.

[waldo]

Show me the study and I will show you some flaws in it rendering it garbage.

garbage? Have at er:

Does misinformation demobilize the electorate? - Measuring the impact of alleged “robocalls” in the 2011 Canadian election - Anke Kessler (SFU economics professor) --- data/code => here:

[YEGmann]

I've got the study.

http://www.sfu.ca/~akessler/wp/robocalls.pdf

Ms. Kessler wants to show that the robocall suppression works. Somehow she collected and sorted data. Fine.

Unfortunately for her, turnout in ridings with robocalls was higher than that in the robocall-free ridings (p. 6).

But nothing can stop a true researcher. With some creativity, "empirical strategy", and "intuitive" (citations) methods Ms. Kessler found a winning regression equation (p. 7). There are three independent variables and somehow two "error terms".

After some machinations (I haven't read whole paper attentively), Ms. Kessler concludes that robocalls did negatively affected the turnout by 3%. Don't warry that she regularly obtained stan. deviations comparable or even greater than the respective coefficients.

A typical university scientific-like paper with zero relation to reality.

As usual in pseudo-statistics using a regression analysis, a "proper" selection of affecting factors and the equation allows you proving vitually everything. The beauty of this technique is that the author never bothers to verify the results by some kind of experiment. Monte Carlo method rules!

Edited March 13, 2012 by YEGmann

[olpfan1]

F .. we might not know who Pierre Poutine is for years

I am so pissed off

http://www.calgaryherald.com/touch/story.html?id=6290745&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Edited March 13, 2012 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied article; just post a brief quote instead

[j44]

F .. we might not know who Pierre Poutine is for years

I am so pissed off

I was out most of the night and was going to ask if it was leaked. I guess not yet.

I thought I heard something earlier about him coming forward. It was worded in a way that made it sound like come forward to the media and not just EC.

I'd be surprised if it doesn't come out soon. With all the stuff coming out day after day this has to get out. Do we really believe EC runs a tight ship?

[olpfan1]

I was out most of the night and was going to ask if it was leaked. I guess not yet.

I thought I heard something earlier about him coming forward. It was worded in a way that made it sound like come forward to the media and not just EC.

I'd be surprised if it doesn't come out soon. With all the stuff coming out day after day this has to get out. Do we really believe EC runs a tight ship?

who knows really! I cant see Harper wanting this to drag on for years like the in & out scandal

[capricorn]

Do we really believe EC runs a tight ship?

j44, does it look to you that EC is putting out just enough information to let out some of the steam coming out from all sides of this matter? A good example is EC announcing that the vast majority of the 31,000 messages they received were the product of an online petition. Of course, we all know EC was referring to the Leadnow.ca campaign which is pushing for a public inquiry. That will stop the opposition and the media in their tracks when they are tempted to report "31,000 complaints of voter suppression and rising" cause they would be plain wrong. I think Canadians looking in are sufficiently panicked that this in itself will offer some relief.

Would I like EC to let out more information? Of course. But I understand they have to operate withing certain rules, such as privacy considerations. At the same time, I wouldn't mind if someone spilled some beans so we could learn more about this Pierre Poutine character and who are his accomplices, if any.

[cybercoma]

Academic journals could really save a lot of time by having internet know-it-alls review their papers. Amazingly, without even reading the work, some people seem to think they can criticize and reject it.

[capricorn]

Amazingly, without even reading the work, some people seem to think they can criticize and reject it.

My preference is to let researchers themselves limit the usefulness of their findings.

In the draft paper, she did a poll-by-poll comparison between the 2008 election and the 2011 election, looking at the voter turnout among non-Conservative voters. She found "a statistically significant effect of the alleged demobilization efforts" in the 27 ridings where robocall complaints have emerged compared to all other ridings.

That said, she cautioned that her "analysis and the corresponding results are not suited to bring the outcome in a particular riding into question."

She also warns that "my findings in no way can 'prove' whether misconduct or an illegal act has occurred."

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/12/study-supports-vote-suppression-allegations

[Shakeyhands]

I was out most of the night and was going to ask if it was leaked. I guess not yet.

I thought I heard something earlier about him coming forward. It was worded in a way that made it sound like come forward to the media and not just EC.

I'd be surprised if it doesn't come out soon. With all the stuff coming out day after day this has to get out. Do we really believe EC runs a tight ship?

This why there needs to be a public inquiry. The public deserves to know and I fear if EC and the RCMP handle it we will never know what happened or who was responsible.

[olpfan1]

we need a public inquiry so everything will be out in the open and so what happened with the In & Out scheme doesn't happen again

People should have been sent to prison, it shouldn't have taken 5 years for the whole thing to come to an end

Elections Canada should not have cut deals and just give them petty fines

If it happens again it's clear these officials are on the take or were pressured too much by the bureaucracies and cannot and will not be trusted again

Edited March 13, 2012 by olpfan1

[YEGmann]

Amazingly, without even reading the work, some people seem to think they can criticize and reject it.

Who are the people you are talking about?

If you spent, say, 15 years in a business, wouldn't you be able to sniff a BS from the abstract?

[huh]

who knows really! I cant see Harper wanting this to drag on for years like the in & out scandal

Ask the idiots who are sending in spurious complaints via internet form letters to desist and maybe the process will go faster, cant do that though, they need to be able to express their feeling towards Harper even if its only because they dont like conservatives.

[huh]

Academic journals could really save a lot of time by having internet know-it-alls review their papers. Amazingly, without even reading the work, some people seem to think they can criticize and reject it.

People on the internet may also have credentials, i could write a bs academic article tomorrow, wouldnt mean shit, and you're defense of the one in question is about as informed as the attempt to discredit it. But of course you dont see it that way, and you dont see why that matters either.

