|
Edited on Tue Dec-07-04 12:53 AM by jwmealy
Hi, Briemann.
I'm a newbie so I can't start a thread. So this is only tangential to TIA's thread. He and I have conversed before.
I formed a master hypothesis for testing: The improbably large red shift effect stems from the presence of underlying largescale election tampering in Nov. 2004 presidential election. I developed a set of test hypotheses on the basis of it:
Hypothesis 1: The red shift (discrepancy between best late-in-the-day exit poll figures and tabulated results) will be markedly greater in battleground states. Why? Because 1. no need to intervene if the state is already guaranteed for Bush; 2. no point in intervening if the state is expected to go heavy for Kerry, since the amount of intervention will make the discrepancy stick out like a sore thumb. Exposure to risk will increase in proportion to the level of intervention.
Result of Hypothesis 1: Confirmed. The 11 Battleground states show 1.45 times the average of the safe states.
Hypothesis 2: Among the battleground states that show red shift, those states with the most electoral college votes will show the greatest evidence of intervention.
Result of Hypothesis 2: Confirmed. The 5 battleground states with the highest red shift command 1.91 times as many electoral college votes as the bottom 5. (Minnesota has no red shift, and has been dropped from the study because it doesn't show any evidence of electronic tampering.)
Hypothesis 3: Battleground states that have high electoral college votes but relatively low red shift will have been won by Kerry with relatively wide spreads. If Bush were winning strongly, no intervention at all would be required. But if Kerry were winning strongly, someone, in these cases, or some piece of software code, will have decided to pull the plug when it was realized that the software couldn't keep pouring votes in to the point of winning without leaving a conspicuous trail (i.e. a huge red shift).
Result of Hypothesis 3: Confirmed. Michigan is the single state of the 10 that displays this characteristic. With 17 ec votes, it has well above the average (10 ec votes) for the battleground states, and had only 1.30 red shift--far below the average for the 10 states (2.68). Kerry won that state with a 3.4 margin (well above the 2.77 average spread for the 10 states). If we assume, hypothetically, that the exit poll for MI reflects the actual votes cast, then the total intervention that would have been required in order to create a final 1% lead for Bush would be 5.7 (i.e. 1.3 + 3.4 + 1), higher than the highest currently recorded value among the 51 states--including WDC: Vermont, with 5.6. Looks like someone decided to bail out early because it was looking like a lost cause, and/or a software program made the decision based on pre-set parameters.
Hypothesis 4: Battleground states that have low electoral college votes but relatively high red shift will have been won by either candidate, but with a relatively small spread. Someone, or some piece of software, in these cases, will periodically have poured votes in over the day, trying to keep Bush 1% up, but will have given up when some pre-set parameter was reached.
Hypothesis 4: Confirmed. New Hampshire is the single state that meets these criteria. With only 4 ec votes, it has a relatively thin spread of 1.3 points, along with the highest red shift of the 10 states: 4.9, nearly twice the 10-state average. Notice that if you add the Kerry margin for New Hampshire (4.9), plus 1.3 points (the spread), plus 1 point, you get 6.2 red shift required to shift the state to Bush with a 1% margin. Once again, that's greater than the highest red shift number for the 51 states, and presumably beyond some agreed or set maximum parameter, so the plug was pulled.
Hypothesis 5: Every redshifted battleground state that goes for Kerry will show the pattern, (red shift + spread + 1) > 5.6 (the greatest recorded red shift value for the 51 states, recorded in Vermont). That is, in order to put Bush in the lead for that state by 1%, that state's red shift would have to exceed any recorded red shift in the election.
Hypothesis 5: Confirmed. According to this formula, Minnesota would require a red shift of 7.6, Michigan would require 5.7, Pennsylvania would require 6.4, and New Hampshire would require 7.2.
Hypothesis 6: There will be a general correlation in the battleground states between the amount of red shift, on the one hand, and the slenderness of the final point spread on the other hand. Where Bush was winning strongly (heading for a wide spread), little or no intervention will have been needed, and where Kerry was winning strongly (heading for a wide spread), a person or a software setting will have given up pumping in votes early on. Therefore the close races (in the tabulated results) will tend to show the most red shift, because they will have required the most intervention in order to keep Bush slightly ahead.
Hypothesis 6: Confirmed. Average Bush Red Shift + Kerry Neg Blue Shift of the Five Battleground States with the Slimmest Spread was 5.72; Average Red Shift of the Five Battleground States with the Widest Spread was 3.86, a differential of 1.48 to 1.
All things considered, my results seem well correlated with the hypothesis that someone ordered systematic vote-rigging intervention in the battlground states, and succeeded in plugging in to most or all of them except Minnesota.
What do you think of this sort of study? It's kind of a broad brush approach, but every time I form a hypothesis it is confirmed, and/or the appearance of an anomaly within the results of a hypothesis suggests another hypothesis which is confirmed.
For my basic study, with hypotheses 1 and 2 only, see www.selftest.net/redshift.htm
Webb Mealy
|