Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Missing Ballots in Minneapolis?

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 飯局小姐,領檯人員,領台,傳播妹,或者想要到台北酒店、林森北路...

2009-08-28T02:30:50.413-04:00

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 飯局小姐,領檯人員,領台,傳播妹,或者想要到台北酒店、林森北路酒店,私人招待所,或者八大行業當酒店PT,酒店公關,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的禮服酒店,鋼琴酒吧當酒店領檯,酒店小姐,公關小姐??,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、學生兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想找打工、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!

艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店打工,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。

水水們妳有缺現金、有卡債、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學日本打工嗎?妳是工讀生找工作??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,兼職工作日領假日打工的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??整天還在煩腦如何賺錢有什麼賺錢方法,和賺錢最快方法!?,想要打工,日領工作,短期打工,兼差工作,打工兼差工作嗎!?,
請加入我們艾葳酒店經紀公司工作單純輕鬆”高時薪”又可日領徵想要當傳播妹,上班小姐,酒店兼差,酒店兼職,歡迎學生打工,!!!
加入我們實現夢想就從現在開始^__^

How's China printing industry developed this years...

2009-05-13T05:17:00.000-04:00

How's China printing industry developed this years, who can tell us?
Professional printing company produce finest printing products, like books, flyers, labels...
Wuxi Grand printing service company from China with top quality and best price.
China based plastic injection moulding services with low costs and supeior quality, you may contact us of our plastic jar today!
plastic cap widely used for drinking water bottles and juices and beverages packing industries...
Steel and aluminum scaffolding for construction is a very useful tool.
We all know printing services in China is very cheap.
plastic pail in China has very competitive price and good quality.
Professional plastic bottle through plastic blow molding process in complicated.
molded plastic parts products are widely used in our daily lifes.
江苏羽毛球网 folder gluer paper cutter sofa door hardware

How's China printing industry developed this years...

2009-05-13T05:16:00.000-04:00

外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 ...

2009-04-16T03:29:00.000-04:00

^^ very nice 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵...

2009-03-12T22:25:00.001-04:00

^^ nice blog!! ^@^徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵...

2009-03-12T22:25:00.000-04:00

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,...

2009-02-08T04:09:00.000-05:00

Ah yes, I forgot (in making my simplification) tha...

2008-12-08T21:12:00.000-05:00

Ah yes, I forgot (in making my simplification) that it's important that each individual particle rotates by 180° of-itself when the two particles are switched around.

KWR- Half-integer spin changes x -1 on 360° rotati...

2008-12-08T10:09:00.000-05:00

KWR- Half-integer spin changes x -1 on 360° rotation, not 180°.

Ah, I see where the "118" comes from---it's 97 tak...

2008-12-06T19:53:00.000-05:00

Ah, I see where the "118" comes from---it's 97 taken from the original pre-recount margin of 215. So yes, we're talking in equavalent terms.

And one more fix: I should clarify "the extreme of all the action being in just 1 precinct" to be "the extreme of having just 1 precinct." If you had 4000+ precincts but all challenges were in just 1 precinct, that would actually be a good case because all the other precincts would give clear info on who picked up what. Indeed the no-challenge precincts are the base case of Nate's model. Put another way, Nate is utilizing properly much more information than we are, so () it's amazing that just the simple algebra is already interesting, and () because of the way they've been reported, each challenge destroys some information.

Anyway, my prediction that Nate would re-emerge with re-regression today has only 4 hours more...and I'm off to a tree-raising party...

LOL about the quantum allusions which are all spot...

2008-12-06T19:19:00.000-05:00

LOL about the quantum allusions which are all spot-on :-), but maybe this can satisfy MBW about the proof. He's right that it's called

The (How To) Spin Statistics Theorem,

which makes at least its title relevant for this blog :-). The operative line in this Wikipedia summary is, "So that exchanging the order of two appropriately polarized operator insertions into the vacuum can be done by a rotation, at the cost of a sign in the half integer case."

