toobfreak
Tungsten/Glass Member
How was and how can this be ignored?
The data as presented is meaningless, arbitrary and easily dismissed. The article says they knocked on 500 doors and got 185 responses! That means that only 37% of those contacted responded! Then they go on to say (for instance), that: 13.2 percent had missing votes.
13% of the 500 or the 185?
You see, you are much more likely to respond if you think you HAD an issue with voting or the election in general than not, so that artificially inflates the numbers. The 63% who chose not to participate likely had no issues with the election, but were likely NOT COUNTED in the study. Had they had an issue or were unhappy about the election made them more likely to respond to the polling.
While intriguing and suggestive, for this study to be more meaningful, a LOT more than 185 doors out of 8.5 million registered voters needed asked! And to make the study more accurate, they needed to collect voter data from wherever they stopped, at least getting a "no issue" from every door. People not home or not answering are entirely skipped. Not say they knocked on 500 doors but only counted the ones who had issues. Or just say they collected 185 respondents which is far too few.
To make matters worse, the article leaves out how they tabulated the data--- as a percentage of those that responded or of those that were asked!
While the data shows there was definitely anomalies in the election that should concern people, the study needed to ask maybe 10,000 RESPONDING homes across most/all counties in the state.
This kind of sloppy incomplete work is partly why election fraud is still being dismissed.