By: Nicky

Nicky — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 02:46:02 +0000

What a joke. Mr. Flanagan’s statistical ideas seem to blow smoke into an arena where a legal decision has been made. I understand why. Impartial he is not. The binomial test really does not apply here. For the binomial test to work, it needs two distinct choices, each of which is statistically equally probable. It may be that in all of Etobicoke center, this may be true. However, in individual polls it is not true. As all politicos know, each polling region is biased based on socioeconomic and ethnic strata. The only way to track abnormalities is by studying variances. As voter patterns change from election to election, there are expectations that variances from poll to poll should reflect these changes. If however some polls such as in disputed polling stations 31 and 426, we see larger variances that do not fit the voting trends; then we become suspicious that there are other factors coming into play. It is such abnormal variances that cause people to suspect potential ballot box stuffing, illegal robocalls and various other sundry election frauds.
I understand that Judge Lederer confined the case to strictly one challenge, and that is finding errors in the way balloting occurred in a small sample of ten polls. On this basis, the validity of the election in Etobicoke Centre was doubtful and he rightfully declared it null and void. The other problem seems to be that there are some disturbing causalities for abnormal variances. Was there fraud? Who perpetrated the fraud? Are these the new trends in electioneering in Harperville.

Comments on: Have These Harpercons Not Learned Their Roboscam Lessons?

By: Nicky