In lay terms, suppose (for sake of contradiction) two Demopublican particles are identical in everything except their position, for which there's a difference x. Now interchange them by a 180-degree rotation. Because they have half-integer spins, the x changes the way every complex number does when you rotate it halfway around a circle: it gets its sign negated to -x. But since the rotation leaves the system the same, x must equal -x. Hence x must equal 0, so the particles' positions coincide (like true Demopublicans:-). Thus we must have been talking about just 1 particle all along.

I can add that the 192 is exactly what you get if all vote-challenges are accepted and all no-vote challenges are denied, which is actually perverse for the candidate who has made more undervote challenges. Since by Nate's cited studies of "vulnerable" voters showing them more likely to vote Democratic (as mbw says just above), the STrib's way of counting organically favors the GOP side as much as possible. And well that side knows it! Latte, I don't quite follow your numbers (do they re-derive theUptake's metric?), but agree with everything else. My "X" was the internal Franken number 4, then add 97 to get 101. @Cubic, the one remaining question is, was it "+4" both after Thursday night and after Friday noon? A tad unlikely, maybe? I still see a discrepancy pro-Franken, though maybe it's due to what Nate said about the STrib "sometimes getting ahead of itself", since I used their figures mid-day.

WV "pressend" (no kidding!): I just wish the press end were clearer.

disclaimer/warning: bad puns ahead. no. really bad...

2008-12-06T17:06:00.000-05:00

disclaimer/warning: bad puns ahead. no. really bad. ok, you've been warned.

this is still in ref to bozon/fermion debate, excluding pauli, senators notwithstanding.

still here? you have been warned! LOL

masochists.

mbw, don't get excited! given the virtual state of the recount, looking for the 133 is a little like searching for Schrodinger's cat, Dirk Gently-like.

And speaking of the old man Schrodinger, the state of the Senator-Elect imho is EXACTLY like that of the cat prior to collapsing the probability function via observation. This whole election is so finely parsed and is so within the tightest, most conceivable MOE, that it, for my money, has been quantized. There is no more continuum. There are only discrete levels. Every else about this election is virtual.

We have achieved 4 in 2.9 million. That's subatomic. Uncertainty Principle starts applying. Like we might know precisely the number of missing votes (133=80+36+17), but then we cannot ascertain their location. We might know the exact mass of the candidates, but not their momentum. Etc. Etc. Ad nauseum.

After all, you have been warned.
~Latte

I think we can safely say the 133 will be counted,...

2008-12-06T16:54:00.000-05:00

I think we can safely say the 133 will be counted, since the case is black-and-white and the Senate has the ultimate say.

Now to absentees.

As Nate pointed out, absentees went roughly 5% more (margin) for F than the overall vote. Furthermore, there is a near universal tendency for more D's to mess up ballots or to have election officials screw up their vote. Both of these effects would suggest that any newly-counted absentees would tend fairly strongly to F.

However, news reports say that different counties behaved differently toward voters who submitted flawed absentee envelopes. I suspect that nice DFL counties were more helpful in getting those repaired, and tight-ass R counties less so. That could mean more remaining fixable ballots from R counties.

So we have no idea who will be helped by getting into '5th pile' absentees.

On the odds: Maybe this is a way out of some of th...

2008-12-06T16:47:00.000-05:00

On the odds: Maybe this is a way out of some of the numerology.

The only systematic term in the changes to the "4" (other than from the "12") comes from differences between local judges and the state board. We think those differences are very small. therefore only a very narrow range of ballot 'countability' will be affected. Within that range the density of potential F's and C's can be well approximated as a constant. (Most of the other numbers we're talking about are dominated by irrelevant far-from-threshold challenges.) Both the challenge types and prior probabilities say that the F density is higher. Therefore if the Board tends to be more inclusive, F tends to gain, and if less inclusive C tends to gain. Either way the systematic effect is likely to be smaller than the random term, of order 10.

next post: thoughts on absentees.

@latte- I hate to think what Pauli would say of yo...

2008-12-06T16:40:00.000-05:00

@latte- I hate to think what Pauli would say of your attempted justification of KWR. Say that a seat is an orbital state. You're assuming spinless politicians!

@mwb Michael -perhaps he meant pauli in the sense ...

