods and theory in graduate coursework, it is by no means a comprehensive preparation for being ready to publish. The sagacity necessary to to that is got both from developing the ability to read and critique the literature and from performing research.

Moving along, the tone of this report was really snarky. While the critique of the models presented seems to deserve a response from the study's authors and could damn it, the accusation that they took their conclusion as part of their premises seems mean-spirited and poorly supported.
posted by monocyte at 7:20 AM on December 7, 2004

Oh, I would never dismiss methodology. What I'm suggesting is just because some students released a crappy paper, that doesn't change the fact that there were country-wide voting irregularities in this past US election.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 7:22 AM on December 7, 2004

So graduate teaching at our finest universities - including, presumably, MIT - involves teaching students how to massage statistics, and not how to do real quantitative analysis?

I think he meant that a grad student might write up something like that for a methods course -- and then be told in detail what he did wrong. Or that you might have them first replicate a fuckup and then try to deal with it; this is common.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:23 AM on December 7, 2004

ah, Rush Limbaugh... best of the web.

nice editorial and good, well researched first post, dancingbaptist
posted by matteo at 7:28 AM on December 7, 2004

Also, on a scale of 1-10, 1 being left wing and 10 being right wing, I'm about a 6.
It may be sociopathic but I like to be what someone described as "snarky" in my posts.
I did consider voting for Kerry, but in the end went for Bush.
I agree with more issues that Kerry espouses, though I consider those issues to be minor.
Like the majority of the country, I voted in this order:
1. National security / war on terror / Iraq
2. Economy
3. "Social Issues" (of which I agree more with Kerry)
The initial exit polls were flawed in that they lumped social issues (Gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion) into one lump category, and divided the other issues into sub-categories.
So all of us red-staters are not homophobic knuckle draggers, as Ron Reagan seemed to imply in his sobbing PMSNBC election night "analysis."
posted by dancingbaptist at 7:28 AM on December 7, 2004

ROU: It still sounds hugely insulting and condescending. I'm guessing that these students had support from a professor, or people at the UC Survey Research Center (or Quantitative Methods Research Team - is this professional staff? I can't tell from the article)? That the article wasn't peer reviewed is the biggest slam against it, and the press conf. thing wasn't too cool either. But the fact that students wrote it shoudn't have made it automatically suspect.
posted by raysmj at 7:34 AM on December 7, 2004

Good thing troutfishing didn't post this! Else it would be summarily deleted.

I wonder if Rush will tell us this story is also crap?
posted by nofundy at 7:34 AM on December 7, 2004

Yes, checking back,the article notes that seven UC profs examined the numbers - at least according to the students involved.
posted by raysmj at 7:36 AM on December 7, 2004

Allan--don't dismiss "methodology". In election rigging, it's not what you count, it's how you count it that makes all the difference.
posted by danOstuporStar at 7:40 AM on December 7, 2004

adampsyche, I too like "debunked" and I can not lie.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 7:43 AM on December 7, 2004

National Security: We were attacked by terrorists prior to invading Iraq.... we have not been attacked on American soil since.

Economy: Can you say "911"? The economy has been growing steadily in the last 2 years.

Social Issues: Well, even I have faults.

We voters who don't think bush is Satan are sick of the condescending diatribe coming from our "intellectual superiors." But keep it up, the NYTimes and Michael Moore put the final nail in Kerry's coffin.
posted by dancingbaptist at 7:43 AM on December 7, 2004

But I hate closing tags. Bastards.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 7:43 AM on December 7, 2004

It's a shit post but that apart...

I've been in the US since last Thursday and rapidly came to the conclusion that:

a) Most of those who were pissed off about the election result don't really talk about it.

b) A fair chunk of those who were happy about the election result want to unearth any kind of mention of pissedoffness about the result and make it out to be the biggest thing in the world along with also trying to make out that liberals/progressives/radicals are trying to destroy Christmas and everything good about America.

You won the election guys...get over it. Anyone would think you'd lost.

And if you want to bring up stuff from yesterday's Limbaugh show why not the highly comical segments on global warming being a big con and people who can't just get on with their lives without outside help (nice one ya junkie!) Some wonderful work for students of contradiction...

dancingbaptist: Speaking of contradiction, using a stereotyping words such as 'red-stater' when complaining about being stereotyped isn't the smartest thing.
posted by i_cola at 7:44 AM on December 7, 2004

Maybe we can extract something kind of interesting from this. You see aggressively stupid political punnery of the "PMSNBC" sort being wielded on both sides of the fence these days. "DemocRATS," "Rethuglicans," blah blah blah STFU n00b. Here's a question. When did this start? I do not remember this kind of bullshit being thrown around in the '80s. I think Rush Limbaugh is to blame - the whole "feminazis" business - but what's the history? I must know.
posted by furiousthought at 7:51 AM on December 7, 2004

I am all for moral outrage when we can prove malfeasance, or at least show the concrete harms of incompetence. Bad research and a bandwagon effect for every hint of vote fraud means that if/when a solid case does come out, it will be dismissed a priori.

Since we won't win with dirty tricks, might as well take the high road and do it right.
posted by allan at 7:58 AM on December 7, 2004

The Berkl(e)y "scientists" have the same problem of Creationsim "scientists." They have the inability to be objective. They have something to "prove" and don't use the empiric principle of a null-hypothesis.
The fact that it was not peer-reviewed, except by other Koolaid drinkers, further invalidates it.
posted by dancingbaptist at 8:15 AM on December 7, 2004

This FPP really belongs at LGF.
posted by bardic at 8:17 AM on December 7, 2004

Your loosing this n00b with the LGF. WDIM? (What do it mean?)
posted by dancingbaptist at 8:20 AM on December 7, 2004

Why not have an election system where there's nothing left to chance or doubt.
Because then Jim Crow's political party couldn't usurp democracy.
You gotta admit democracy WAS messy. Now we no longer have that problem.
Good luck with running things all you "grownups in charge." So far its been a debacle.
posted by nofundy at 8:22 AM on December 7, 2004

the site that shall remain nameless, dancingbaptist
posted by danOstuporStar at 8:26 AM on December 7, 2004

We voters who don't think bush is Satan are sick of the condescending diatribe coming from our "intellectual superiors."

