(This article was originally published at Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science, and syndicated at StatsBlogs.)
Gregory Gelembiuk writes:
I was wondering if you might take a look at this and, if so inclined, do some public shredding.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6mLpCEIGEYGYl9RZWFRcmpsZk0/view?pref=2&pli=1
http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2016/6/13/11420/5989Claims of electoral fraud have become increasingly popular among political progressives in the last several years and, unfortunately, appear to be gaining critical mass (especially with Sanders’ loss). The “study” above, now being widely circulated in social media, is one example. Even though I normally wouldn’t waste your time with a junk item like this, I thought it might warrant some attention, given the apparent ongoing erosion in faith in democratic institutions.
Sure, no prob . . . It’s a bad, bad paper. By comparison, it makes that himmicanes paper look like Stephen Hawking, it makes power pose look like Jean Piaget, it makes that ovulation-and-clothing paper look like, ummmm, I dunno, the Stroop effect?
But I just posted on it 3 days ago. That should be enough, no?
Kinda scary that someone’s emailing me without noticing such a recent post. Maybe the problem is that it was not easily found by a search. So maybe this will help: the paper in question is called, “Are we witnessing a dishonest election? A between state comparison based on the used voting procedures of the 2016 Democratic Party Primary for the Presidency of the United States of America,” and it’s by Axel Geijsel and Rodolfo Cortes Barragan.
The post Difficulty of communication in our supersaturated media environment appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.
Please comment on the article here: Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science
