Debunked: Dr. Shiva's Scatterplot Analysis of Michigan Precincts

[MickB]

you will always get a downslope if b is constant; and you will get a downslope trend if b is random. And that's exactly what Dr Shiva did. So getting a downslope means nothing, no lost votes

but b does not have to be constant, nor does it have to be random. It could be a linear or non-linear function of underlying voting fractions as Mick West uses in his model. There is such a function that will give you a horizontal line (within physically meaningful constraints). In that case, the downslope does have meaning relative to the horizontal line and it does indicate a change of votes relative to that.

Matt did not say "Dr Shiva's expectation is unrealistic", he said "This cannot represent a net movement of votes". I only have to find one possible case to disprove that and I've found one so his argument is shaky.

 

[Mendel]

Matt did not say "Dr Shiva's expectation is unrealistic", he said "This cannot represent a net movement of votes". I only have to find one possible case to disprove that and I've found one so his argument is shaky.

Well, we'll just have to leave it there, because a "net movement" can't go both ways. You're arguing your way out by saying "net movement" equates to "fewer votes than expected", no matter whether the expectation is reasonable or not. But then the analysis merely says something about your expectation, and nothing about what the votes actually did.

 

[MickB]

Well, we'll just have to leave it there, because a "net movement" can't go both ways. You're arguing your way out by saying "net movement" equates to "fewer votes than expected", no matter whether the expectation is reasonable or not. But then the analysis merely says something about your expectation, and nothing about what the votes actually did.

I agree we've over-explored the topic! I think we both agree that Dr Shiva's method is certainly not conclusive proof of fraud or even anything suspicious.
Sorry to have taken so much of your time down a side path to the main argument but thanks for taking the time. Your counter arguments helped me understand everything better and I think we have a common understanding of the charts, if not exactly the same interpretation.

 

[Mendel]

thanks for taking the time

Thank you for your time as well!
I don't think you need to apologize; this site is here to debate claims, and you've made your points well, so I don't see any cause for regret!