Stanford University Confirms Democratic Election Fraud

Surrealistik · Jun 21, 2016

Deuce said:
Because it's a ludicrous binary question trying to show you a picture of complicated election security measures.

So if these complicated election security measures were so effective, and if the lack of a paper trail didn't make the difference and didn't make those states in balance more vulnerable to electoral fraud, why are these statistical anomalies both present in virtually every 'vulnerable' state, and on average more prominent in them?

Alleging electoral fraud as a strong possibility based on those findings isn't remotely unreasonable.

Deuce · Jun 21, 2016

Surrealistik said:
So if these complicated election security measures were so effective, and if the lack of a paper trail didn't make the difference and didn't make those states in balance more vulnerable to electoral fraud, why are these statistical anomalies both present in virtually every 'vulnerable' state, and on average more prominent in them?

Alleging electoral fraud as a strong possibility based on those findings isn't remotely unreasonable.

If the states aren't actually any more vulnerable than the others, it's not a "statistical anomaly" it's just random variations.

Surrealistik · Jun 21, 2016

Deuce said:
If the states aren't actually any more vulnerable than the others, it's not a "statistical anomaly" it's just random variations.

Are you honestly asserting that it's simply mere coincidence these states reported vote counts all featuring utterly improbable deviations from exit polling vis a vis those with paper trails?

I don't buy it.

imyoda · Jun 21, 2016

The study you claim proves “democratic voter fraud” says in the Appendix that the study has yet to be peer reviewed…….
And also states the study has many errors……
And many of the numbers used in the study are “unsettled”…….
And it is because it is unclear what numbers should be collected and used……..
And is based only upon statistical analysis rather than proven election fraud discovered by voter officials….
OR IN PLAIN AND SIMPLE TERMS………………….THW STUDY HAS YET TO BE COMPLETED
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SdmBLFW9gISaqOyyz_fATgaFupI2-n6vWx80XRGUVBo/edit?pref=2&pli=1
Stanford University researcher Rodolfo Cortes Barragan to a subset of the data found that the probability of the “huge discrepancies” of which “nearly all are in favor of Hillary Clinton by a huge margin” was “statistically impossible”………..and the ONLY reason for this discrepancy must be voter fraud…….
I such can think of other reasons why the so-called discrepancies could occur………..so the Stanford study “rush to judgment” of voter fraud is based upon“Chicken Little” logic
Snopes says:
“Two researchers (presumably graduate students) from Stanford University and Tilburg University co-authored a paper asserting they uncovered information suggesting widespread primary election fraud……….
“The paper was not a "Stanford Study," and its authors acknowledged their claims and research methodology had not been subject to any form of peer review or academic scrutiny.

………. Although Geijsel cited a number of sources to substantiate the claim that fraud was well-documented in the 2016 primary season, most of those citations involved persons with an interest in the overall dispute (such as groups party to lawsuits). That factor doesn't necessarily cast doubt on the researchers' findings, but it highlights that not much independent and neutral verification of their conclusions has occurred yet.”
Stanford Study Proves Election Fraud through Exit Poll Discrepancies : snopes.com
OR IN PLAIN AND SIMPLE TERMS……….. THE STUDY IS INCOMPLETE
Investment Watch says:
……… we show that no such irregularities occurred in the 2008 competitive election cycle involving Secretary Clinton against President Obama.

As such, we find that in states wherein voting fraud has the highest potential to occur, systematic efforts may have taken place to provide Secretary Clinton with an exaggerated margin of support.
Stanford University Confirms Democratic Election Fraud « InvestmentWatch

OR IN PLAIN AND SIMPLE WORDS…………. THE “STUDY” EXAGGERATED THE FINDINGS

JasperL · Jun 21, 2016

Surrealistik said:
Are you honestly asserting that it's simply mere coincidence these states reported vote counts all featuring utterly improbable deviations from exit polling vis a vis those with paper trails?

I don't buy it.

