The Devil's Excrement

A very brief summary of what we know:

-Exit polls: Very low probability of sample being taken from those final results according to Sanso and Prado, using three different exit polls.

-Hot Audit: Incomplete, opposition present in only 27, in those Si won handily. Most never completed.

-Cold Audit: Random Sample being questioned, may not have been that random. CD not allowed to choose boxes.

-Coincidences: Very low probability of happening, 1 to 3 in 1000 according to Prof. Taylor.

–Quick Poll: Only thing that there is agreement it was OK by all parties.

What do you think? Paranoia? Just coincidences? De que vuelan, vuelan?

(In Spanish there is a saying: I don’t believe in witches, but that they fly, they fly)

A very brief summary of what we know:

-Exit polls: Very low probability of sample being taken from those final results according to Sanso and Prado, using three different exit polls.

-Hot Audit: Incomplete, opposition present in only 27, in those Si won handily. Most never completed.

-Cold Audit: Random Sample being questioned, may not have been that random. CD not allowed to choose boxes.

-Coincidences: Very low probability of happening, 1 to 3 in 1000 according to Prof. Taylor.

–Quick Poll: Only thing that there is agreement it was OK by all parties.

What do you think? Paranoia? Just coincidences? De que vuelan, vuelan?

(In Spanish there is a saying: I don’t believe in witches, but that they fly, they fly)

I just sent this letter to Prof. Johnathan Taylor of Stanford University

(Use links in text, line links don’t work)

Dear Prof. Taylor:

On Aug. 16th. Venezuelan opposition analysts began charging that there
were some surprising numerical coincidences in the number of SI votes
within voting centers in Venezuela. The Carter Center and the
Electoral Board said on the 18th. that there were only 402 and this
was reasonable.

But this was not what the opposition was charging, the 402 repetitions
were across the “mesas” (tables) and not across the machines. Thus,
apparently the Carter Center had consulted on the  wrong problem.

In my blog, I explained the difference on Aug. 18th.:

http://blogs.salon.com/0001330/2004/08/18.html#a1702

pointing out that a center may have a number of mesas, but that each
mesa may have a variable number of “cuadernos”. In centers with
electronic voting, each cuaderno is equals to one machine. Thus, the
lowest equivalent unit is the cuaderno (machine) not the mesa.

On the 22nd. I reiterated the issue:

http://blogs.salon.com/0001330/2004/08/22.html

pointing out that the 402  SI coincidences at the mesa level, became
805 coincidences at the center level with 1879 machines involved in
these coincidences.

Elio Valladares took a first stab at the mesa problem:

http://blogs.salon.com/0001330/2004/09/01.html#a1732

reaching conclusions that you now agree with.

However, it was not until yesterday that Elio solved the problem in
what I believe is the correct way, he did his simulations at the
cuaderno (machine) level and from there calculated the coincidences
for the SI vote at the mesa level. His results (attached) indicate

<!– D(["mb","that the probability of the number of coincidences reported is about 1\
in 10,000 when the problem is considered at the machine (cuaderno)\
level. Certainly a worrisome result given what is at stake.\
\
While no mathematical study will prove that there was fraud, it\
certainly seems suspicious that these coincidences apparently have\
such low probability, that a statistical study of exit polls by Prof.\
Sanso and Prof. Prado of the University of California at Santa Cruz:\
\
\http://blogs.salon.com/0001330\/2004/08/26.html#a1720\\
\
also finds very little probability of those exit polls matching the\
vote at each voting center and that the live audit of comparing 199\
ballot boxes the night of the vote was never completed.\
\
The Carter Center, based on your earlier conclusion disregarded the\
problem of coincidences. I believe it is only fair that you calculate\
the same problem Elio Valladares calculated at the machine level and\
using your conclusions help decide whether the Carter Center and the\
OAS should or should not reopen the case for fraud in the Venezuelan\
recall vote.\
\
Respectfully.\
“,1] ); //–>
that the probability of the number of coincidences reported is about 1
in 10,000 when the problem is considered at the machine (cuaderno)
level. Certainly a worrisome result given what is at stake.

While no mathematical study will prove that there was fraud, it
certainly seems suspicious that these coincidences apparently have
such low probability, that a statistical study of exit polls by Prof.
Sanso and Prof. Prado of the University of California at Santa Cruz:

http://blogs.salon.com/0001330/2004/08/26.html#a1720

also finds very little probability of those exit polls matching the
vote at each voting center and that the live audit of comparing 199
ballot boxes the night of the vote was never completed.

The Carter Center, based on your earlier conclusion disregarded the
problem of coincidences. I believe it is only fair that you calculate
the same problem Elio Valladares calculated at the machine level and
using your conclusions help decide whether the Carter Center and the
OAS should or should not reopen the case for fraud in the Venezuelan
recall vote.

Respectfully.

I guess I was not the only one paying attention, here JorgeRodriguez says they talked to Prof. Taylor and he saw the same text I posted, but now Taylor is being pressured. Meanwhile Jennifer MCoy continues skirting the issue and now talks about other experts, without realizing that they have not even solved the correct problem. They even issue a new report and now side with Rubin’s data. This is now getting interesting as I added in the note below, Elio Valldares has solved a more complete problem and he gets a probability of one in 10,000 for the coincidences observed. Tulio Alvarez, the lawyer preparing the case, now says the Carter Center played the role of useful idiots. The attempts today by the Carter Center to me are more irresponsible than idiotic.

I think both Taylor and Rubin, should work on the real problem at the machine level to calculate what Elio Valladares did and shut up the Carter Center for once and for all. Enough!

I guess I was not the only one paying attention, here JorgeRodriguez says they talked to Prof. Taylor and he saw the same text I posted, but now Taylor is being pressured. Meanwhile Jennifer MCoy continues skirting the issue and now talks about other experts, without realizing that they have not even solved the correct problem. They even issue a new report and now side with Rubin’s data. This is now getting interesting as I added in the note below, Elio Valldares has solved a more complete problem and he gets a probability of one in 10,000 for the coincidences observed. Tulio Alvarez, the lawyer preparing the case, now says the Carter Center played the role of useful idiots. The attempts today by the Carter Center to me are more irresponsible than idiotic.

I think both Taylor and Rubin, should work on the real problem at the machine level to calculate what Elio Valladares did and shut up the Carter Center for once and for all. Enough!