Ever since Hilary Clinton defeated Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic Primaries, there has been much speculation concerning the accuracy of vote counts. Quite clearly some startling mistakes have occurred. However, Clinton’s victory was decisive enough to conclude that the minimal voting error is not statistically significant. Understanding the field of statistics is necessary to make judgements about the polls. Statistics is all about valid collection and interpretation of data. In order to conduct a credible study, one important rule-of-thumb is that the pollster must select individuals randomly and use a large sample size. If the subjects are not random, then he or she will not get a full representation
…show more content…
However, Richard Hayes Phillips points out that “Exit poll analysis alone cannot prove election fraud” (par. 3). This is very true. The only way to declare the official results legitimate is by actually counting and analyzing the official ballots. Exit polls are not a valid source. They typically have a small sample size, about 1,000 respondents. Also, the chances are good that exit polls do not represent the entire population of voters because only a select few precincts are sampled. Nate Cohn emphasizes that exit polls are “not designed to measure the results perfectly or measure the composition of the electorate” (par. 15) and that they are “subject to a margin of error because of sampling and additional error resulting from various forms of response bias” (par. 13). One clear example of voluntary response bias is found within one of the popular methods of sampling for the exit polls: phone surveys. The purpose of the phone surveys is to collect data from early and absentee voters. However, this process is flawed. Phillips states …show more content…
The shoddy locks and keys on the machines are easily opened and replaced. Machines can be breached without breaking official security seals. The secret software can be rigged with malicious, self-deleting code to steal elections. The rigged code will not be detected by standard security tests” (par. 20).
This is startling because you would assume that software of this magnitude would have top-of-the-line security and be structurally well-built. Also, Lee Camp, from Redacted Tonight, documented that “Clinton did best where security machines failed hacking tests”. This is a potential problem that should be investigated further. But, it is unwise to jump to conclusions. Joshua Holland published an article that presents a clear rebuttal to my argument. He explains that going into the primaries, Clinton already had a considerable advantage over Sanders. Holland exemplifies, “At no time […] would there be any rational motive for risking infamy by rigging the vote. You don’t need to cheat when you’re winning” (par. 1). My response to that would be that anything can happen and victory is never certain. Additionally, Sanders was mounting a comeback in the primaries and the “revolution”, as his campaign was known as, nearly was successful. Holland also says that these voting fraud claims are jumping to conclusions despite a lack of evidence. I agree that hastily concluding things is preposterous,
However, Richard Hayes Phillips points out that “Exit poll analysis alone cannot prove election fraud” (par. 3). This is very true. The only way to declare the official results legitimate is by actually counting and analyzing the official ballots. Exit polls are not a valid source. They typically have a small sample size, about 1,000 respondents. Also, the chances are good that exit polls do not represent the entire population of voters because only a select few precincts are sampled. Nate Cohn emphasizes that exit polls are “not designed to measure the results perfectly or measure the composition of the electorate” (par. 15) and that they are “subject to a margin of error because of sampling and additional error resulting from various forms of response bias” (par. 13). One clear example of voluntary response bias is found within one of the popular methods of sampling for the exit polls: phone surveys. The purpose of the phone surveys is to collect data from early and absentee voters. However, this process is flawed. Phillips states …show more content…
The shoddy locks and keys on the machines are easily opened and replaced. Machines can be breached without breaking official security seals. The secret software can be rigged with malicious, self-deleting code to steal elections. The rigged code will not be detected by standard security tests” (par. 20).
This is startling because you would assume that software of this magnitude would have top-of-the-line security and be structurally well-built. Also, Lee Camp, from Redacted Tonight, documented that “Clinton did best where security machines failed hacking tests”. This is a potential problem that should be investigated further. But, it is unwise to jump to conclusions. Joshua Holland published an article that presents a clear rebuttal to my argument. He explains that going into the primaries, Clinton already had a considerable advantage over Sanders. Holland exemplifies, “At no time […] would there be any rational motive for risking infamy by rigging the vote. You don’t need to cheat when you’re winning” (par. 1). My response to that would be that anything can happen and victory is never certain. Additionally, Sanders was mounting a comeback in the primaries and the “revolution”, as his campaign was known as, nearly was successful. Holland also says that these voting fraud claims are jumping to conclusions despite a lack of evidence. I agree that hastily concluding things is preposterous,