I read (quickly) the paper and it's a mess. The exit polling discrepancies are mainly in a few states, so question 1 is whether the exit polling coverage was sufficient and reliable, and as far as I can tell there is NO discussion about that. At a minimum, if from exit polling you're alleging FRAUD, there has to be some serious analysis that shows without any doubt at all that the demographics of those polled in the exit polls match the overall demographics of that state's voters. Not a peep about that. At one point in the appendix they show a bunch of graphs with lines that indicate the actual voting results were consistent across time, which they say is indicative of a non-fraud election result. Then they show results graphed by size of city or polling precinct that "favor" Clinton as if that's somehow fishy. Well, hell, it might or might not be but there is certainly a good possibility that in the populated cities, heavily minority, that Clinton was expected to do better and did. There is no discussion about this that I saw. This is consistent across the entire paper. They have some results they claim are suspicious, then without examining any other possible cause of those results conclude FRAUD!! They might be right, but they've not even come close to proving the case - they're miles away from a publishable paper.

And I'm sorry but any 'researcher' who labels a graph "Votes stolen...." (which I saw in the appendix) based on what they did in this paper is a crank, or very, very inexperienced.

Deuce · Jun 21, 2016

Surrealistik said:
Are you honestly asserting that it's simply mere coincidence these states reported vote counts all featuring utterly improbable deviations from exit polling vis a vis those with paper trails?

I don't buy it.

I'm saying some of those states have better fraud protection than the "paper trail" states.

Surrealistik · Jun 21, 2016

imyoda said:
The study you claim proves “democratic voter fraud” says in the Appendix that the study has yet to be peer reviewed…….
And also states the study has many errors……

I didn't claim it proved fraud. I said it was suggestive of fraud. In fact, I explicitly said earlier in the thread that it's a foundation for further investigation.

And many of the numbers used in the study are “unsettled”…….

Which?

And it is because it is unclear what numbers should be collected and used……..

What specifically about their methodology do you object to?

And is based only upon statistical analysis rather than proven election fraud discovered by voter officials….

Yes, because that's the scope of the paper: statistical analysis, not a criminal investigation which aims to definitively prove something.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SdmBLFW9gISaqOyyz_fATgaFupI2-n6vWx80XRGUVBo/edit?pref=2&pli=1
Stanford University researcher Rodolfo Cortes Barragan to a subset of the data found that the probability of the “huge discrepancies” of which “nearly all are in favor of Hillary Clinton by a huge margin” was “statistically impossible”………..and the ONLY reason for this discrepancy must be voter fraud…….

Per the link you just posted:

[quote="Paper Authors, Primary Question]Are there other variables that could account for our main effect (states without paper trails going overwhelmingly for Clinton)? We conducted a regression model and included the % of Non-Hispanic Whites in a state as of the last Census, the state’s electoral history from 1992 to 2012 of favoring Democratic or Republican nominees for President (i.e., the “blueness” of a state), and our variable of interest: paper trail vs. no paper trail. As expected, race/ethnicity and political ideology played a role: The Whiter and more liberal a state, the less it favored Clinton. However, the effect for paper trail remains significant. States with paper trails show significantly less support for Clinton. As such, even beyond the potential for other likely factors to play a role, the potential for fraud is associated with gains for Clinton.

I such can think of other reasons why the so-called discrepancies could occur………..so the Stanford study “rush to judgment” of voter fraud is based upon“Chicken Little” logic :
[/quote]

Here they clearly cite and mention other factors and state the potential, not certainty of fraud.

[/quote]“Two researchers (presumably graduate students) from Stanford University and Tilburg University co-authored a paper asserting they uncovered information suggesting widespread primary election fraud……….
“The paper was not a "Stanford Study," and its authors acknowledged their claims and research methodology had not been subject to any form of peer review or academic scrutiny.[/quote]

The paper actually featured a preliminary review by two academics and is currently in the process of journal submission.

………. Although Geijsel cited a number of sources to substantiate the claim that fraud was well-documented in the 2016 primary season, most of those citations involved persons with an interest in the overall dispute (such as groups party to lawsuits). That factor doesn't necessarily cast doubt on the researchers' findings, but it highlights that not much independent and neutral verification of their conclusions has occurred yet.”
Stanford Study Proves Election Fraud through Exit Poll Discrepancies : snopes.com

Investment Watch says:
……… we show that no such irregularities occurred in the 2008 competitive election cycle involving Secretary Clinton against President Obama.

