-
@thomascfield @tomlongphd @OAS_official The problem here is that we know the maximum total magnitude of manipulation, and it's around 2.5% of the total vote, or less. CEPR's graph (which looks at the cumulative average) simply could not make that size of manipulation stand out. @cepr_org @JakobJohnstonPermalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite Mood -4 🙁
-
@thomascfield @tomlongphd @OAS_official @cepr_org @JakobJohnston However a rolling average graph of votes coming in could illustrate a shifting trend, and the OAS graph demonstrates a discontinuity.Permalink On twitter.com
-
@thomascfield @tomlongphd @OAS_official @cepr_org @JakobJohnston If CEPR wants to claim their approach is better, they also need to explain how exactly their approach would be sensitive enough to detect actual manipulation at the scale alleged.Permalink On twitter.com
-
@thomascfield @tomlongphd @OAS_official @cepr_org @JakobJohnston If not, their graph proves nothing and they should restrict themselves to arguing "drastic" is the wrong word since only a few percent of the vote might have been manipulated.On twitter.com