|
In other words, BS in, BS out. A flawed methodology that assumes rather than shows that actual voting patterns should follow voter registrations. An inability or unwillingness to recognize the numerous alternative explanations for the data.
I originally was agnostic on whether Ms. Dopp was ignorant or mendacious. I have since learned that she purports to have an advanced degree in mathematics. Therefore, I am now disinclined to give her the benefit of Hanlon's Razor ("Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity").
BTW, for an even more dramatic illustration of the disconnect between party registration and voting results, and of the power of smaller absolute numbers to make for really dramatic percentage changes, consider Ralph Nader.
In 2000, the Green Party of Florida had 2,728 registered voters, or 0.031% of all registered voters. 5,963,110 votes were cast in 2000. Applying Ms. Dopp's methodology, the Green candidate should have expected to receive 1,859 votes. Yet Nader received 97,488 votes. That is a statewide variance, again applying her methodology, of +5,144.1%.
In 2004, the Reform Party of Florida had 3,872 registered voters, or 0.0376% of all registered voters. As of the first set of unofficial returns, 7,609,810 votes were cast in 2004. Again applying Ms. Dopp's methodology, the Reform Party candidate should have expected to receive 2,860 votes. Yet Mr. Nader, running as the Reform Party candidate in '04, received 32,971 votes. That is a statewide variance, again applying her methodology, of +1,052.8%.
So either (1) Nader's people engaged in massive voter fraud or (2) people voted for Nader who were not registered with the parties whose nomination he carried. Do you suppose it's possible the same might have happened with the President?
|