Something's rotten in the state of Denmark

Thursday, November 18, 2004

Through Sather Gate, turn right at the Campanile

Olbermann reports on Berkeley press release.

Keith is skeptical -- from the limited-info press release, he seems to worry that the Berkeley group is treading out onto the "optical scanning vs. other voting methods" in Florida stretch, which had already been explained/debunked by the historical voting patterns in Florida's Dixiecrat counties of the Panhandle.

But I think that the Berkeley guys have been studying voting technologies all year long. I'd be stunned if they had not taken into account voting patterns in 2000 and 1996.

Keep in mind that Olbermann -- nor your little Hamlet -- has yet seen the Hout Report. We're all just going based on the press release.

But what a press release!

Keith: "This is now shaping up as the BCS of presidential election analysis. A joint report out of the CalTech and MIT voting project— suggesting that the much-decried exit polling of election night really wasn’t outside the margin of error at all when analyzed on a state-by-state basis— had already been countered by a Penn professor’s report using the exit polling for Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Now it’s not just CalTech and MIT versus Penn— but also UC Berkeley versus CalTech and MIT."


Update: A crackerjack reader offers this: "Hout's a member of the National Academy of Sciences... he's not going to forget to control for the Dixiecrat effect, is he?" My hunch: no!