"falsification won't change outcome"
dfb at bbs.cruzio.com
Mon Jul 15 03:52:51 PDT 1996
In one posting, Tobin used my statement that falsification won't
happen on a scale sufficient to change the election result
to mean something other than what I'd meant by the statement:
I meant literally that falsification won't be widespread enough
to change an election result. But Tobin was saying, in 1 letter,
that my statement about that confirms his claim that the
order-reversing Dole voters will never be able to make Clinton
more beaten than Dole.
No, I said that the order-reversal won't affect the election
at all, not that it merely won't make Clinton more beaten
If any kind of defense against the order-reversal is needed,
including the falsification strategy that Tobin suggests
for the Clinton voters, that means that the order-reversal
has happend on a scale sufficient to change the election
result, which is what I say won't happen.
If, on the other hand, it's necessary to use strategy against
the order-reversal, because it's widespread enough to change
the election result (by making Clinton be beaten), then it
very much runs the risk of backfiring for the Dole voters
and electing Nader, if the Clinton voters know what they're
As I said, in a longer reply to a copied posting, the Dole
voters aren't going to run this risk unless they seriously
expect to make Dole win. For that, they have to be sure
they can make Clinton more beaten than Dole.
For that reason, since making Clinton more beaten than Dole
is an essential part of the Dole voters' falsification strategy,
something without which it wouldn't be a good idea to falsify,
then the Clinton voters are making a mistake if they assume that
the Dole falsification, while widespread enough to change
the election result, isn't going to succeed in making Clinton
more beaten than Dole. It has to, or it shouldn't be done in
the first place.
More information about the Election-Methods