As such, we find that in states wherein voting fraud has the highest potential to occur, systematic efforts may have taken place to provide Secretary Clinton with an exaggerated margin of support.
Stanford University Confirms Democratic Election Fraud « InvestmentWatch
OR IN PLAIN AND SIMPLE WORDS…………. THE “STUDY” EXAGGERATED THE FINDINGS

What did the study exaggerate? They allegated a strong possibility of electoral fraud; they did not claim that fraud had been proven; embellishment of their findings is more the purview of covering articles. This is an important distinction. I will agree, as I have earlier in the thread that further investigations and independent confirmation of their findings should be undertaken.

Surrealistik · Jun 21, 2016

JasperL said:
I read (quickly) the paper and it's a mess. The exit polling discrepancies are mainly in a few states, so question 1 is whether the exit polling coverage was sufficient and reliable, and as far as I can tell there is NO discussion about that. At a minimum, if from exit polling you're alleging FRAUD, there has to be some serious analysis that shows without any doubt at all that the demographics of those polled in the exit polls match the overall demographics of that state's voters. Not a peep about that. At one point in the appendix they show a bunch of graphs with lines that indicate the actual voting results were consistent across time, which they say is indicative of a non-fraud election result. Then they show results graphed by size of city or polling precinct that "favor" Clinton as if that's somehow fishy. Well, hell, it might or might not be but there is certainly a good possibility that in the populated cities, heavily minority, that Clinton was expected to do better and did. There is no discussion about this that I saw. This is consistent across the entire paper. They have some results they claim are suspicious, then without examining any other possible cause of those results conclude FRAUD!! They might be right, but they've not even come close to proving the case - they're miles away from a publishable paper.

And I'm sorry but any 'researcher' who labels a graph "Votes stolen...." (which I saw in the appendix) based on what they did in this paper is a crank, or very, very inexperienced.

If you read through the paper you'd see that it does make an attempt to account for alternative explanations:

Are we witnessing a dishonest election? said:
Analysis: The [data] show a statistically significant difference between the groups. States without paper trails yielded higher support for Secretary Clinton, (M no paper trail = 65.13%, SD = no paper trail = 10.41%) than states with paper trails (M paper trail = 48.53%, SD = paper trail = 16.00%), t(29) = 3.21, P = 0.003, d = 1.19 [Figure 1]. As such, the potential for election fraud in voting procedures is strongly related to enhanced electoral outcomes for Secretary Clinton. In the Appendix, we show that this relationship holds even above and beyond alternative explanations, including the prevailing political ideology and the changes in support over time.

Appendix: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SdmBLFW9gISaqOyyz_fATgaFupI2-n6vWx80XRGUVBo/edit

Also not seeing any graphs labeled 'votes stolen' either in the data or the Appendix/supplemental; where is this exactly? Also where are the graphs relating to size of city?

Also, as above, the paper's authors did not definitively conclude fraud.

Deuce said:
I'm saying some of those states have better fraud protection than the "paper trail" states.

There were anomalies among the paper trail states, but even when controlled/accounted for, those without paper trails were significantly more anomalous.

Again, I fully support both independent review of the paper and confirmation of its conclusions by other similar studies, and I agree that its conclusions and analysis have been exaggerated by many publications (probably for the sake of clickbait). That said, that analysis does raise some very interesting and serious implications, and provides a firm basis and cause for further investigation.

imyoda · Jun 21, 2016

Surrealistik said:
I didn't claim it proved fraud. I said it was suggestive of fraud. In fact, I explicitly said earlier in the thread that it's a foundation for further investigation.

.

You did nothing wrong and there is no need to feel defensive............the source was deliberately vague and IMHO dishonest in its title which implied fraud.........If one Googles the issue one finds scads of reprints of the same text in RW media outlets.......and more than likely a subject of many chain mails flowing around the internet.........

But please do not take my post as some sort of "put down"....... and if so I apologize for the sloppiness of my post not clearly stating that...........I never meant anything posted as a personal attack

jet57 · Jun 21, 2016

Surrealistik said:
Stanford University Confirms Democratic Election Fraud

More a confirmation of evidence very strongly implying election fraud, but damning (and unsurprising) nonetheless.

Computers'll do it every time.