2008-12-06T16:07:00.000-05:00

@mwb Michael -
perhaps he meant pauli in the sense that no two senatorial candidates can occupy the same seat at the same time? But that assumes that they are fermions, when in fact they are clearly bosons. (For different reasons, each, obviously. And about Al I say it with love).
~Latte

One last thing :)Another challenge figure of merit...

2008-12-06T15:37:00.000-05:00

One last thing :)
Another challenge figure of merit is (afair) something Nate might have mentioned: look at how many opponent's votes party's total challenges knock out.

Using Strib numbers, For Coleman,
3375 challenges resulted in reducing Franken tally by 747.
For Franken camp that figure is
3280 - 2651 = 629.

That means that there are 747 net new votes found for Franken LESS any non-Franken count reducing challenges (such as if, for example, a Coleman supporter objected to a Barley vote, claiming it to a Coleman ballot). For Coleman that number is 629. So, despite launching 95 challenges more, Coleman managed to knock out 118 less Franken votes than visa versa.

I managed to convince myself that this 118 is a better figure of merit than the challenge differential of 95. I am very tempted to use it to subtract from the 192 number :). What say ye, math experts?

~Latte

The one thing I can't follow in the generally corr...

2008-12-06T15:25:00.000-05:00

The one thing I can't follow in the generally correct arguments above is KWR's remark about how it's like the proof of the Pauli exclusion principle. Spin-statistics? Expressing the non-commuting relativistic boost operators in terms of creation and annihilation operators in order to calculate the commutation relations? Maybe you skipped a step.

A more prosaic way to put that point might be that we have four major unknowns (two major types of challenge types from two sides) and only 3 equations (each side's total challenge number and the difference between the challenged 192 and Franken 4. The problem is under-constrained.

@everybodymy bad. My calculation was bullshit, whi...

2008-12-06T15:11:00.000-05:00

@everybody

my bad. My calculation was bullshit, which gradually dawned on me an hour later. Glad to see so many people who are thinking more clearly.

Yeah, KWR is right. Franken would lose by 91 (192...

2008-12-06T15:08:00.000-05:00

Yeah, KWR is right. Franken would lose by 91 (192-101) if all challenges were accepted.

@KWRegan,I am still a little behind due to some se...

2008-12-06T14:59:00.001-05:00

@KWRegan,
I am still a little behind due to some serious tennis playing this AM, but I think our math/analysis is fairly similar, though we name our variables differently.

From my yesterday's post(s) 3:13 and 3:16PM: I derived your "X" to be 101 for the Wednesday numbers using the challenge differential adjusted voted difference (91 that day) and the Franken campaign "internal/announced" number (10).

Yesterday at the end of the recount, that X was still 101: 97 for the chal. diff. adj. vote delta + 4 for the internal Franken number. 101.

The CDAVD (LOL) slipped 6 overnight and so did the Franken campaign announced lead.

So, I think the 4 figure has to include the 133 missing ballots and factors in the 46 they are not going to lose as a result of those ballots missing.
FWIW.

~Latte

PS: Nate seems to be all over the place, just not MN :(

Agree with KWR; one other thing - counting was lig...

2008-12-06T14:59:00.000-05:00

Agree with KWR; one other thing - counting was light on Friday and done a full hour before the Franken presser, and they said they were up 4 with the recount done, so I believe that includes Friday.

And I concur with KWR on the b>a analysis; the undervotes are inherently more likely to be accepted. I tend to think we've gotten so many challenges b/c while Franken was gaining for the first 2 days clearly, Coleman's team realized they could mask this and they were (per Nate's figures) the ones to start the escalation.

And again, Franken's team, who has a copy of ALL the challenged ballots and the record of initial rulings, says they expect to net ballots during this upcoming phase. Coleman's team simply expects to win the recount.

Both sides think it's close and I imagine both sides already have lawsuits brewing.

One thing is for sure, that 171 ballot find was clutch.

Agreed, Politico (too) was ambiguous and the STrib...

