CarwilBJ’s avatarCarwilBJ’s Twitter Archive—№ 26,618

          1. …in reply to @ViscidKonrad
            @ViscidKonrad @iMarxiavelli @JohnCuriel14 @Master0fNull @MITelectionlab @ceprdc David, I saw the (mid-summer?) tweets on this artifact in the OAS analysis and think it's really helpful to put that piece together.
            Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo CarwilBJ’s avatar Mood +2 🙂
        1. …in reply to @CarwilBJ
          @ViscidKonrad @iMarxiavelli @JohnCuriel14 @Master0fNull @MITelectionlab @ceprdc Most of my unanswered questions concern the demonstrated irregularities rather than the analysis of fraud allegations per se. See here… @CarwilBJ/1235620638213042176
          Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo CarwilBJ’s avatar Mood -6 🙁
      1. …in reply to @CarwilBJ
        @ViscidKonrad @iMarxiavelli @JohnCuriel14 @Master0fNull @MITelectionlab @ceprdc In that thread @Master0fNull largely demurs on the substantive questions of pre-computation vote manipulation, ballot/acta irregularities, and the issue of how to audit/verify TREP-only votes, etc.
        Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo CarwilBJ’s avatar Mood -1 🙁
    1. …in reply to @CarwilBJ
      @ViscidKonrad @iMarxiavelli @JohnCuriel14 @Master0fNull @MITelectionlab @ceprdc I think I understood the answer to be, the statistical analysis is your responsibility, the contextualization is CEPR's. Which I can provisionally accept, so long as CEPR then shows up to take those questions.
      Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo CarwilBJ’s avatar Mood +2 🙂
  1. …in reply to @CarwilBJ
    @ViscidKonrad @iMarxiavelli @JohnCuriel14 @Master0fNull @MITelectionlab @ceprdc I still have this concern about that division of labor though: @CarwilBJ/1235633094465474561
    On twitter.com Twitter logo CarwilBJ’s avatar Mood 0