6 ms·

I would suggest looking at the paper in more detail before saying it's uncontrolled. I found the control just by skimming the figures.

• lovemenot 10y ago
  I would do so, but the site prevents access to non-subscribers. Would you kindly tell me the method they used to independently prove fraud in some of the analysed data.
  • ams6110 10y ago
    I had no trouble accessing the paper using the PDF link on the page (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.6059v4.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.6059v4.pdf)
    • lovemenot 10y ago
      Thanks for the link to PDF. The "This URL" link takes you to a page that asks for a login. Having now read the article, I stand by my original point. There seems to be no verification that the proposed method does indeed identify (in some cases) cases of elections that were independently known, as a point of fact, to have been fraudulent. They seem to be claiming two things, but you cannot have it both ways : a) This method can identify fraudulent elections and we proved it by analysing elections in Russia b) These elections in Russia that we analysed using this method were fraudulent - as proved by the method. I would expect to see a control that takes data from elections that were already known to be fraudulent. e.g. by confession, video evidence or some other reliable means to show that the effect was observable in some of those demonstrably fraudulent elections.
      • kirillkh 10y ago
        > These elections in Russia that we analysed using this method were fraudulent - as proved by the method. Not "as proved by the method", but "as proved by the science of statistics". So let me fix it for you: a) This method can identify fraudulent elections, because it's scientifically correct. b) These elections in Russia that we analysed using this method were fraudulent - as proved by the science of statistics. FYI, the paper was published in "Annals of Applied Statistics", which is a peer-reviewed journal.
        • lovemenot 10y ago
          I acknowledge that I am no expert, so thanks for your time to try to set me straight. If I may ask, how does statistics let them be so confident of fraud when there is no other hard evidence of fraud in their data? In other words, how can they be sure there's no other explanation, when they apparently have not yet demonstrated the effect on other known fraudulent elections? I have asked this question in different ways, but to my (admittedly limited) understanding, the question has not been answered by you or anyone else here.
      • amooeba 10y ago
        Actually there is a TON of evidence that e.g. Russian elections 2011 were heavily falsified. There are dozens (probably hundreds) reports of independent observers, plenty of videos capturing ballot stuffing, multiple cases when election papers are known to have been forged after the ballot count was finished, etc. etc. I don't know what are "reliable means" for you though; all that evidence has been outright rejected by every single Russian official or court.
        • lovemenot 10y ago
          Yes. And what bothers me about this study is that it seems to rely on our implicit understanding of this circumstance. Rather than using a set of data where they can explicitly compare fraudulent and legitimate results. Surely there would have been a better set of test data than one for which politicians are still actively serving. Unfortunately the science is somewhat tainted by the politics here since it is very unlikely they'll get independent confirmation of fraud for the test set.