James Surowiecki posting at Marginal Revolution, on apparant statistical anomalies in the Venezuelan election results:
...it was inevitable that some would end up with matching scores. (It's similar to the fact that if there are 23 people in a room, the chances are 50-50 that two of them have the same birthday.) Not surprisingly, then, when international observers audited a sample of the results, they found that while there were 402 tables with matching anti-Chavez votes, there were 311 tables with matching pro-Chavez votes, too. What seemed to be proof of fraud was most likely just a statistical artifact.
This is a classic example of what Nassim Taleb calls being "fooled by randomness," in his intriguing book of the same name. We think that randomness means there will be no clusters or sequences of similar behavior, and therefore when we see them we assume they're evidence of some hidden pattern. (You can see this in the way people interpret everything from clusters of cancer cases to hitting streaks in baseball.) But they're really just evidence of the numbers working themselves out.
Has anyone any hard evidence of voter fraud there? I could easily believe Chavez is capable of it, I just haven't seen the evidence.
Posted by Walter at August 24, 2004 03:00 PMFrankly, I would like for there to have been voter fraud--just to explain the whole thing away, you know?
But I haven't seen one shred of honest evidence that convinces me it was anything other than a reasonably fair vote. Damned shame.
Posted by: zombyboy at August 24, 2004 03:31 PMCould there be a stronger argument as to the perils of democracy than that murderous creep actually winning an election?
Posted by: Walter at August 24, 2004 07:55 PMHeh. No, I don't think so--although we might just find out in Iraq pretty soon.
Now there's a depressing thought.
Posted by: zombyboy at August 25, 2004 12:04 PMThe Carter Center and OAS pretty much put to bed the idea that there was any fraud. See my blog for numerous posts from last week.
Posted by: David Holiday at August 25, 2004 03:20 PMI doubt that Carter & Co. could have found any fraud if there were any.
It reminds of that scene in Tombstone, as Wyatt Earp strides toward the OK corral, Sheriff Behan intercepts the Earps.
Behan:"Don't worry, boys, I've disarmed them."
Wyatt: "You disarmed them?"
And the Earps continue down the street with renewed purpose.
Posted by: Walter at August 25, 2004 10:51 PMNobody expects to be murdered. People are worried about their jobs though.
Posted by: ErikZ at August 27, 2004 01:56 PM"I doubt that Carter & Co. could have found any fraud if there were any."
The methodology seems to have been well described. Therefore it seems worth taking issue with the methodology. Otherwise I'm not clear what you're saying beyond "Jimmy Carter isn't competent," which might be so, but none of the nuclear boats he served on have been known to have blown up, so far as I've heard tell. Do you have any cites for past failed elections he's certified, other cites to impugn his certifications upon? I'm quite curious what this doubt is based upon.
Posted by: Gary Farber at August 28, 2004 09:53 AMWhat I read is that Carter's organization checked totals as they came in from polling locations. If there was any shenanigans at the stations there would be no way for Carter to verify or discredit the oficial totals.
Try this http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1343
Posted by: Walter at September 3, 2004 04:54 PM