And many voters who voted for those other than Bush don't think Bush is Satan either. Really. They don't. They just have a different perspective is all. What was that you said about condescending?
posted by juiceCake at 8:27 AM on December 7, 2004

It still sounds hugely insulting and condescending

I imagine it was intended to be, or at least that he couldn't be bothered to make it otherwise.

But the fact that students wrote it shoudn't have made it automatically suspect.

I don't think Stewart was saying that it was from students and therefore suspect. I think he was saying that it was as bad as many assignments in methods courses, whoever did it.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:33 AM on December 7, 2004

LGF is littlegreenfootballs.com. You'll be more than welcome there, frollickingwingnut.

I can only take solace in the fact that these assholes have the house, the senate, the west wing, and practically the supreme court--and all the bullshit about Daschle as an obstructionist? Good grief. You reap what you sow, and right now, America is planting nothing but shit and death.

Ahem. Is it Friday yet?
posted by bardic at 8:33 AM on December 7, 2004

We voters who don't think bush is Satan are sick of the condescending diatribe coming from our "intellectual superiors." But keep it up, the NYTimes and Michael Moore put the final nail in Kerry's coffin.

You know, disagreeing about Bush's policies is one thing. But what really makes me weep for the future of humanity is hearing people recite these zombie-like talking-point-sneers -- "Keep it up, liberals! We reject you and your Satanic Hollywood values. I am a robot." I mean did anyone ask?
posted by inksyndicate at 8:36 AM on December 7, 2004

It did seem weird that just as everyone was focusing on the Optical Scan machines instead of the E-Vote machines, this study came out. What about the freakin' optical machines though?
posted by Embryo at 8:42 AM on December 7, 2004

Yes, I've visited LittleGreenFootballs before. However, I get enough right-wingnut drivel from Hannity and Rush, and like to get my left-wingnut diatribe exposure by visiting MeFi.
At least it is intelligent. Most of the liberal voters I know around here are union zombies who vote for who their boss tells them to.
posted by dancingbaptist at 8:52 AM on December 7, 2004

Embryo - optical scan machines are not as bad from a security standpoint because they do less. This means fewer opportunities for bugs/attacks and they can be tested and bench-marked more easily. Plus the ballot still exists, allowing audits with a different machine if necessary. Here is some more thoughts [self-link] how to run a good election.

FWIW, I thought dancingbaptist's post was a little annoying, but timely, and neither his post nor his subsequent comments worth the abuse that has been heeped on him. Play nice?
posted by allan at 8:54 AM on December 7, 2004

Jesus Christ, dancingbaptist, let it fucking die already! As with comments above - I've never seen such sore winners. Not to mention that this is the topic that just. must. die. I can't believe this is being discussed here again. If the Berkeley students were biased, well, that's bad, but holy shit, it doesn't require a rehashing of all the politics shit again. And it doesn't make other liberals into some horrible monolithic entity who just wants to hurt poor little republicans, either. You cannot generalize us based on their actions, just as we can't generalize you based on the actions of others who voted for Bush. Okay? Deal?

Not to mention that you're apparently getting too worked up to even spell..."Your loosing"...relax a bit, 'k? First impressions do matter, you know.
posted by livii at 9:12 AM on December 7, 2004

China did not attack us. Muslim radicals did.
"Iraq did not attack us either, windnut."
No, but radical Islam did. Now they are engaged in Iraq. Good, keep them there so we can shoot them... better there than in Russian schools or American cities.
Yes, we could have as easily invaded Iraq, Syria, or Saudi... perhaps they need some green glass there.
posted by dancingbaptist at 9:15 AM on December 7, 2004

What about the freakin' optical machines though?

There was never anything there.

The only thing about them was that there were counties where 75%+ of people register Democratic that voted 75%+ for Bush, and that these counties used optical scanners.

But if you know anything about Florida, you'd immediately recognize that these are cracker counties that have been voting like that since 1960 or so. Hell, half or more of 'em voted for Wallace and Curtis E. LeMay, for crying out loud. Nothing mysterious about it, except maybe why they haven't switched registrations (they're probably too busy defending their womenfolk from the the demon negro to notice that they should be Republicans now).
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:17 AM on December 7, 2004

Thank you, inksyndicate.
posted by atchafalaya at 9:22 AM on December 7, 2004

George W Bush once bit my sister.
posted by mr.marx at 9:33 AM on December 7, 2004

My god dbaptist, I've never seen someone dig a whole as deep or as fast as you. Congratulations!
posted by bardic at 9:33 AM on December 7, 2004

Good, keep them there so we can shoot them... better there than in Russian schools or American cities.

Right because there are a finite number of them, and certainly none of them could be here already. Nice logic.
posted by psmealey at 9:49 AM on December 7, 2004

Why is this here?

And why is this still here?

And why am I still here?

Isn't there some thread here with explosions and boobs or something?
posted by fenriq at 9:53 AM on December 7, 2004

Dancingbaptist's logic is impeccable. That Russian school shooting would never have happened if we had just gone to war with Iraq—oh wait. Well, at least 9/11 wouldn't have happened if we had gone to war with Iraq back in the early 90's—no, wait, that doesn't work either. Shut up shut up shut up!
posted by designbot at 10:13 AM on December 7, 2004