The Revolution wasn't fought for computer voting.

JasperL · Jun 21, 2016

Surrealistik said:
If you read through the paper you'd see that it does make an attempt to account for alternative explanations:

But they don't, at least not in a rigorous way.

Also not seeing any graphs labeled 'votes stolen' either in the data or the Appendix/supplemental; where is this exactly? Also where are the graphs relating to size of city?

It's in their response to critics here: Election Fraud Study Authors Respond to Critics | caucus99percent

See 'page' 13 for the "votes stolen" graph, for example.

Also, as above, the paper's authors did not definitively conclude fraud.

Sure, but they alluded to votes stolen, then hypothesized that somehow Hillary's people added the stolen votes to groups like women and blacks who supported Hillary, etc.

Again, I fully support both independent review of the paper and confirmation of its conclusions by other similar studies, and I agree that its conclusions and analysis have been exaggerated by many publications (probably for the sake of clickbait). That said, that analysis does raise some very interesting and serious implications, and provides a firm basis and cause for further investigation.

I'm all for investigations, this was just a poor effort. I was able to find a couple of serious critiques of their methods and slight variations and better controls eliminate (allegedly) most or all of the effect. I'd link them, but they're also not peer reviewed and we don't have the data or the expertise to check their work either. Bottom line for me is until this study IS peer reviewed by experts in this field, it's really not worth much except entertainment value.

And I agree with someone else who reviewed the paper and who believes this kind of effort is actually a step backwards. They made VERY serious allegations - 1) a campaign deliberately and systematically committed election fraud, and 2) electronic voting is inherently fraudulent. And they have no proof of either. IMO, it's counterproductive because it's one more piece of evidence people can point to and say, "See, these wild accusations happen every election and they're always BS."

Surrealistik · Jun 22, 2016

JasperL said:
But they don't, at least not in a rigorous way.

They corrected for a number of alternative explanations, though I agree the scope of such should have been larger.

It's in their response to critics here: Election Fraud Study Authors Respond to Critics | caucus99percent

See 'page' 13 for the "votes stolen" graph, for example.

Ah, not the actual paper. Yeah, that's a faux pas for sure, but it don't compromise the fundamental analysis; 'stolen' in this case is more of a theoretical construct representing the magnitude of discrepancy/deviation than a concrete assertion.

Sure, but they alluded to votes stolen, then hypothesized that somehow Hillary's people added the stolen votes to groups like women and blacks who supported Hillary, etc.

Per the content of the paper itself, there was no actual accusation of fraud or voter theft. I would agree that there's implications of bias in the language used, but again, this does not discredit the actual methodology.

I'm all for investigations, this was just a poor effort. I was able to find a couple of serious critiques of their methods and slight variations and better controls eliminate (allegedly) most or all of the effect. I'd link them, but they're also not peer reviewed and we don't have the data or the expertise to check their work either. Bottom line for me is until this study IS peer reviewed by experts in this field, it's really not worth much except entertainment value.

And I agree with someone else who reviewed the paper and who believes this kind of effort is actually a step backwards. They made VERY serious allegations - 1) a campaign deliberately and systematically committed election fraud, and 2) electronic voting is inherently fraudulent. And they have no proof of either. IMO, it's counterproductive because it's one more piece of evidence people can point to and say, "See, these wild accusations happen every election and they're always BS."

Again, no formal allegation about either electronic voting or the Clinton campaign was made; a hypothesis that seeks to explain the data as it stands is not an allegation.

Further, I would like to see those critiques.

The paper could obviously be better; I feel they could and should have been more comprehensive in investigating alternative explanations. However, that having been said, they did take material steps towards resolving those questions, including in their response to their critics (for example tackling the idea of Black demographic support being a possible explanation). Furthermore, while I don't find their paper to be entirely conclusive or a smoking gun, at the same time, it is not worthy of dismissal as 'entertainment only', nor is it anywhere near the vicinity of being a 'wild accusation'; the data and their interpretation certainly offers a reasonable foundation for suspicion and further verification/investigation.

Fundamentally, it comes down to whether Sanders supporters were somehow overwhelmingly and consistently overrepresented in the exit polls; I think that's very unlikely and so do they, particularly given the sea of allegations and lawsuits concerning the conduct of the Dem primaries.

