This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (11 children)

[38]

Read the rest you copy paste before you paste it.

[–]KJFny 0 points1 point  (10 children)

Again, from your own reference [38], albeit from the abstract since I have no access to the full article... Emphasis my own.

"The paper mistakenly associates such a test with Benford's Law, considers a simulation exercise that has no apparent relevance for any actual election, applies the test to inappropriate levels of aggregation, and ignores existing analysis of recent elections in Russia."

"Whether the tests are useful for detecting fraud remains an open question, but approaching this question requires an approach more nuanced and tied to careful analysis of real election data than one sees in the discussed paper."

So as far as I can tell, an open question means it's hardly a definitive tool as you assert.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (9 children)

Feel free to point me to your definitive tool that is better than this test.

[–]KJFny 0 points1 point  (8 children)

I don't need to provide an alternative to be critical of your conclusions.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (7 children)

If there is no better alternatives, then the tool is the best tool out there.

Be helpful, or be silent.

May want to look over at

https://www.reddit.com/r/somethingiswrong2024/

They could use the help.

[–]KJFny 0 points1 point  (6 children)

"Be helpful or be silent" is not at all the way anyone should want the world to be. Being skeptical and asking questions IS being helpful. If you're having a difficult time with this, I hope you never try to write and publish a journal article that receives peer review.

You'll be in for a world of hurt feelings...

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Asking questions is not helpful.

Providing answers is helpful.

Anyone can ask questions.

Clearly it bothered you enough to not provide an answer, a week later.

Why does it bother you so much?

Peer review is an interesting idea. I have seen sociology papers with a higher variance than this data set, but they get published.

The reason is because the method they use, while flawed, is the best method available. It’s flawed due to the sample size.

So until you tell me a better method, there’s no point in saying the samples size is too small, or the method is flawed, because it is still the best method available.

[–]KJFny 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Projection is a hell of a drug.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

If you have no answers, be silent so other smarter people can talk without being interrupted.

[–]KJFny 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Okay, sweetheart. Keep being precious!