[YEGmann]

She also warns that "my findings in no way can 'prove' whether misconduct or an illegal act has occurred."

Please, don't be fooled. The professor clearly states the suppression did happen. She simply tries to pretend she is objective and not interferring into legal aspect.

I read her paper completely. This is a typical pseudo-scientific crap coming from a professor of sociology (I know she's in the economics dept).

But her conclusions are stunning. In each of the 27 ridings, on average about 2500 non-conservative voters did not show up. It's 67,500 people!

She "proves" that the 27 ridings were selected strategically. Implication is - by the Conservative Party. This must be a well organized nation-wide campaign. Supressed were only non-conservatives. Pro-conservative voters showed up in record numbers in those ridings.

I don't want to talk about flaws in her analysis, they are big. But why have not we seen a single person who said "I did not vote because of robocalls"? Out of 67,000?

By the way, the 27 ridings are those submitted by Bob Ray.

[j44]

who knows really! I cant see Harper wanting this to drag on for years like the in & out scandal

Wasn't their strategy to drag that case out in court as long as possible? I don't think they'd want an inquiry to give this even more legs but as long as something is in court they can plead innocence or at least that the jury is out.

j44, does it look to you that EC is putting out just enough information to let out some of the steam coming out from all sides of this matter? A good example is EC announcing that the vast majority of the 31,000 messages they received were the product of an online petition. Of course, we all know EC was referring to the Leadnow.ca campaign which is pushing for a public inquiry. That will stop the opposition and the media in their tracks when they are tempted to report "31,000 complaints of voter suppression and rising" cause they would be plain wrong. I think Canadians looking in are sufficiently panicked that this in itself will offer some relief.

Would I like EC to let out more information? Of course. But I understand they have to operate withing certain rules, such as privacy considerations. At the same time, I wouldn't mind if someone spilled some beans so we could learn more about this Pierre Poutine character and who are his accomplices, if any.

Good point. I do understand that they need to follow the rules and not that I trust EC 100% but I was more referring to it being nearly impossible to stop someone inside from leaking a name.

If it happens again it's clear these officials are on the take or were pressured too much by the bureaucracies and cannot and will not be trusted again

I think it is a bit early to say they are taking bribes when the investigation is barely underway.

[olpfan1]

I think it is a bit early to say they are taking bribes when the investigation is barely underway.

I guess..but if nobody gets punished for this there should be hell to pay..paid to the government from the public

[cybercoma]

People on the internet may also have credentials, i could write a bs academic article tomorrow, wouldnt mean shit, and you're defense of the one in question is about as informed as the attempt to discredit it. But of course you dont see it that way, and you dont see why that matters either.

Perhaps my defense of the article is so uninformed because I wasn't defending the aritcle.

[cybercoma]

I don't want to talk about flaws in her analysis, they are big.

There's huge flaws in her argument, but you don't want to talk about them. Thanks for nothing then.

[olpfan1]

hm new infomation

http://m.ctv.ca/topstories/20120312/pierre-poutine-identity-still-unknown-120312.html

Edited March 13, 2012 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied article; just post a brief quote instead

[j44]

The source also said Sona was in church on the day some of the Pierre Poutine calls were made.

In church the entire day?

[olpfan1]

In church the entire day?

I don't understand that either.. he had a disposable celly, he could have made the calls from the church

[madmax]

Conservative insiders insist they are not forcing Sona to take the fall.

Interesting comment.. i realize its not yours olpfan1 but a quote , however it begs the question..

Then What are Conservative Insiders doing?

Just curious..

[olpfan1]

Interesting comment.. i realize its not yours olpfan1 but a quote , however it begs the question..

Then What are Conservative Insiders doing?

Just curious..

I don't exactly trust any of ctvs insider sources

I'd take all of that with a grain of salt

[waldo]

Please, don't be fooled. The professor clearly states the suppression did happen. She simply tries to pretend she is objective and not interferring into legal aspect.

the author never uses the term suppression - her focus is entirely the Elections Canada voter turnout data - the dependent variable... she speaks to depressed voter turnout as a measured effect of reported robocalls in the 27 identified ridings (2011 election relative to the 2008 election). You claim a legal aspect interference; however, the author categorically states, "It is important to note that my findings in no way can prove whether misconduct or an illegal act has occurred".

I read her paper completely. This is a typical pseudo-scientific crap coming from a professor of sociology (I know she's in the economics dept).

you know she is a recognized and published economics professor... yet choose to purposely denigrate her. She holds an economics doctorate and has published extensively - she has a cv with some substance.

But her conclusions are stunning. In each of the 27 ridings, on average about 2500 non-conservative voters did not show up. It's 67,500 people!

which is ~3% of the total of all registered voters within those 27 'targeted' ridings. At the lower bound... 1000/27000

She "proves" that the 27 ridings were selected strategically. Implication is - by the Conservative Party. This must be a well organized nation-wide campaign. Supressed were only non-conservatives. Pro-conservative voters showed up in record numbers in those ridings.

the author provided no formal implication - the inference is yours. Your observation of the 'robocall effect' is noted: "districts with larger shares on non-conservative votes experienced a decline in turnout, while more Conservative leaning districts had higher turnout relative to the average".

By the way, the 27 ridings are those submitted by Bob Ray.

the author states, "I obtained the list of those ridings that were allegedly targeted for voter demobilization using automated phone calls from the popular press and the online publications on the websites of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party".

of course, in the interim dynamics, that 27 number has extended to possibly implicate 77 ridings with some degree of described 'voter irregularity'.

[Michael Hardner]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2012/03/12/19492466.html

A Simon Fraser University professor says ...

olpfan - it looks like you cut/pasted an article here - this isn't permitted, please see the rules. You can cut/paste an excerpt (you should QUOTE that so it's obvious) and post the link as well as your comment to start discussion.