4 ms·

The article is very interesting in my view. It states that a sampling of the numbers do not follow expected random patterns. But let's talk about the real iss

The article is very interesting in my view. It states that a sampling of the numbers do not follow expected random patterns. But let's talk about the real issue. When you forbid independent monitors, announce results before the votes gets counted, and conclude absolute certainty in the results before there is a statistical analysis, it is hard to believe in a fair election.

WilliamLP 17y ago
> The article is very interesting in my view. It states that a sampling of the numbers do not follow expected random patterns. If you try a whole bunch of fairly arbitrary metrics, e.g. how many end in 7, how many end in 5, how many have consecutive increasing digits, and you mine the data into finding two arbitrary ones that random chance would say occur 5% of the time, does that really tell you anything about the data? I find this article a stunning example of the dangers of mathematical ignorance.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- scscsc 17y ago
  I don't get why you are modded down. Mathematically, the article is a piece of junk (which doesn't mean the elections were fair -- I don't think there's anyone in the democratic parts of Earth who thinks they were fair). You are of course right, why choose exactly those two metrics? Also, the two metrics are probably not independent, so taking their product is bogus. The article was written by a 'PhD candidate' in political sciences. I think he should get his degree. He learned how to convincingly misuse statistics.
- smanek 17y ago
  Go read up on Benford's law. (See http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Issues/1999/May/nigrini.htm http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Issues/1999/May/nigrini.... for an example of how it was used) I'm not familiar with the digit-distribution law the article mentioned, but on its face it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable. I'd prefer to see some study applying this same analysis to thousands of other elections, of course. But, prima facie, using digit distributions to detect fraud is not at all unreasonable.

WilliamLP 17y ago

> The article is very interesting in my view. It states that a sampling of the numbers do not follow expected random patterns. If you try a whole bunch of fairly arbitrary metrics, e.g. how many end in 7, how many end in 5, how many have consecutive increasing digits, and you mine the data into finding two arbitrary ones that random chance would say occur 5% of the time, does that really tell you anything about the data? I find this article a stunning example of the dangers of mathematical ignorance.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
scscsc 17y ago
I don't get why you are modded down. Mathematically, the article is a piece of junk (which doesn't mean the elections were fair -- I don't think there's anyone in the democratic parts of Earth who thinks they were fair). You are of course right, why choose exactly those two metrics? Also, the two metrics are probably not independent, so taking their product is bogus. The article was written by a 'PhD candidate' in political sciences. I think he should get his degree. He learned how to convincingly misuse statistics.
smanek 17y ago
Go read up on Benford's law. (See http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Issues/1999/May/nigrini.htm http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Issues/1999/May/nigrini.... for an example of how it was used) I'm not familiar with the digit-distribution law the article mentioned, but on its face it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable. I'd prefer to see some study applying this same analysis to thousands of other elections, of course. But, prima facie, using digit distributions to detect fraud is not at all unreasonable.