Printable View
Hm, good stuff.
Although unfortunately 4% isn't terribly low... incorrectly detecting fraud in 1 out of 25 elections isn't quite enough to cinch it.
Of course though, considering it was likely that the election was a fraud anyway, the additive effect is that it is now extremely likely.
And maybe some further number crunching will shed further light on the situation. Unfortunately however most people aren't capable of understanding the significance of these things...
Right, well the article reports 2 separate deviations that would be expected at probabilities of about .04 each -- one reported as "fewer than 4 out of a hundred" and the other reported as 4.2%. Taken together, these independent deviations are highly suggestive that the data did not occur by a chance process. The article concludes with a decidedly conservative estimate that these two deviations would be expected in about 1 out of 200 elections. My own calculation with the reported figures yields an even rarer probability of almost 1 in 600.
(.04 * .042 = 0.00168 = 21/12,500 = 1/595.2)
However, as a blogger points out, a better way to address the ending digits issue is not to isolate two numbers that are believed to be especially prone to human tampering (5 and 7), but rather to run a chi-square test on all of the observed final pairs. The author of this blog does so and reports that the result is not significant at conventional critical values. However, it is pretty damn close: the obtained probability (given the chi-square and df that he reported) is 0.0689, where 0.05 is the conventional cutoff for statistical significance. Taken together with the other observed deviation, this still points to an expected frequency of about 1 in 350.
(.0689 * .042 = 0.0028938 = 14,469/5,000,000 = 1/345.6)
Just because there is a low chance of the outcome, doesn't mean it was rigged. It seems silly that people are even going down that line of thinking, when there are far easier ways to spot fake elections.
Though you have to wonder why people care so much about the numbers showing up not random enough in an another country. Yet they do not care when ballot boxes are ripped open, and candidates names magically disappear off the ballots here in the US. We need to fix our own election problems first.
^Quote:
Originally Posted by DuB
I would not be surprised if they did cheat. And the fact they are killing their own people for protesting sickens me. I guess we have to get used to it, as it may be in our future soon enough.
Quite sad actually..
http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/...pg?w=504&h=473
That's a quite accurate graph there.
Over here MJ headlined on the day he died and then that was it.
You just have bullshit news channels in the U.S.
I guess we do. He was in the news even after his death, weeks after.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Hell, he's still on the news.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phrisco