JasperL · Jun 22, 2016

Surrealistik said:
They corrected for a number of alternative explanations, though I agree the scope of such should have been larger.

Ah, not the actual paper. Yeah, that's a faux pas for sure, but it don't compromise the fundamental analysis; 'stolen' in this case is more of a theoretical construct representing the magnitude of discrepancy/deviation than a concrete assertion.

"Stolen" is an accusation of intentional election fraud. It's easy to construct a description that doesn't imply a deliberate act. You have a good start right there.

Per the content of the paper itself, there was no actual accusation of fraud or voter theft. I would agree that there's implications of bias in the language used, but again, this does not discredit the actual methodology.

This is from the paper, "Is this claimed advantage legitimate? We contend that it is not...." If it's not "legitimate" it has to be fraud. There is no gray there. Again, a far more proper answer is it may not be legitimate.

As I said earlier, this is just a mess of a paper and hopefully is the work of two people who are merely very, very, very inexperienced doing this kind of thing.

Again, no formal allegation about either electronic voting or the Clinton campaign was made; a hypothesis that seeks to explain the data as it stands is not an allegation.

Further, I would like to see those critiques.

Here's one in Daily Kos. They're obviously big Hillary supporters, critiquing a paper by people who are obviously Bernie fans.

Election Fraud Myths: "Are we witnessing" a feckless analysis?

Here's another one, basically saying the same thing - once you control for blacks (rather than non-hispanic whites), the 'fraud' effect essentially disappears - paper trail and non-paper trail states are statistically equivalent.

Further Statistical Examination of the Sanders/Clinton Exit Polling Paper · Josh Clark

Fundamentally, it comes down to whether Sanders supporters were somehow overwhelmingly and consistently overrepresented in the exit polls; I think that's very unlikely and so do they, particularly given the sea of allegations and lawsuits concerning the conduct of the Dem primaries.

But those differences hold in paper and non-paper trail states - there is effectively no difference in the samples, or much smaller differences than the authors claim.

Surrealistik · Jun 22, 2016

JasperL said:
"Stolen" is an accusation of intentional election fraud. It's easy to construct a description that doesn't imply a deliberate act. You have a good start right there.

Again, I think it's clear that they are using biased language to represent a concept. It is not a formal accusation.

This is from the paper, "Is this claimed advantage legitimate? We contend that it is not...." If it's not "legitimate" it has to be fraud. There is no gray there. Again, a far more proper answer is it may not be legitimate.

Not legitimate != fraud.

Not legitimate could very well be attributable to error (miscounts/failure to count/lack of ballot receipt, etc) as opposed to a win predicated on actually having the most votes.

The same summary statement then goes on to say that systemic efforts to exaggerate Clinton's support may have occurred. This is not a formal accusation.

Here's one in Daily Kos. They're obviously big Hillary supporters, critiquing a paper by people who are obviously Bernie fans.

Election Fraud Myths: "Are we witnessing" a feckless analysis?

Here's another one, basically saying the same thing - once you control for blacks (rather than non-hispanic whites), the 'fraud' effect essentially disappears - paper trail and non-paper trail states are statistically equivalent.

Further Statistical Examination of the Sanders/Clinton Exit Polling Paper · Josh Clark

It is notable that the black demographic is precisely what the authors of the Geijsel analysis accounted for the author's follow up dealing with criticisms.

I have also forwarded these two specific critiques to Axel and Rodolfo for their feedback and possible direct rebuttal; should be interesting.

But those differences hold in paper and non-paper trail states - there is effectively no difference in the samples, or much smaller differences than the authors claim.

The differences were more anomalous in the non-paper trail states.

Surrealistik · Jul 5, 2016

Follow up analysis: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18QTaWDvSOREw3CeQGWoJDXuuJqFuL4PrZvqGuCCg1Uc/edit

Stanford University Confirms Democratic Election Fraud

Surrealistik

Deuce

Outer space potato man

Surrealistik

imyoda

JasperL

Deuce

Outer space potato man

Surrealistik

Surrealistik

imyoda

jet57

JasperL

Surrealistik

JasperL

Surrealistik

Surrealistik