Comment: Reason to Investigate Further, But Not Proof

(See in situ)


Reason to Investigate Further, But Not Proof

Firstly, I believe that the analysts who have released this Paper are excellent patriots serving a very important role of trying to protect the integrity of our Republic. Their data is very interesting and raises a red flag about recent election results. There is no doubt that this warrants further study. And now my caveat.

There are several reasons that the Paper is not "proof". Here are a few:

  • Non-demographic factors were not considered. As an example of one such factor that might be relevant, what is the proportion of early voting in these precincts? Are large precincts significantly more likely to have high proportion of early voting? There are a variety of reasons that early voting results may differ from election-day results.
  • The authors did not study elections prior to 2008 for comparison.
  • Likewise, other than one example cited, there is no systematic comparison of results with/without electronic voting machines across a significant time interval. Stated another way, we don't really know what "normal" is. We have a pre-conceived notion of normal, but that is not Fact unless verified.
  • I, for one, am very suspicious of Romney's results this past primary cycle, and we should not be surprised if lightning strikes twice. However, to use a forensic investigation metaphor, this Paper does not amount to a smoking gun but rather to perimortem bruising that probably indicates foul play but also might have a benign explanation.