2008-12-06T14:45:00.000-05:00

Agreed, Politico (too) was ambiguous and the STrib note which I missed has more cred. Can't tell whether TheUpdate's McIntee mis-spoke in dating the "+4" to "as of Thu. night"---no source unambiguously says that Elias' 12:30pm CST use of that figure included Friday morning results.

Disagree on the ballot analysis: the STrib margin of 192 does not mean the result if all challenges are accepted. You would get a contribution from the undervote challenges as well, which is not reflected in the STrib's tally. Indeed, you can get this from my example above: Let's say the candidates were tied and those were the only two challenges in the entire recount. Since neither was picked up by the machine, neither was in the STrib's tally before or after. But when both challenges are accepted, Coleman nets a vote. And if both are denied, Coleman nets a vote. It cuts both ways. As an exercise, suppose Franken withdraws 780 not 633 truly-frivolous vote-challenges, and Coleman goes 95 not 17 past him to withdraw 875. That leaves both on 2,500 challenges, and a STrib gap of 97. Now assign a% likelihood to a "vote challenge" being accepted, and b% to an "undervote challenge". You'll find that whenever a = b, Franken wins by 4. But Nate basically asserted b > a in his Challenged Ballot Primer, and that favors Franken even more.

I do have to hedge something else, though: The net effect of my two hypothetical ballots is---and can only be---to increase the error bars in Nate's model. The reason is that if you reverse Coleman and Franken, none of the observable figures changes, while the underlying situation flips to favoring Franken. This sounds like Heisenberg's principle, but it's actually kind-of how the proof of the Pauli Exclusion Principle goes! What Nate would hope is that the two ballots came up in different precincts, where their effects could be observed separately. This underscores that his regression model is likewise trying to take advantage of "lumpiness" in the data---in the extreme of all the action being in just 1 precinct, it could say no more than my algebra above. By now of course it wouldn't be predicting how the rest of the hand-count would go, but it could still be predicting the distribution and disposition of the challenges.

Michael (mbw),Wouldn't the break-even point be a 4...

2008-12-06T14:43:00.000-05:00

Michael (mbw),

Wouldn't the break-even point be a 4% challenge success rate (assuming the +4 Franken figure for all challenges fail is accurate)?

Coleman must have 196 more challenges of the variety where the board said it was a vote (the difference between +4 and -192 Franken). Franken must therefore have 101 more challenges of the variety where the board said no vote.

At a 2% success rate, Coleman makes up 4 votes in the first variey, but loses 2 votes in the second.

Final final point:The 5372 number comes from reduc...

2008-12-06T14:32:00.000-05:00

Final final point:

The 5372 number comes from reducing both sides challenges by the amount they "unchallenged" 633 from Franken, 650 from Coleman. Of that 5372 count, 49.2% of the challenges are from Franken, 50.8 are from Coleman. Still, given that the challenged ballots aren't the same, I think Franken will do better than 50/50 on the challenges for the reasons listed above.

Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Missing Ballots in Minneapolis?

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 飯局小姐,領檯人員,領台,傳播妹,或者想要到台北酒店、林森北路...

How's China printing industry developed this years...

How's China printing industry developed this years...

外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇 ...

^^ very nice 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵...

^^ nice blog!! ^@^徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,...

Ah yes, I forgot (in making my simplification) tha...

KWR- Half-integer spin changes x -1 on 360° rotati...

Ah, I see where the "118" comes from---it's 97 tak...

LOL about the quantum allusions which are all spot...

disclaimer/warning: bad puns ahead. no. really bad...

I think we can safely say the 133 will be counted,...

On the odds: Maybe this is a way out of some of th...

@latte- I hate to think what Pauli would say of yo...

@mwb Michael -perhaps he meant pauli in the sense ...

One last thing :)Another challenge figure of merit...

The one thing I can't follow in the generally corr...

@everybodymy bad. My calculation was bullshit, whi...

Yeah, KWR is right. Franken would lose by 91 (192...

@KWRegan,I am still a little behind due to some se...

Agree with KWR; one other thing - counting was lig...

Agreed, Politico (too) was ambiguous and the STrib...

Michael (mbw),Wouldn't the break-even point be a 4...

Final final point:The 5372 number comes from reduc...

外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 ...