Reply #22: umm, okay

[OnTheOtherHand]

I agree with Ron B. that this line of analysis looks similar to what is in the USCV working paper.

What do you consider the important take-home message(s) from the model? Is it that alpha in high-Bush precincts must be very high?

O'Dell's simulation, like (apparently) your optimization, closely matches the observed E/M figures for the high-Bush precincts, and indeed both yield a high mean alpha for those precincts. However, O'Dell also shows that if one trims three high-negative-WPE outliers in the high-Bush precincts (possible pro-Bush fraud, error, or some combination), and three high-positive-WPE outliers in the high-Kerry precincts (possible pro-Kerry fraud, error, or some combination), then the natural log of alpha is about the same on average in the high-Bush and high-Kerry precincts. (See around p. 31 of his paper.)

One way of stating that result is that any pro-Bush fraud in the high-Bush precincts may have been balanced by pro-Kerry fraud in the high-Kerry precincts -- although that is taking the simulation too literally. But at any rate, a high mean alpha in high-Bush precincts by itself doesn't prove much. This is probably why Febble was urging you to model variance in alpha, as O'Dell's simulation does.