Read other letters about this article

• Sunday, June 4, 2006 04:50 PM

  Utter nonsense

  Manjoo cites "Mark Lindeman, a political scientist at Bard College"

  ...in precincts where Bush got 80 percent or more of the vote, an average of 56 percent of people who were approached volunteered to take part in the poll, while in precincts where Kerry got 80 percent or more of the vote, a lower average of 53 percent of people were willing to be surveyed.

  ...where the average completion rate was 56 percent -- it's possible that only 53 percent of those who voted for Bush were willing to be polled, while people who voted for Kerry participated at a higher 59 percent rate.

  In this scenario, the averages work out to the same ones Kennedy cited: a 56 percent average response rate in Bush strongholds.

  A 53 percent response rate among Bush voters and a 59 percent response rate among Kerry voters averaging out to a total 56 percent response rate only works if there were equal numbers of voters for both candidates. But the example clearly states that the numbers were far from equal, that 80 percent were voting for Bush and 20 percent were voting for Kerry.

  If we use the correct mathematics to examine these numbers, we see 80 percent (the number of Bush voters) times 53 percent (the number of Bush voters willing to be polled) plus 20% (the number of Kerry voters) times 59% (the number of Kerry voters willing to be polled) we get a 66 percent average response rate, not 56 percent as Manjoo incorrectly reports.

  If Lindeman really said that Manjoo's math was correct, he is utterly incompetent to comment on this issue.

  Either Lindeman actually made this staggeringly inept comparison, and Manjoo didn't notice it, or Manjoo woefully misinterpreted Lindeman's position. Either way, it is evidence that Manjoo doesn't understand the mathematics involved nearly well enough to relied upon to make useful comments.

  Manjoo should be embarrassed. Lindeman should be embarrassed. Salon should be embarrassed. And Salon should find a competent reporter to address such issues.

  ----------------------

  Also, the title of the piece is inappropriate.

  Was the 2004 election stolen? No.

  There is nothing in this article that could possibly lead to any conclusions as to whether the election was or wasn't stolen. The only thing the article addresses is whether Kennedy proves it was stolen.

  Does Kennedy prove the election was stolen? No.

  That would be a title that correctly described the article.

  —Paul N Henry
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel